>Firefox loses yet another high profile add-on author: Qu

>>58688364
because they be fucking up and have been.

>>58688364
Good. We don't need cis white males opressing us anyway. Fuck'em.

File: 1438173981001.png (13KB, 418x359px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 418x359px

>killing tree tabs and downthemall

what the fuck. what am I suppose to do?

>>58688420
For now, I just use Palemoon.

What happened to that scroll progress add-on?

>that guy who wrote a comment longer than the article

Seriously, why are all browsers shit nowadays!?

Firefox is still the least terrible, but god damn it sucks anyways.

Lmao, people still use Firefox?

Chrome, Opera, and Edge are all faster. Literal fact.

>>58689059
faster, but unusable

Firefox ESR will support XUL addons until Q2 2018, so I'll be able to stay comfy for a while yet. Hopefully webextensions improves both as a platform and as an ecosystem...yes it's missing some important features, but some of this is the typical massive egos of firefox addon devs blowing things out of proportion and refusing to see the other side of the argument.

>>58689059
It's not a literal fact. It depends on the workload. Each of those browsers wins in some benchmark.

Anyways, when it comes to a usable browser, speed is a priority, but it is way down the list.

>>58688420
>downthemall
Are people really too retarded to download shit without an addon?

>>58688364
In social justice you learn that everyone must be equal. They are removing the customization privilege of firefox users to level the playing field.

>>58689110
>In social justice you learn that everything must be shit. to make it "fair" to people who don't want to try harder than making shit.
ftfy

>>58689067
Lmao Chrome is plenty usable, as is Opera and Edge.

>>58689082
>In some benchmarks

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/best-browser-internet-explorer-vs-chrome-vs-firefox-vs-safari-vs-edge/3/

Chrome beat it in every benchmark. So did Opera. Edge only lost in HTML5 compliance.

Firefox BTFO

>>58689155
>Lmao Chrome is plenty usable
YMMV

>>58689155
It will never beat them, and it should stop trying. They are all so close now that it doesn't even matter. It should be instead be playing to it's strengths.

>>58689155
>http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/best-browser-internet-explorer-vs-chrome-vs-firefox-vs-safari-vs-edge/3/

That is literally one source.

Anyways as I said, speed is really my last concern. Whether I have to wait 400ms or 300ms really isn't a deciding factor.

>>58689179
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqZXvOoEX4

Chrome suits my needs fine. Actually, Edge, Firefox, Opera, and Chrome all do. So I might as well select the fastest one.

>>58689059
>mentioning Edge at all

spotted the pajeet MS shill

>>58689089
So what do you use to download all links in a webpage?

>>58689155
i'll consider chromium once it
- can load tabs only upon view after startup
- has a scrollable tab bar

right now it's just not usable for someone who uses a lot of tabs

>>58689216
he goes through and manually downloads them all of course
what are you ? lazy?

>>58689202
It's not 2009. Go jack off to anime Bill.

>>58689216
not him but i can't think of any time i've needed to do that
could you give an example?

Powerful addons used to be a huge selling point for firefox, but people went overboard with shit they never used and made their firefox bloated and slow.

Then chrome came along and promised fancy new features out of the box and optimized. Lots of people tried it out over a few years, it was dramatically faster due to being a clean install, and the majority never looked back. That's my pet theory anyway.

With the rise of mobile and walled gardens, customization is getting even less important to most users (note: firefox mobile is the only android browser with actual extensions). Why would mozilla waste resources maintaining xul? They can just extend the fuck out of webextensions until we get some semblance of super powerful addons and call it a day, the benchmarks will get better and most people won't even care.

The best comeback firefox can hope for is blowing chrome out of the water technologically over the next few years, with full e10s and project quantum. If that happens, it's entirely possible that people at google will stop caring about chrome, causing the desktop version to noticeably stagnate.

>>58688364
>all these anons triggered because firefox is sjw
the fuck,it's just a browser

>>58689343
firefox is slow out of the box, because of 32-bit and no optimalization

take a normal firefox, compile it for new CPUs and somehow it's over 2 times faster without actually changing anything

addons have nothing to do with it, webextensions are a result of marketing bullshit and giving retards without a clue about anything a right to decide

>>58689343
>Then chrome came along and promised fancy new features
Chrome had literally >nofeatures on release.
>it was dramatically faster due to being a clean install
Wrong. Firefox was extremely slow on linux even back then and chrome was not. This has nothing to do with clean installs and everything with mozilla not having good engineers.

>>58689363
This is a lie though. There are 64-bit builds of Firefox available for all platforms and have been for some time. There have also been third party 64-bit builds like Waterfox for even longer, and they're barely any faster than vanilla Firefox.

Nobody's denying that Firefox is a completely irredeemable piece of garbage, but the extension system is the absolute LAST thing that should have been ditched. Keeping that and trashing the entire browser around it would have been the smart move.

