FF is dying

Why would I stop using Firefox once it reaches version 57?

>>58710280
Your old and trusty addons like Tree style tabs, tabgroups etc will all stop working then

>>58710293
Got any source to back up your claim?

>>58710293
>addons
ha ha

>>58710293
He probably means he's not going to upgrade.

>>58710222
I'm using Waterfox already.

>>58710395
Oh boy you're in for a surprise.

>>58710409
>>58710395
http://www.ghacks.net/2016/11/24/firefox-will-only-support-web-extensions-by-the-end-of-2017/

>>58710222
> there are people who still use firefox

>>58710482
I need muh DTA!

>>58710395
>I've been in a coma for over a year

>>58710222
I'll probably use the last pre-57 ESR version for a while, then either switch to some fork (provided my beloved add ons will work on them) or switch to a Chromium based fork (maybe Opera).

how do i check if an extension is webextension or not

>>58710222
I use palememe already. For devs the xul was a piece of shit

>>58710416
Where does it say the addons you mentioned will no longer work? Yes, the basic APIs are the same as Chrom* and won't allow such addons but Mozilla is working together with addon developers to expand those APIs to make sure their addons will continue to work. It's still 10 months left until Firefox 57 is released, that's a lot of times for adding and testing new APIs. The only addons for sure that won't work are those that are abandoned but that's not exactly news, I've used several addons throughout the years that stopped working when I upgraded the Firefox version and I honestly don't see how it's Mozilla's fault for not supporting abandonware. Sooner or later you have to drop support for old things so might as well do it sooner than later.

>>58710624
There aren't any yet.

File: wet-dream-2.jpg (33KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x360px

>>58710638
>Sooner or later you have to drop support for old things so might as well do it sooner than later.

>>58710638
These addons are what makes FF great in the first place. Without them, you are left with a gimped and slower chrom*

Firefox is not dead, idiots.

>>58710853
It's literally going to become chrome

>>58710222
Qutebrowser

>>58710863
What do you mean?

>>58710917
>ELI5

>>58710917
Extensions that enable UI changes like Tree Style Tabs, Classic Theme Restorer, Vimperator, Tabgroups, DownThemAll! and so on and so on are uanble to function with the new gimped API FF will be having.

>>58710222

B R A V E
R
A
V
E

Is firefox without the SJW bullshit and basically designed to bankrupt journofags forever

>>58710975
>Chrome Based
>Adware

>>58710293
And what else would I use instead?
Even without XUL it's still better than Botnet.

>durr hurr a few addons don't work, better let google see my BBW porn

I already switched to Iridium

File: No friends to go Karaoke with.png (53KB, 454x334px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 454x334px

>>58710222
As much as I like having more than 100 tabs open with my memoery still in tact, I'll just fuck off to Chromium. I was using Chrome ever since it came out and have only used FF for a little over a year.

>>58710991
Use Pale Moon instead.

>>58710963
Very well.. That add-ons are useless.

>>58711022
u no speak engrish?

>>58711011
I tried Pale Moon just to see what the fuss was about. The right click menu doesn't even work. Enjoy your beta software.

>>58710981

Its chromium with an actual code audit to take all the jewgle shit out, unlike iridium

Don't be a nigger, support the only guy fighting the sjw cancer thats destroying IT

>baaw australis, i'm dropping firefox
>baaw e10s broke muh obsolote extension, i'm dropping firefox
>baaw forced extension signing, i'm dropping firefox
>baww no more npapi plugins, i'm dropping firefox
>baaw firefox removed this, i'm dropping firefox
>baaw firefox removed that, i'm dropping firefox

Will the ludditefags finally begone?

>>58710222
firefox does everything just the fucking way i need it to. fuck off OP , post proof you dipshit.

>>58711088
>>58710416

>>58710963
>>58710293

Chrome has tree style tabs you fucking mong.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-style-tabs/biiammgklaefagjclmnlialkmaemifgo?hl=en

File: unnamed.jpg (79KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 640x400px

>>58711102
>extra window
>chrome tab on top still visible

WEW SO CUSTOMIZE

firefox ://

>>58711046
already switched to palemoon :>

>>58711046
I only put up with those bullshit movies because at least my add ons worked.

Tree Style tabs would be good if it let you drag and drop tabs inside other trees.
Instead you just end up with the same clusterfuck on the side.

>>58711302
but it does allow you exactly that

Is there a specific person to blame for shitting up firefox?

>>58711041
Literally what's wrong with iridium?

--Posted from Firefox™ 51.0

What advantages over Chrome/webkit based browsers will Firefox have if they remove all the great addons?

Are they killing Adblock and Noscript? It's the only things i really need.

>>58711329
I wonder if it has anything to do with the SJW witchhunt firing of the engineer-background CEO.

>>58711102
This is why your parents are embarrassed to talk about you.

>>58711373
No.
Just the stuff that involves invasive UI changes.

>implying I'm not on version forty something anyway because Debian testing repos are frozen
Git cutting edge m8

>>58711435
I'm pretty sure NoScript won't work.

The APIs won't allow jackshit for it to work. Just like how it cannot work on Chrome.

>>58711405
What did they target him for?

>>58711536
Being a cis white male.

I can survive web extensions, but if the replace the firefox engine with blink, then firefox is just a dead shell wrapped around chrome, just like opera

>>58711536
He donated money to some anti-gay/pro-straight foundation or something. Basically >>58711548

>>58711536
wrongthink

>>58711536
He made a charitable contribution to an organization that opposed gay marriage in the past.

Pretty sad, hope that the firefox forks around will still work

>>58710222
Fuck off shill

Which add-ons will stop working when XUL/XPCOM is deprecated?

Many add-ons will need to be updated, and we anticipate that some will break with the transition to the new APIs. There is a risk that some add-ons may not transition if they are not maintained or have maintainers who lack the time to port their add-on.

