It's happening! Chromefags BTFO!

>>59269504
What is happening?

>>59269529
new release

>>59269504
This is the final ESR because next one will be a chrome reskin. Also, this one drops ALSA so I'm hesitant to use it after 45 dies. I'm just glad plugins are dead on stable.

>>59269533
What's new?

Nice changelog.

My Firefox is broken anyway. Videos just continually stutter. Been using ungoogled chromium for a month with max speed and no issues.

>>59269541
Expect release notes either later today or tomorrow.

>>59269541
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/52.0beta/releasenotes/

I switched to Chrome because pentadactyl kept breaking with every Firefox update.

>https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/52.0/
>https://ftp.mozilla.org/
>https://ftp

Goddamn nigger.

>>59269579
So nothing much,

Can you un-botnet chromium?

>>59269600
Plugins will become ESR only in 52 stable and it'll introduce webassembly and remove some fingering in stable.

File: 1398135965756.png (28KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 150x150px

>>59269626
No Google will rape you regardless. Ungoogled chromium is just a meme

>>59269538
Wtf is a chrome reskin?

>>59269652
From 57 and on, FF will just be chrome with a different UI. ESR 59 will also be affected.

>>59269595

Lots of sites include an http interface to their ftp servers. It's a one liner in Apache, it's more secure and faster than ftp and not all browsers natively support ftp directory listings. Triggering your autism is a small price to pay.

File: IMG_2605.jpg (59KB, 408x439px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 408x439px

>>59269679

File: Lennart_poettering_foss.in_2007.jpg (3MB, 3456x2304px)

3MB, 3456x2304px

Is this the version that requires Pulseaudio on Linux for audio?

File: .png (263KB, 689x443px)

263KB, 689x443px

Multi-process FF is still incompatible with tons of addons. Shit's a joke right now.

>>59269727
Firefox 57: November 28, 2017:

> Legacy add-ons are no longer supported. Firefox won't load legacy add-ons anymore. Firefox 57 is WebExtensions exclusive-

> Multi-process compatibility shims are removed from Firefox.

> Legacy add-ons remain on AMO for the time being. Mozilla has yet to announce a deadline for end of support for these listings (the listings may still be updated for instance)

>>59269504
WTF, where is my Waterfox update?

>>59269752
Yup. No other browser does this. Makes you think.

>>59269504
>2k17
>not using Nightly
I'm already 54.0a1, nigger.

Possible arguments against Nightly and and counter-arguments to them:
>but muh botnet
Disable it in about:config or use 'Privacy Settings' extension if you're lazy.

>but muh instability
I'm using nightly with 22 extensions, and yet Nightly hadn't crashed for me.

>>59269769
It's deprecated. Use 64-bit Firefox instead.

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2017-03-06T18-33-53.095Z.png (26KB, 807x119px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 807x119px

>>59269769
>using placebo firefox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfox

>>59269533
It's happening every month, nothing too spectacular.

>>59269793
All my extensions are Webextension now from now on, are you still using outdated ones, are you nigger?

>>59269754
>winblows 10
Your OS is the joke right there.

>>59269862
But new ESR is once in half-year, nigger.

>>59269825
Hmm, that definitely sounds bad. Switching to nightly.

>>59269927
Just disable telemetry in about:config:
dom.enable_performance = false
datareporting.healthreport.service.enabled = false
datareporting.healthreport.uploadEnabled = false
toolkit.telemetry.enabled = false
toolkit.telemetry.unified = false

>>59269878
>linux
your life is a joke

>>59269885
New ESR also happen every month.

File: 1331948827664.jpg (27KB, 459x327px)

27KB, 459x327px

How can the new FF being a chrome resking if it is still slower than chrome?

>>59269966
Thanks :)

>>59269970
It's just security updates, nigger. This is new ESR right now.

>>59269970
Just an update, new release is once a year.

>>59269966
.>>59269979
Send telemetry, you stupid nigger. Make Firefox great again.

>>59269998
I know, base changes once every five or six months, but it gets updates every month.

>>59269995
>it doesn't get any updates for half a year
>it gets security updates every month
I don't know, I feel like talking with someone who has an IQ bellow 50.

>>59270009
How will knowing what I fap to make it easier to "make firefox great again"?

>>59269966
>using preview and dev Firefox builds
>disables the telemetry that helps devs create a better, stable Firefox

>>59270040
Nigger, listen. Updates every month are are security ones for old ESR, this is new ESR, on which are gonna be based torbrowser and IceCat, with optimisations and such, addons can drop old codebase.

File: 1439766508674.jpg (27KB, 562x462px)

27KB, 562x462px

>>59269878

>>59270056
>>59270082

>>59269756
How does this make it chrome?

>>59270066
If I wanted telemetry to """help""" devs, I'd be using chrome.

>>59270100
Same addons as in Chrome.