>>58689363
Yeah, all that was true in 2012, but not 2017. Pale Moon gets to cling to relevance by supporting XUL going forward, but for a while there it was pointless and literally benchmarks worse than mainline firefox due to using an engine developed by actual idiots.

webextensions is mostly about being free from a framework that talks very specifically to gecko (and other) internals, which means less work to maintain code and use new components from the rust community. It's easy to get the "just following chrome" impression from reading the blogs of angry addon devs, but the fact is that had little to do with it.

>>58689442
>Keeping that and trashing the entire browser around it would have been the smart move
The problem, however sad, is that you can't do that. XUL/XPCOM isn't so much an API as a way to add modules that more or less act like they're part of the firefox internals, which is why things had to be rewritten for e10s, security has remained a serious problem, and rust developers don't want to kneecap their progress on "trashing the entire browser" with futile attempts to maintain XUL compatibility.

>>58688364
>fox=vermin
>killing vermin is good
Why you mad OP?

>>58689383
I was talking about windows-using normies who care quite a bit about google integration. And while it's just my opinion that people getting a clean browser with chrome was virtually decisive, it's well documented that new browsers get a halo because they don't have all the addon bloat. So "nothing to do with it" is wrong.

>>58689530
>it's well documented that new browsers get a halo because they don't have all the addon bloat. So "nothing to do with it" is wrong.
Whenever I install a new browser I am accosted with an endless torrent of ads, so a halo of shit, maybe.

>>58689217

What are extensions.

>>58689647
well yeah you install an ad blocker and maybe a password manager on day 1, but probably forget about your 12 other addons at least for a while. Unless you're among that autistic few that actually prunes unused addons regularly.

>>58689672
i have yet to see any that fixes those, especially the second
from what i've read, extensions can't touch chromiums' UI at all, so it wouldn't even be possible to fix it with an extension

>>58688364
good, Chromium is a superior product

>>58688434
Thank you for using a tripcode needlessly. You have been filtered.

>>58689343
Actually the rise of chrome is due to google paying extremely well free software devs to add an option to install chrome in their installer, I think it was around 1$ per install.

>captcha : ROAD ZION

Important question: will userChrome.css work when Firefox is WebExtensions-exclusive?

>>58689143
>>58689110
>current year
>posting politics on a basket weaving technology forum
kys

>>58689143
People born in countries where western corporations have appropriated the land and most natural resources and are subsequently manipulated from birth into perpetuating this situation and exploited are at fault how exactly?

I swear dumbasses like you are the reason feminazis exist. Your stupidity has to be balanced at the other end of the spectrum somehow.

>>58689686
>Unless you're among that autistic few that actually prunes unused addons regularly.
I just disable them. And I recently switched to iridium and first thing I did was put all my extensions on there.

>>58690147
>I just disable them.
Well to be specific, I have one extension I sometimes want to use and it usually sits disabled, only enabling it when I need it. Other than that I delete ones I try and don't like, so don't really have any installed I don't use.

D-does this make me an autist though?

>Tab Groups, OmniSidebar, FindBar Tweak, Beyond Australis and Puzzle Bars
Literally what?

>>58689256
you have a page with lots of videos and need to download them all. DTA sees them all, you select all .mp4 files or whatever in one swoop and just wait till it's finished. way better than doing everything manually.

>>58689256
Downloading 150 pictures from a 4chan thread.
Downloading all the pdfs from a page with many links to many of them.

>>58690275
wget

>>58690308
How are you exactly planing on using wget for this you utter idiot?

>>58690318
By not being an idiot like you are for starters.

What's the current Opera source leak situation? Have people decided on a fork to follow/use? I've always been a Firefox user but I'm desperately looking for a ship to jump into that isn't a webkit/chrome clone. Opera seems to have the autistic configurability I want, like customizing the UI to look and act extensively the way you want instead of the 1 that the UX team decided upon. I've been annoyed with FF's direction since before australis and it's only gone further in that direction.

>>58690330
Reusing my insults? You can't think of new things, huh?
wget downloads a specific link that you give it, totally unrelated to that.

>>58690331
They will sue the guy who published it and nobody will be able to do anything with the code ever.

File: 14 Hakase tantrum a.gif (306KB, 350x197px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 350x197px

>>58690359
God damn it. I just want nice things.

>>58689059
All nonfree
All shit
Why do you exists

>>58690348
>my insults
huh?
>wget downloads a specific link that you give it
It also lets you download content off a given link recursivly. Optionally with a filter.

>>58690408
>It also lets you download content off a given link recursivly. Optionally with a filter.
try to actually do it, and post proof
I dare you

>>58690419
not >>58690408 but i use this in bash sometimes

echo "dling images from $1..."
temp="$2"
wget -O - $1 -q |
grep -Pow $temp |
uniq |
awk '{print "https://"$1}' |
xargs -n 1 -P 8 wget -nc

Will this upcoming WebXGAEMZ bullshit disrupt the functionality of userchrome.css? Because I can do without many extensions as long as I can fiddle with the browser myself. It concerns me when Quicksaver says that he'd have his hands tied when it came to making his extensions work.