We don't want to limit what add-ons can do in Firefox. We will work with every developer who is interested to make their add-on work in Firefox, and work to provide the functionality required in as many cases as possible. This process is designed to allow developers to extend Firefox in ways that are less brittle than the current XUL/XPCOM system, and to allow Firefox itself to transition away from XUL/XPCOM.

>>58710638
Take a look at the Tab Groups developer. He's not porting because he's already had to spend many hours working to port his add-ons to e10s. Now e10s is finally rolling out and Mozilla announces that he needs to throw that out and port it again to something else. Something less powerful. All this work for a developer who just wanted to restore a feature that Mozilla removed in the first place.

>>58711645
And why are addon devs giving up then?

>>58711651
>All this work for a developer who just wanted to restore a feature that Mozilla removed in the first place.
This is what infuriated me the most.

>>58711662
They're lazy and rather use old shit that "just werks" instead of having to learn a new API. Most of them are probably not as good developers as they think. gorhill, probably one of the few developers with real competence, is already working on making uBlock Origin into a WebExtension.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases

>>58711705
Nice FUD there.

Also making ublock into a web extension is easy, compared to low-level addons that change the UI. Gorhill already has the codebase for chrome, so he just needs to modify it. For other addons it would mean a complete, pointless rewrite, if the gimped APIs even would allow UI access at all.

so I cant rice my firefox with CSS anymore?

>>58711734
>Nice FUD there
Oh yeah, because this thread isn't.

>>58711651
I read his announcement in firefox a few days ago..
Had the same situation at work years ago, when they decided to move with c#(c-SHIT) instead of c++ while upgrading from visual basic.
Made all the rage inside of me bubble up.
I left that company a year later and found a niece little linux company where they use python+c++ and fully understand that guy.

Still since there is a lack of alternatives i need his tabgroups addon, tabgroups helper and tabmix + with the multirow option.
I will move to bookmark folders and multiple windows if i have to but something like it should exists.
Although it doesn't have to be in firefox.
I remember using multiple tabrows and windows back on opera before firefox 2 came out.
If there is an alternative i will move to it.

File: Untitled.png (26KB, 1030x348px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1030x348px

SQT couldn't help me so maybe you guys could.
I recently deleted my browser history and was reentering my websites into my url bar but some sites don't have icons and titles while others do. I've tried going safe mode to see what was up and that didn't do anything, I turned on favicons in about:config but that didn't do anything either.

I only used ublock and greasemonkey.

I don't know why I should bother with other addon, specially flash.

>>58711765
It isn"t. The switch to pure webextensions will mean goodbye Vimperator, Tree Style Tabs, Beyond Australis etc.

>>58711816
I am planning to make a backup of my tabs and profile when the time comes and hopefully switch to tree style tabs. I've been meaning to give it a shot forever and this is the perfect thing to force me into it. Hopefully TST's developer manages to port it fine

>>58711842
The only useful addons it will affect are meme-style tabs and downthemall. I could live without either of them.

>>58711842
Again, do you have any source for that? If the developer doesn't feel like porting it to WebExtension that their fault, not Mozilla's. Time's change and you have to learn new things, just how we all had to learn a lot of new things with the introduction of HTML5. If people don't feel like learning HTML5 but instead just use ancient HTML... well, sucks for them but it's not the fault of W3C.

>>58711879
If people want to keep using ancient html they can. They mark their page as using whatever version they use and browsers happily handle it.

>>58711842
>>58711864
>>58711869
>pure webextensions
There is no such thing, firefox can add its own additions that doesn't exist in chrome. eg they are adding sidebar API for use of vertical tabs/treestyletabs
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208596#c7

>>58711879
The point is Mozilla is moving to a less powerful and capable infrastructure. Instead of being the "linux" of browsers; a highly customizeable alternative for power users, they've sold out and want to go after the mainstream market and go after Google Chrome head on in the browser war.

And the same thing will happen to them that MS did to Netscape. They will get beat into obscurity because Chrome comes installed on everything.

>>58710415
>I'm using Waterfox already.
This

Even the ABP dude says:

>In 2018, Firefox is going to have the same crappy extension ecosystem as Chrome - what will be its distinguishing trait then? Why
should anybody keep recommending Firefox to their friends?

https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/dev-addons/2016-December/002378.html

>>58711942
I don't use extensions anyways.

>>58711973
enjoying your porn ads on /g/?

>>58711927
How stupid are you? The WebExtension API will be the same as the Blink extension API, but it'll also have additional APIs to allow for current addons to continue working. It's ten fucking months left until Firefox 57 so come back again after summer and then I'll consider taking you seriously.

>>58711981
>he doesn't block ads through the hosts file

>>58711981
I buy all the products and services announced on /b/.

How can affect me this as a web developer?

>>58712031
If you have to ask, it won't.
If you're an XUL developer, you'll know.

File: 1406864826446.png (11KB, 470x454px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 470x454px

So wait, let me get this straight:

In 2018, Firefox addons won't be able to change the GUI appearance?

This Webextensions proposal hasn't been finalized yet, right? Because that would be the final nail in Firefox's coffin.

>>58712088
By 2020 everything will have successfully turned to shit.

>>58712088
>the final nail in Firefox's coffin.

Except that it still isn't a botnet.

I don't know why everyone is getting bent out of shape over this. It's not like there already aren't alternatives if you want to keep running Beyond Austismus.

SeaMonkey, Waterfox, Pale Moon. Pick one.

File: Brave_icon.png (38KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 300x300px

Not really bothering in using this.

>>58710222

>FIREFOX IS DEAD
>FIREFOX HAS NO MORE EXTENSIONS
>AHAHAHAHA SWITCH CHROME

While in reality...