File: 1404066303190_.png (36KB, 241x230px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 241x230px

>>59270082
>updates come every month
>but they are not updates
Jesus fucking Christ allmighty on a pogo stick, /b/ is more competent than you are! hahaha

>>59269966
I don't see datareporting.healthreport.service.enabled. Does this mean it should be ignored or is there another name to look for?

Remember: THIS IS THE LAST GOOD VERSION OF FF
It's time to ESR

>>59270123
It's just security updates, but these are new features/changes/fixes. Nigger.

>>59270103
They just collect data to sell, Mozilla uses it to make a better browser.

File: 1446399307091.png (59KB, 576x507px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 576x507px

>>59270145
>updates that are't updates
A whole new level of incompetence

File: Screenshot_20170306_200015.png (56KB, 1366x732px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1366x732px

>>59270126
Type datareporting.healthreport in aboutconfig,
and make both boolean(true or false) values false, so it looks like pic related.

>>59270168
Do you know difference between major and minor updates, you stupid nigger? This is major update.

File: 2017-03-06 13_05_02-Documents.png (17KB, 1917x199px)

17KB, 1917x199px

>>59270175
I only have one boolean value.

File: 1464518883901.jpg (206KB, 540x720px)

206KB, 540x720px

>>59270186
>it's too small

>>59270221
Ok, then ignore that. Maybe after setting other values to false and restarting that value will show up.

>>59270240
I can confirm that isn't the case. I had a minor update I needed to do to Nightly, so I just restarted my browser with all the values at false. Still three values. Well, guess you can't worry about something that doesn't exist at all, perhaps you need data gathered for it to be visible in the first place.

>>59270126
My guess is then that it is enabled by default

right click - new - boolean - and create an entry with those values

>>59270230
Size matters, you chink fuck.

File: nightly.png (138KB, 620x277px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 620x277px

Just did a git pull and compiled from source... looks like Nightly still hasn't been bumped to 55 :(

>>59270287
I just said that, but your claimed yours are too small to even count as the real thing (;

>>59270290
I was referring to the three results when you search for datareporting.healthreport.

>>59270276
Thanks very much, should have realized I could just add the value manually. Not sure if it did anything of importance, but at least it is set to the right value and so if it decides to appear it won't be on.

>>59270162
I wont trust any company to collect data about me. No matter what do they do with that data.

Yay! Finally, Firefox has multiple processes open on my PC! It's about time Firefox got going, it was disheartening seeing Firefox be so far behind the rest.

>>59269504
>unironically shilling SJWfox

kys

>>59269504
WTF I like firefox now

>>59270168
>psu on top
>monitor not even connected to motherboard nor GPU other than fucking audio

kys

>>59270753
>WTF
>not wtf
Embarrassing.

>>59270314
tomorrow

>>59270568
> unironically claiming that you can shill open-source
kys

>>59270808
What? o.O

>>59270568
You can't shill free software.

>>59269504
Why is regular adblocker not on Firefox? Call me a cuck but I like the youtube whitelist feature.

>>59271619
they ended all support for plugins

why is firefox still considered a browser? its a sandboxed OS.

>>59269551
>Videos just continually stutter.
if you're on lignux, this can likely be fixed by going into about:config and setting gfx.xrender.enabled to false.

>>59271619
>>59271655
An adblocker would be an extension, not a plugin and plugins are still supported in ESR.

>>59269504
>2017
>not embracing the chrome botnet

>>59272180
Thanks I'll give it a try

>>59271655
>Sandboxed OS

Why so?

>>59272423
So why is adblock not on Firefox?

>>59269595
Actually ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/ doesn't work.

>>59269756
Does this also affect Firefox Aurora?

are the beta/nightly editions of firefox worth using? Or are they just memes?

>>59272910
I'm using FF beta.

Nightly is ok to use, but expect crashes at times

>Tfw still using Dev Edition 52 because Mozilla completely fucked up the tab titles in 53 and above

>>59269646
I FUCKING REMEMBER THAT GAME

Good thing Palemoon has had its own apps since forever

>>59272180
My gfx.xrender.enabled is already false. It started around the time I started using Compton with glx, vsync and opengl-swc.

>>59269504
Does this mean that addons like Noscript won't fully protect you anymore like in Chrome?

>>59274539
firefox is extending beyond chrome's webextensions api to allow better addons, they'll just also be compatible.

>powerful addon works in firefox
>won't work/dumbed down in chrome

>>59272713
Is just adblocker broken? If other extensions work, it's just adblocker and not firefox

>>59269775
because it allows you to mute tabs?

>>59274551
Interesting. Wonder why extensions like Firefogg won't be able to work anymore then.

>>59274609
probably just devs being slow to update their shit for e10s or something.

File: firefogg.png (25KB, 361x303px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 361x303px

>>59274629
I don't think that's the case.