>>58690451
>awk '{print "https://"$1}'
I am not an expert in awk but doesn't this include character not allowed in links?

File: 9210abc10e.jpg (40KB, 500x738px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x738px

>That feel when I did use Tab Groups and OmniSidebar
>That feel when nothing else comes close to Tab Group's functionality and every add-on similar to OmniSidebar is fucking garbage and inferior in every single way.
Is Vivaldi usable yet? I want out of this fucking garbage browser.

>>58690419
>try to actually do it, and post proof
Here you go dipshit.

wget \
--recursive \
--no-directories \
--accept '.jpg,.jpeg,.png,.gif,.webm' \
--reject '*s.jpg' \
--span-hosts \
--execute robots=off "https://boards.4chan.org/g/thread/58688364"

I don't know what they are doing at Moz but last version is bugged and slow as fuck.

Had to go back to 50.0.1. to have a usable browser.

>>58690576
Does not work if the site uses js to load links.

>>58690576
that's not what I wanted you to do though, but I knew you would not do that anyway

>>58690592
>Downloading 150 pictures from a >>>>>>>>>>>>4chan thread.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>58690495
nah it just prepends https:// to what grep matched. i used 'i.4cdn.org/[^"]+
for 4chan a while ago before they made some changes. you could convert the thread link to the api then match the 'tim' and 'ext' keys. i shitted a python script for fun and have it save as original file name, but grep, sed, and awk should be able to get the job done no problem.

>>58690576
except that only gets the thumbnails now, right? i didn't try it

>>58690593
What?

>>58690609
It actually rejects thumbnails?

>>58690606
That was just an example.

>>58689078
Hello, Mozillian. Received your shillbux for January already?

>>58690619
yeah but wget the thread html only has links to thumbnails because of the recent js changes, no? i'll try it.

>>58689078
>Hopefully webextensions improves both as a platform and as an ecosystem...yes it's missing some important features,
Which it will never get, because then addons made specifically for Firefox won't be compatibly with Chrome, which is the whole point of killing XUL and adopting WebExtensions in the first place.

Mozilla WANTS to kill that kind of addons.
They accomplished to kill themes, they will accomplish to kill useful addons, too.

>>58690654
>They accomplished to kill themes
How?

>>58690664
http://venturebeat.com/2015/11/20/mozilla-is-removing-tab-groups-and-complete-themes-from-firefox/
http://venturebeat.com/2015/07/06/mozillas-plans-for-firefox-more-partnerships-better-add-ons-faster-updates-and-more/

>>58690677

They sure don't like people tinkering with their browser.

>>58690677
>giving a fuck about themes

>>58690677
so they didn't kill them YET
I was wondering how the fuck can I have a full theme installed right now

>>58690695
>>58690677
They're actually making themes a part of webextensions also so they don't break version to version either.

Why would I need anything else apart from an ad blocking extension?
If I wouldn't be so lazy I wouldn't even need that since I could ad block on network level. (e.g. router or firewall)

>>58690331
Leaked source code is even worse than proprietary, it actually discourages anyone from even attempting to reverse engineer the software because the original author could claim they viewed the source code and sue them and it would be damn hard to disprove. If you want a program to go open source you need to nag the author of the program or have someone dedicated reverse engineer it, leaking the source could accomplishes jackshit.

>>58691498
>Why would I need anything else apart from an ad blocking extension?

Why are you asking? if you don't need/want anything else, then great. You are good to go.

Sadly you are not the only person in the world. Some people like to make things work how they prefer, make things more convenient.

Personally I'm with you. I use Ublock and lastpass, and that's it. But that doesn't mean I'm not against purposely crippling a once decent browser.

>>58688364
>Why is Mozilla so dead set on killing Firefox?
because they were taken over by marxists who think virtue signaling is a viable business

File: 1485274341845.jpg (80KB, 840x1038px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 840x1038px

>>58688420
>tree tabs
What? When will this happen?

Chrome is a botnet that tracks everything you do even if you try to make it not to. Edge probably does that too, and if it's anything like old IE, enjoy your viruses.

>>58689059
Lol, thats a nice alternative fact there.

>>58690176
tabgroups was a firefox function before being an addon. the addon is better btw

it's great to keep shit separated like normal daily tabs and keep open some porn tabs and if you dont put the damn icon in the ui. is like a hidden place

> read through op article
> see related article at bottom
> "time to switch to 64 bit firefox on windows"
> "January 27, 2017"

What in the flying fuck?

Is this why the "firefox is slow" meme exists? Winfags who have been using 32 bit firfox for all this time?!

>>58692401
You say that like anyone gives a shit about being tracked!?


I use Chrome, and Android. Track away.


What's the absolutely worst thing that can happen? I get thrown in jail for some impromptu random law that suddenly makes using /g/ illegal? So what?

>>58688420
>>58691740
piro is planning to port treestyletabs to webextensions
https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/issues/1224
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596

downloadthemall is kill though