>Firefox is open source
>Anyone can make a browser without that shitty extension api

I don't see the problem.

>>58712088
>firefox addons won't be able to change the GUI appearance
They can, there is a new webextension theme api
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/01/16/firefox-new-default-theme-theme-api-makes-an-appearance/

>>58710991
Bbw porn is best

>>58712169
>theme
Fuck off, we're not talking about motherfucking themes. Even Chrome has themes you retard

I use seamonkey, I lost hope a while back. I just miss tree style tabs.

>>58710222
it all sucks. especially furfag palemoon. kys.

>>58710914
could it be.. ?
>CTRL+F
>types "qute"
>find this post
my nigga

>>58712570
>furfag
>palemoon

Is there really a connection?

>>58711705
ublock is basically already a webextension. The APIs are based on the shit that chromium uses. ublock was written for chromium and ported to firefox (by another dev)

>>58712610
Supposedly the developer is a furry. Never cared to learn if this was just shit posting or true.

>>58711102
So that just makes Firefox a worse version of Chrome. Not sure what your argument is there.

>>58712299
Chrome has shitty backgrounds. Theme API allows you to change the size of elements and buttons and whatver. They're not the same as the shitty backgrounds "light themes" thing that firefox *already* supports they're a replacement for the old XUL based themes

>>58711046
>baaw australis, i'm dropping firefox
oh wait, I can use this add-on to get rid of all of it
>baaw e10s broke muh obsolote extension, i'm dropping firefox
That's annoying, but there were workarounds
>baaw forced extension signing, i'm dropping firefox
Hmmm, well this seems bad, but FF has said they won't use it like a walled garden to enforce policy
>baww no more npapi plugins, i'm dropping firefox
literally no one said this

Now Firefox is removing my ability to fix all of the above fuckups in one fell swoop. Fuck 'em, I'm done with their shit.

>>58712610
>>58712680
FFS you dumb niggers his username is MOONCHILD the browser name is PALEMOON his avatar is a WOLFMAN. hes a fucking furry.

moonchildproductions.info

File: FloridaFatass.png (320KB, 683x713px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 683x713px

>>58710222
probably dying from obesity related disease, that fucking browser bloated up bigger than the parent browser it originally forked off from (mozilla/seamonkey)

fuck firefox, it needs to die, and let someone fork it in to two different browsers, one for mobile devices and one for desktops & laptops, heck Palemoon is better than firefox

File: .png (160KB, 578x1375px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 578x1375px

What about uBlock Origin, uMatrix and Save Image in Folder?

I want to like palememe but version 27 fucking broke almost all of the addons fuck this shit

what's wrong with palemoon anyway besides it's dev being a furry?

>>58710222
Currently use waterfox, doubt they will continue to support XUL either. And my favorite addon (Beyond Australis) just got discontinued.

I'll give new firefox a shot. But if they don't expand the API I might as well go to chromium, since some of the addons i use rely on the ability to modify more than just web content

>>58710222
>Where will you go once Firefox 57 hits?
Keep using Opera. If I was using Fx I guess I'd just stick with ESR

Why are poeple saying firefox is shit now? I dont get it...

>>58713192
It's been getting progressively worse. Different people have different reasons for something to be shit or not; they draw the line in different places. So as Firefox gets worse you're going to continually hear it called shit by people who it's already become shitty for and people who it's becoming shitty for.

firefox is better than chrome only how a piece of shit with sprinkles on it is better than a piece of shit with no sprinkles

>>58713323
>they're both shit but Firefox is the less shitty of the two
Thanks, Captain Obvious

I'm already kind of pissed at Firefox nightly on Linux for requiring pulse audio.
If the new API change effects even one of the extensions I use, I will switch immediately to ungoogled chromium.
I hope it doesn't come to that though, since Firefox has been improving significantly in terms of speed and responsiveness.

>>58713355
*least

>>58712787
and how does this affect the browser?

File: 350-578929-847__1.jpg (22KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 350x350px

>>58710222
>not being on FF 45.7 ESR
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/
Get your shit together Anon.

File: Brendan_Eich_Mozilla_Foundation_official_photo.jpg (12KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 220x220px

Why didn't he just fork FF? He had to create a new browser from a retarded concept?

>>58712590
>CTRL+F
>implying

>>58713437
Webkit/Blink are pretty much better in every notable way. Mozilla keeps Gecko alive because it provides an alternative to Webkit/Blink for websites to test against, even if it's not necessarily the best alternative. Eich had no reason to go with Gecko, enforcing competition in the browser-space is not a part of his project and he wouldn't even be able to keep up with what Mozilla is doing.

>>58710222
Just stick to ESR 52 till it's dead.

>>58710293
Is there a list where I can check which add-ons work and which don't? I think all my add-ons are fairly actively developed, so I don't think it'll affect me all that much.

>>58710914
>Qutebrowser

>Has no plugin system whatsoever
>Runs on deprecated insecure web engine

>Where will you go once Firefox 57 hits?
I evacuated to Vivaldi 2 weeks ago

>>58710975
>Pyramid scheme: Browser edition
Fuck no

>>58714154
>2010
>plugins

im concerned about this change, and it might cause me to switch browsers - but im a reasonable human so i will wait to see before i make a decision.

Good thing I already switched to edge. The only thing firefox is specifically useful for is downloadhelper.

>>58714252
>Windows 10

>Not using Opera
Cucks, all of you.

File: 1391442963178.jpg (19KB, 500x323px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x323px

>>58710222
>oh god a couple things I don't like are happening
>YOU SHUD ABANDEN FURFOGS!

No. Firefox works just fine. I have no reason to stop using firefox.

>>58714555
>implying I'm not

>>58710482
Your chrome already has web extensions.

Mozilla should dump Gecko and switch the layout engine to Blink in 2018.

Then in 2019 they can sell themselves to Google.

>>58714855
>Blink/WebKit only web
God no.

>>58714864
That's the way Firefox is headed. They've been copying Chrome for years, so they might as well just quit beating around the bush and go whole hog already.

>>58715166
That would be fucking terrible. Luckily, Servo's in the works.

>>58715177
What makes you think Servo isn't headed the same way?

Instead of wasting time with e10s the last several years only to push it now in a barely acceptable state, Mozilla should have just ceased development on Firefox aside from security patches while they worked full-time on Servo.

>>58711520
They are working with the NoScript dev to make firefox work around his add-on because they don't want him to leave.

>>58715191
The fact that Mozilla's not stupid enough to switch to Blink. Then again there're a lot of things they've done that I didn't think they were stupid enough to do. Nevertheless this'd be an ungodly new level of stupidity, even for them.

>>58715217
In all likelihood, Servo is going to be just as uncustomizable as Firefox is heading and as Chrome is now.

Nobody gives a shit about power users anymore. As a former Opera user I can see the writing on the wall that power users aren't wanted on the Internet anymore.

>>58715243
>In all likelihood, Servo is going to be just as uncustomizable as Firefox is heading and as Chrome is now.
Would still be netter than them just switching to Blink.

http://www.downthemall.net/re-downthemall-and-webextensions-or-why-why-i-am-done-with-mozilla/
Good read from one of the bigger Firefox add-on devs.

tl;dr:
>The whole story is that WebExtensions APIs explicitly are supposed to be high level APIs, while tons of add-ons actually want, nay need low level APIs to implement their functionality. The rational here seems to be "Fuck yall, we consider you too stupid and/or evil to give you low level access, also we're lazy and not good with money so we couldn't possibly support low level anyway" The high level API shit is what's killing the platform, not XUL or (partial) XPCOM deprecation.

>>58715255
Not really. Homogeneity of browsers would be terrible regardless of the under-the-hood layout engine.

Being unable to customize Servo's interface in any meaningful way would make it effectively indistinguishable from Chrome.

>>58710222
>tfw have to switch to chrome
>no tree style tabs and shitty chrome version of rikaisama

>>58714555
>using Opera ever since it's just Chrome now
It used to be my daily driver before that bullshit

File: 1485563184056.gif (402KB, 211x199px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 211x199px

>>58715243
This.

I'm afraid you're right, Anon. My read is the same.

>>58711842
>muh legacy software, that hold back the development of a whole browser

>>58715489
>actively developed software
>legacy

>>58710293
Never used any of those. And
>implying somebody wont quickly make some replacements if theyre popular

>>58711373
I was just about to post something almost exactly like this.

>>58715206
Noscript is a must, so this is good to hear. I can probably find another adblocker if they kill it.

I guess for me this firefox change is a non-issue.

>>58715489
Lobotomizing a browser in a desperate and ill-advised attempt to reclaim marketshare from the current marketshare leader holds back development of a whole browser and the browser market as a whole.

>>58715206
>They are working with the NoScript dev to make firefox work around his add-on because they don't want him to leave.
If they didn't want add-on developers to leave, then maybe they shouldn't abandon them.

WebExtensions aren't inherently bad and some add-ons would be better served by switching. The problem arises when WebExtensions become the only extension framework.

>>58715626
This is actually another reason developers are so pissed, certain developers are getting special treatment while others are left to rot.

>>58710222

I've been in hibernation and completely missed the news. As much as I love Rikaisama, I almost hope the devs give up on it so I can finally drop Firefox.

Did firefox usage take a dip which is why they started doing these shitty changes or the other way around?

>>58715494
Enjoy your unsafe garbage. Actively developed my ass.

>>58713422
Like SJW affect the Firefox

>>58715796
Who said I use any of aforementioned software?

>>58711985
>when everything breaks we will talk
Tard.

>>58715796
Anything that connects to the Internet is inherently unsafe.

>>58715837
>not an argument

*yawn*

welp... I just installed vivaldi. Seems nifty.

Any pro-tips?

>>58716096
Install a real browser.

>>58716118
so like midori?

>>58716138
Pretty much anything but Vivaldi

>>58716149
Brave it is!

>>58716096
>>58716149
explain

I've been using vivaldi for months and love the shit out of it

any problems I had I fixed with an unstable ver

>>58716181
It's a website masquerading as a browser.

>>58716198
that's a neat post anon

>>58716217
Was that supposed to mean something?

What's the last decent version of Firefox? I'm still on FF39 and was thinking of updating.

>>58716236
/g/ likes to meme and pretend it means something instead of actually explaining why they dont like a given thing

e.g. botnet, or in this case, "it's a website masquerading as a browser" with literally no explanation of what it is you're even remotely trying to say

>>58710293
They're rewriting tabgroups and tree-style tabs this summer and baking it into the browser. I just interviewed for that position with Mozilla and I might be the one writing it.

>>58716260
I'm not going to put more effort in than necessary. If you ask why I'll tell you why. If you want to know why that's the case, I'll answer that too. But I'm not going to pour out paragraph after paragraph for some faggot that most likely wouldn't read them. The entire UI is written in JavaScript. It's essentially a fullscreened Chromium web app that lets you browse other websites within it.

>>58716309
let's pretend that's true, what would the downsides be?

>>58716346
We don't need to pretend. And the downside is that you're running software written by a retard.

>>58716350
see >>58716260

Palememe or maybe i go full botnet

>>58716357
>has no rebuttal

>>58716350
So am I correct in understanding that there are no functional downsides, only political ones?

>>58716422
Being written in JavaScript is a functional downside.

>>58710222
Palemoon is nice.

>>58716434
To claim that it is a functional downside you must demonstrate how it hampers the functionality of browser.

>>58716443
It's slower and laggier than it should be. Sucks that they went full retard because we really need an Opera successor.

>>58716461
Evidence? I see posts by that other anon who uses Vivaldi and he claims there's no slowdowns no lags.

Yep, FireShit is dying. Big addon developers are leaving because Mozilla is switching to WebExtension addons (chrome uses this) so that means addons like NoScript, DownThemAll and Self-Destructing Cookies are gone.

DownThemAll dev has already stopped updating his addons because they will die in FireFox 56

>>58716469
JIT compilation will always be slower, this is a fact. Works on my machine is not a valid argument either.

>>58714120
https://addons.mozilla.org/ru/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/

>>58716508
It only has to be done once. Whether this is an issue is up to user. You claim this is unforgivable, other user claims it's no problem. This wouldn't work as a good evidence that functionality is lacking.

Please stop trying to use just your reasoning as evidence.

>>58716852
>It only has to be done once
But that's blatantly false.

>>58716903
Depends on how it's written. You can cache your code easily. In any case, even if it took time to JIT compile the code every time, you can't present that as evidence - you can only present actual measurements, and then you also have to convince everyone that differences in measured times are significant enough to be an impediment to user.

ESR and then I guess I will have to use Palemoon
>>58711046
And Fx market share is dropping like a rock
Every time you see this threads is another wave of users leaving

>>58711364
Memory consumption, but Google is fixing that within a year I believe

>>58710222
I've already stopped using it.
Using chromium.

> ff glitches videos (while audio plays normally, video itself loops in 3 seconds)
> much slower startup than chromium
I don't understand what happened to firefox, I really liked it until recently...

Will stick with chromium, unless something will change.

I explicitly enabled full telemetry so Mozilla can know how dependent I an on XUL addons
Seems like Palemoon is the way to go, of just go full cuck to some Chromium fork
>>58716252
Depends on how much of a cuck are you

>>58711942
This is the part I don't understand. Over the last five years Mozilla has gradually been turning Firefox into a Chrome clone, only crappier. So what would be the point in using it over Chrome or a chromium-based browser?

>>58711041
>actual code audit
lol yeah right

How would I import all of my settings to Palemoon? I've tried it before but was unable to do so.

I had been a firefox user for probably 10 years but sometime in 2016 I rage uninstalled it after another upgrade brought unexplained graphical glitches along with performance downgrades. Even all my favorite addons can't possibly make up for the lack of quality.

>>58712169
This was my only worry, I can't stand the default Firefox gui

>>58713192
Because autists don't like change :'(

>>58710222
If mozilla doesnt change their mind tgen:
Palememe, ungoogled chromium, some fork based on the last true ESR (hopefully itll appear).

>>58717685
What the fuck is going on with Firefox and streaming video? It's performance compared to Google Chrome is horrific.

I get horrible sound reproduction in YouTube video using Firefox, and in Chrome the audio is perfect.

Streaming Twitch in Firefox slows down the browser, while in Chrome you can stream without performance issues.

The only thing keeping me form switching to Chrome, are the much better addon support Firefox has, but if that goes, then Chrome will be my daily driver.

I can only assume, Mozilla is going this route because they've been hemorrhaging users ever since Chrome was released, and they haven't figured out how to get back or even keep their remaining user base.

If Mozilla wants to compete against Chrome, the only way they can do it is with better addons, and they should be kissing the addon developers asses and offer incentives to create more addons.

>>58711942
if you read further into the thread there's an interesting story about firebug and the crappy side of the legacy addons
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/dev-addons/2016-December/002389.html

>>58710395
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/user/quicksaver/
These addons will stop working

The developers farewell:
http://fasezero.com/addons/

>>58710638
Read this
>>58717800

>>58715626
for what purposes is webextensions better?

File: 1479974312155.png (569KB, 650x391px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 650x391px

youtube-dl is basically last resort now.

chrome bookmarking is garbage, google gives no fucks about autist like me who has 100k bookmarks to manage.

I'm so butthurt right now.

>>58711046
Australis was one of the worst things to happen to Firefox

>>58717776
>they should be kissing the addon developers asses and offer incentives to create more addons
they are to a certain extent, they invited addon developers to a project, webextensions experiments, where they basically ask for APIs and firefox devs and mozilla employees work with them toward implementation. Still, that takes more time than we have.

And a lot of developers don't want to ask for APIs so that they can rewrite huge addons, they just want to hear "your addons will work forever without rewriting". It's just not possible to do that while properly fixing the issues like the ones you mention. For large parts of the codebase, any change is burdened by the fact that it could break ancient extension compatibility rules. Those can be changed...if you want the review process to drag out over years. Mozilla didn't have to pick webextensions, but even if, say, chromium used a chromium-specific system analogous to XUL that firefox couldn't adopt, XUL would still be headed for total deprecation.

There really should be a version that continues support for legacy addons until there's something resembling API parity. Mozilla is trying to be bold, which makes sense given that firefox is losing, but don't tell everyone to "just be patient" when our favorite addons go dark.

>>58713764
really? I guess if he called the majority of mozilla devs will move to his company.

>>58717669
copy files and folders from your profile. Find its location via about:support

>>58717993
Why would anyone involved with firefox want to work on Brave? It still shocks me that someone involved with a long-term project like mozilla ended up doing a garden variety VC cash grab.

File: 2016-05-05.png (61KB, 1004x1374px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1004x1374px

>>58710222
I'll wait and see.

>>58710482
>It's the majority of /g/

>>58717940
>fix issues like the ones you mention
what the fuck could a fucking API possibly have to do with poor sound and video performance?

>>58717940
>there really should be a version

>>58717993
this can be solved.
1 Create a db of webex and old xul features
2 examine the code and find which features can be fully replaced with webex
3 approve an addon into amo only if all of the xul features having alternative in webex are replaced with webex. For features not present in webex there must be a bug in bug tracker to be an addon approved without webex.
4 NO WONTFIX RESOLUTIONS

>>58718017
not on brave, but on ff fork. If mozilla have made brandon out, brandon should take mozilla with him.

>>58718055
>5 developers slowly vandalize their own addons of useful functionality theyve putten their time and effort into

charming perspective

>>58718081
abd strip off
fix

>>58718033
>voluntary response survey
>accurate

>>58718081

?? webex is future. But it is too early to ask devs to rewrite the addons. also there should be a tool like 2to3. Another solution is to create a fake old xul api above webex when webex got enough feature coverage

>>58718037
Specifically? How should I know? But for several simple-sounding UI bugs (including firefox being unable to draw tabs on the title bar in GNOME) are actually extremely hard because "fixing" the relevant code breaks hundreds of addons. In the whole project, a lot of code could be streamlined or modernized, but not without breaking addons and/or outdated tests.

So if a bug is there because the code is a mess, it's a good bet that XUL is partly to blame.

>chromium has no addons
>chromium has no features
>the only other browser is chromium
I think it's time to give up

>>58718103
firefox not having addons doesn't make chromium less of a botnet

>>58718103

>chromium is driven by google to track and surveil users

>>58710222
Good. It's been infected with sjw bullshit for the past two years.

Using Chrome these days.

>>58718103
the only addon you absolutely need is ublock. everything else is really not necessity

>>58710222
I'll keep using 56.

>>58718121
too fat

>>58718100
How and why is it future? Even if it is, who said it is a good future?
>fake xul api
Exactly my point! but its sadly not where mozilla is heading. As already mentioned in the thread webex is high level api and as such cannot substitute xul

>>58710759
At least fx is not a google botnet.

>>58711664
And this is exactly why they would drop those features in the first place, minimize the things you need to port to e10s or now the new API. Mozilla just outsources those responsibilities to the community.

>>58718102
Xul code might be to blame for minor pretty much irrelevant ui bugs like the one you mentioned but the API in itself can not!

>>58718156
>what is iridium
>what is inox
>what is ungoogled chromium

>>58718156
everything is a google botnet these days. in fact, you're posting on one right now

>>58718115
>>58718119
ungoogled-chromium is a good fork, still no addons or features mind you.
>>58718133
The majority of my addons fix firefox blunders or flaws which I think are "needed"

>>58718165
The API is inseparable from the code, which is the problem. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't say things like "the API has absolutely nothing to do with xyz"

>>58711520
NoScript I can do without. I have Umatrix.
>>58715588

>>58718176
What I mean is that it would be better to reimplement the existing API, possibly with a few changes

>we need progress for progress' sake
>get rid of old things even if they work we need something new and shiny, even if it's shit
>always forwards

I saw this shit coming as soon as they ousted Eich. Mozilla is converged and thus is not long for this world.

>>58718175
I might personally use such rebuilds of chromium, but their existence doesn't matter as long as google ensures that they are inferior to a chromium built with google shit.

>>58718225
Just how are their inferior.? Not receiving updates as fast?

>>58718225
I'm curious how you could possibly believe they're inferior

>>58718250
Not receiving updates in s timely manner. No x86builds for ungoogled. Possibility that botnet still makes its way to the user

>>58710222
>Not using servo

File: 0000328647-innerl1-460x280.jpg (29KB, 460x280px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 460x280px

New firefox benching extension here /g/ays

>>58718233
>>58718250
can't install addons from the web store on ungoogled. Unreliable process for getting widevine on all.

>>58718266
t b h I didn't realize there were people online that still believed security existed.

>>58718293
There is an addon/script which gets around it, can't remember the name.
>widevine
Apparently this is DRM, why would you want DRM

>>58718293
Is there any other way?
>widevine
Whats that?
>>58718294
Its a typical sword vs.shield situation. you dont go full botnet just because there is no absolute security, its childish

>>58718320
If I have to install an addon to get basic functionality, then it's in the category of "I can use it, but non-technical people can't".

If you ever try to watch an official sports broadcast that managed to drop flash, it's going to use widevine. I'm sadly not purist enough to swear off all DRM including the least shitty ones. Firefox uses HTML5 EME to automatically get such extensions as needed or something, so it doesn't need to ship with it.

>>58711046
>anybody who opposes any change in a piece of software, regardless of their reasoning for doing so, is just a baby duck

Nice meme fag

>>58717799
>one addon misbehaving
>lets gut the entire ecosystem

Wew lad

>>58718376
ever heard of an illustrative example?

>>58712167
>implying developers of current extensions will keep working on software only applicable to 10%(people who are smart enough to care) of 8%(FF's marketshare in a year) of 40%(because a majority are mobileshitters now) of web users

>implying those extensions will have a secure, agreed-upon home that just werks and blocks malware like AMO

Mozilla isn't only affecting itself. It's destroying a community.

>>58718326
I was making the point that believing slightly faster updates will somehow mitigate serious threats is quite naive.

>>58718361
If installing an addon is too much effort then it's likely you're already in the botnet and you have no use for such a browser.
>If you ever try to watch an official sports broadcast
I don't.

>>58718382
Ever heard of logical fallacy and the expression " to throw out the child along with the bath"

>>58714632
>it's just this one, latest thing driving all of it
>ignoring context
>implying this latest thing isn't reason enough by itself
>implying this isn't the capstone of a long series of bad decisions made chasing a vision most firefox users don't care about or share

>>58718430
After a serious vulnerability is published anyone can use it on you, anon, without even having to pay for it

>>58716308
They promised VImperator too, so when?

>>58711705
ublock and umatrix don't modify the UI of the browser at all apart from adding toolbar buttons.

>>58716497
> NoScript
No, it's not. Author already made embedded webextension inside of it.
> Self-Destructing Cookies
I'ts already gone with e10s.

>>58711830
you have to visit the site to get the favicon

>>58718430
>If installing an addon is too much effort then it's likely you're already in the botnet and you have no use for such a browser.
I hate to go all Stallman but, everyone has a use for increased freedom and privacy. If the early mozillians had based their decisions around "only neckbeards deserve a browser with open standards, software freedom, and organizational transparency", then IE would probably still be the #1 browser.

>>58718458
If someone is specifically targeting you I don't think you have to worry about known vulns famlalam

>>58716308
>tree-style tabs
>not super-light and FOSS Tab Tree

>>58718483
Until chrome came along, yeah.

>>58718483
No, Opera would've been the browser of choice.

>>58718504
>Until chrome came along, yeah.
in an alternate universe where firefox growth never put pressure on MS, would widely used open standards exist for chrome to work with? New technologies would probably be developed and owned by Microsoft, like ActiveX

>>58718517
Nevermind, I'm half awake and looking at it from a "power user" perspective rather than a freetard perspective

File: 2017-01-30-21:21:35-(1) -g- - FF is dying - Technology - 4chan - Nightly.png (312KB, 2560x1386px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 2560x1386px

can we just post our autistic setups and be happy for a little while longer

>>58710222
Go 52.6 ESR

I think its time for /g/ develop our fork.

>>58718504
Yes, but if thats not the case [[which it rarely is] i have to worry about publuc stuff.

Tab tree? Is it more lightweight than "vertical tabs"? Might give it a try

cvim is basically vimperator or pentadactyl i chrome, why it's wasn't ported already? Screw shit like VimFx.

>>58711536
They didn't. Everyone in Mozilla knew about his donation to the anti-gay foundation. If they really wanted to fire him for his political views, they would have fired him years prior.

Instead they named him CEO, and when the Tumblrinas discovered his background and started whining in social media and called to sabotage Mozilla, they asked him to step down and offered him a new position in Mozilla. He refused, quit and started his own company with blackjack and hookers.

All this "LOL SJWZILLA IS FINISHED KEKKEKKEK" threads exist solely because there are some anons retarded enough to believe he was fired for his political views and, ironically, want to sabotage Mozilla for that.

>>58718612
>they didn't fire him for his political views
>they fired him for social media idiots yelling about his political views
>whoops they only asked him to step down, that's not the same as firing :^)

Do you understand how retarded you sound?

>>58718576
In which case uBo + uMatrix will negate 99% of security issues.

The lightest that I've found and just werks, try it.

>>58718612
Do you expect anything else from the rabid anti-SJW crowd? Like SJWs they decide who the bad guy is before even looking at a situation, and their childish worldview doesn't allow anything to be unrelated to their chosen form of political persecution.

File: mApVk3v.jpg (215KB, 1280x1109px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1280x1109px

>>58718689

>>58718663
In business, C-suite people have to shuffle around for PR reasons all the time. If he can't gracefully step aside to calm a fiasco over something bullshit or not his fault, he's not suited to be an executive in a large organization.

>>58717850
Sandboxing.

This is literally it. The current addon framework gives them all sorts of problems when trying to sandbox individual tabs.

Webextensions also allows to manage addon permissions and is "easier" to develop.

>>58710222

I skipped FF entirely and went with Pale moon. Shit is cash.

>>58718720
>donating money to a political cause means you should have to step down
>but only if it's a cause I disagree with

God I'm so glad mozilla is dead. Fuck you idiotic progressive retards.

>>58718717
That strawman only applies when people call them sexist. At least get your shitposts straight.

>>58710222
Wat happened to that fox.
:(

>>58718745
Don't you have a BLM riot to attend or something?

>>58718033
>konqueror
wut???

>>58718736
We're not on /pol/, you have to actually reply to what was said. no topical talking points.

File: tmp_11344-1483159379368614747950.png (15KB, 528x434px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 528x434px

>>58718736
>>58718717
>this is the current state of /g/ discussion

I want newfags to leave. Fuck gaymurrgayte for bringing all this cancer upon us.

>>58718666
Why use ublock? Umatrix has malivious domain blocking

>>58718965
To apply cosmetic filter.

>>58711916
Webextensions will never match the flexibility of XUL.

>>58719011
I like to see the results of my filtering

>>58719151
That's your choice. And mine would be that I don't wanna see anything.

>>58718017

>vc cash grab

Dude is trying to destroy the same clickbait fuckers who ruined his life

>>58715514
>implying somebody wont quickly make some replacements if theyre popular.

The new api can't do some of the shit needed for this addons to work.

Less powerful api equals to less powerful addons.

>>58719250
What? Can you explain?

>>58710638
>Mozilla is working together with addon developers to expand those APIs to make sure their addons will continue to work.

With webextensions if you need something that the api can't do you need to ask mozilla to add support for whatever is needed for your extension to work into the browser.

They want to replace low level access with a bunch of high level apis, it's ridiculous.

>>58718163
>Mozilla just outsources those responsibilities to the community.
And then make enough changes to make impossible for the community to take on those responsibilities.

>>58719250
If he thought a browser with built in ads and bitcoins had any chance of getting big (in 2015 when it was already clear bitcoin was doomed, no less), he's worse than the average startuptard

>>58717993
>really? I guess if he called the majority of mozilla devs will move to his company.
Probably not I'd imagine. A lot of the devs are working with or at Mozilla because they use and want to improve Firefox and Gecko. A lot of the devs probably never even met Eich much less got to know him on a personal level.

Is it possible to reinvent firefox using servo with old API structure that is compatible with current e10s compatible add-on?

>>58710222
Firefox esr :)

>>58719560
Would require a significant amount of work. The old addons were made without multithreading/multiprocess so they kinda run like shit also.

>>58719560
Possible? I guess you could have a giant piece of software that translates every possible XUL call into something that servo and its UI understand. But even if anyone wanted to write and maintain that, it would be complete shit/useless for writing new addons, because the calls wouldn't have much to do with the actual browser.

>>58718572
I'll make the logo.

>>58719633
What really matters is xpcom, not xul

The last time I had an extension installed was over five years ago, in any of my browsers. Firefox gets worse over time, but plugins are the least of those worries.

>>58720060
How do you live without an adblocker? you block them on the network level? HOST?

That, and lastpass are the only addons I use.

>>58718133

>necessity

Who gives a shit, I want a way to control referrers, cross site scripting, javascript, useragent spoofing, cookie control, etc

>>58720108
I don't go to websites with ads, because if a website has an ad, it's a bad website. It's as simple as that, really.
Or maybe I just mentally block them. I'm not sure by now.

>>58720135
umatrix should work as a webextension as well

>>58720147
Alright. I mean I did that too so I know it can be done. But it's also a security measure to block ads, and it makes sites load faster.

Anyways, what browser do you prefer then, seeing as addons has no hold over you?

>>58720215
I preferred Opera 12 but I've moved to Firefox for multiple reasons, sadly. Lots of sites do browser sniffing and refuse to display anything to a browser that's not IE, Chrome, or Firefox. Also, as I use Windows less often, I cannot use the closed-source Opera. Perhaps I'll compile the leaked sources, though.
On the topic of security and fast loading though, I actually used to have Javascript disabled most of the time in Opera, since Opera had a very easy-to-use on/off switch for JS. Firefox used to have a somewhat easy switch, but it was removed to about:config since Mozilla is retarded. Having JS disabled removes most ads, by the way.
I also use Chromium for Youtube and gmail, and occasionally other Google products, since Google intentionally makes them work worse in other browsers.
I'm surprised that Mozilla hasn't dropped Thunderbird yet despite threatening to do so: it's my usenet client.

>>58710293
>tree-style tabs
>tabgroups
Can someone explain this meme to me?
t. Newfag

>>58718093
yep, you can take this poll in desktop thread and it will be like 100% firefox because of custom css autism

it is only shows that worst half of /g/ are firefags

>>58720275
Alright man. I agree Opera was a decent browser once. Now it's just a chinese chromium copy.

True that disabling JS is certainly more secure, but nowadays even simple sites simply won't work without it.

As for browsers, I'm stuck on the same, a little Firefox and a little Chrome(ium).

I also keep an eye on Vivaldi, but they have long to go.

>>58717935
If it's just Australis, try SeaMonkey. SeaMonkey feels slower for some reason, though.

>>58720337
>even simple sites simply won't work without it
True. That's why being able to switch it on and off quickly was wonderful. If you can turn it on and off in a couple keystrokes, it doesn't matter if a site needs JS or not.
>Vivaldi
The thing is, closed-source isn't even an option for me anymore. I've stopped using Windows except for rare occasions.

>>58720389
I used to bind noscript "temporarily allow this page" toggling with ~ button in vimperator

>>58720277
google addons mozilla tab groups

>>58720477
Neat, but that should really be a feature that comes with the browser, as Opera 12 did it.

>>58720337
Opera is still the best browser. It's merely currently outdated. Chropera, on the other hand, is a failed abortion. Admittedly, however, I think it would be my browser of choice if I had to go with one from the WebKit family

>>58720365
That's odd, SeaMonkey's always seemed all around better to me, both in terms of performance and memory use (which is quite funny considering it has all this additional "bloat" Fx doesn't)

>>58720602
Opera itself isn't outdated, it's that websites use browsersniffing to intentionally not support Opera. Opera works perfectly fine on good websites. As for blink, I'd probably use Chromium rather than Chropera. Haven't used any webkit browsers in a long time.
>SeaMonkey's always seemed all around better to me
I hear that from people, but it seems to be different for me. No idea.

>>58720629
I know quite well how Opera functions in modern times, it's my main browser. Yes it does still work. Yes, some sites do break it on purpose (looking at you, Google Images), but there are also sites that simply do not work. Opera is clearly still a functional browser but to say that after three and a half years of no updates that it's not outdated is just plain wrong.

>>58720684
May I ask why you think it's outdated? It supports HTML5, right?

File: Screen Shot 2017-01-30 at 10.24.37 AM.png (20KB, 682x133px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 682x133px

>>58720695
It's a browser. A few months without an update means it's outdated. Period. Also HTML5 was a mere standard in development. Opera supported part of it but as HTML5 matured (and Opera obviously hadn't been) its HTML5 score has been slowly dropping. I can remember having it in the 360s or 370s back when it died. Not to mention that Caraken is also definitely showing its age. If it wasn't for scriptweeder, Opera would be unusable. Also there's the fact that any website with ECC must now be accessed using a different browser as Opera is merely too old to be capable of it.

>>58720804
I see.

>>58718148
it can be used for low-level things, but it is needed to be expanded a lot in order to do so.

webex is future because it is crossbrowser and is meant to be stable enough.

>>58713109
Nothing. It's just the biggest threat when it comes to taking away power users from FF so the mozzarella shills go hard on it.

File: no, you are fatass.png (198KB, 1790x982px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1790x982px

I've been Firefox user since version 1.6.

With every release it's becoming more and more bloated, memory hungry (pic related) and unresponsive. I really do not know what are they doing at Moz but it can't be anything good.

When I get fed-up, I'll probably switch to [spoiler]Vivaldi[/spoiler].

>>58721373
>low level API
community develops powerful addons
>high level API
the responsibility for the functionality of addons now largely depends on mozilla staff, because what was earlier up to enthusiasts to code now must be explicitly added to the API

i dont think they'll be able to substitute the community

>>58720277
I use tab groups.

They're really useful when you have a few hundred tabs open at a time and can logically cluster certain tabs together. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to effectively navigate.