I love firefox but it hangs every time I click a link, open a new tab or load a page with a lot of images or gifs. I think I will have to switch to chromium eventually.

>>59274653
then yeah the new API extensions aren't all in yet, it might be possible in the future but they're pretty awful at transitioning.

nightly users - do you build from source or use a prebuilt version?
also if compiling, do you do it ... nigtly? takes like 2 hrs for me to build firefox with pgo

>>59274288
Use release now. Should've switched to beta a long ago.

>>59269504
>Chrome
>No fucked. Grease monkey
Reeeeew

>>59269504
>chrome clone
>chromefags btfo, r-right? Go, Mozilla!
Why use an imitation when you can use the real thing.

>>59274551
>>59274671
They don't even won't add additional APIs to webextensions to rewrite systemd addons and test pilot ones, Activity Stream for example, because it's would be to much. They already rejected bunch of requests from developers for new APIs, so don't expect anything crazy from them. After all this is gonna be just minor limited high-level shit.

>nerd shit
>nerd shit
>some more nerd shit about web assembly
Go outdoors and get laid you beta cucks.

>>59274950
they're rejecting a lot of proposals, doesn't mean something of equal power and low-levelness won't make it in.

File: 998192371823.png (276KB, 434x468px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 434x468px

>>59269504
oh look, it's that browser with 14 year old bugs
>https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=226301

>>59274976
> doesn't mean something of equal power and low-levelness won't make it in.
No, it's not. Webextensions is high-level by design.

File: rendering.png (14KB, 1000x110px)

14KB, 1000x110px

>>59274834
>Use release now. Should've switched to beta a long ago.
Can't do that, I rely on the ability to install unsigned extensions. Besides, release and beta are going to get fucked over by the changes in tab titles that 53 brought about too.

>Japanese text no longer antialiased
>English text uses grayscale antialiasing instead of subpixel antialiasing

>>59275030
Right, but firefox is not relying on its design. It's doing its own thing.

>>59275045
> Can't do that, I rely on the ability to install unsigned extensions.
Install unbranded versions.
> Besides, release and beta are going to get fucked over by the changes in tab titles that 53 brought about too.
Use 52 ESR.

>>59275076
>Install unbranded versions.
I use x64 builds.

>Use 52 ESR.
Which is only delaying the inevitable once 57 comes out.

>>59275063
Own things, that are high-level. They don't gonna do something crazy anymore they couldn't maintain, so they not gonna go far from original Chrome-like addons. It's just gonna be some minor additions.

>>59270100
IT DOESNT

>>59270137
Last version for XP, sad!

>>59275102
> I use x64 builds.
They are available, it's just Firefox, but unbranded.
https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/tinderbox-builds/mozilla-beta-win64-add-on-devel/1488535177/

>>59275197
Oh, it's link beta, it's release now, but you can find what you want from there.

just switched to ESR because /g/ told me so

>>59275125
That's not true though, they're already far deeper than chrome's webextensions and they're competing for the other App APIs too.

>>59269878
I enjoy video games. How else do you expect me to play new releases?

>>59275197
That's still delaying the inevitable. Fx53 is the fuck-up. I have no clue what else they changed when they changed how tab title overflow is handled, but they fucked it up.

What's worse is that since every single other fucking browser out there can't be customized worth a fuck and/or is just a Chrome reskin, Firefox is the only option.

>>59275295
Dx11 is dead, that was the only thing holding games on windows in current year.

>>59275318
Firefox has always been the only option, even when it's a fucking awful option.

>>59275292
>they're already far deeper than chrome's webextension
Only shit they added so far that chrome doesn't have is containers shit:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/contextualIdentities
They are never gonna add something powerful and low-level anymore, it's their agenda now. So don't expect it.

>>59275334
Opera was the best option until it threw the baby out with the bathwater with version 15.

I have to have like 30+ extensions on Firefox just to make the goddamn thing usable. Of course, that won't work when they switch over to web-extensions only.

>>59275334
Dx12 is a meme and technically the same as Dx11.

>>59275339
You are completely mistaken, the reason the lower level things are delayed is because of their reliance on single-process firefox legacy shit. Once you can ACTUALLY sandbox lower level calls they're going to be available.

>>59275352
Never opera'd, but the addons that are required to make firefox usable have always been changing. Mostly cause devs abandon projects and another team takes up the task.

>>59275356
Directx generally is dead, yes.

Opera promised promised that they would add features from Presto back, and they never did. Don't expect any different from Mozilla.

>>59275372
>Vivaldi has added more features in 10 months than Opera has in the four fucking years since they switched to Blink.

>>59275367
> Once you can ACTUALLY sandbox lower level calls they're going to be available.
They never claimed it. There is only gonna be Webextensions.

>>59269504
Rest in peace, foxy.

52 esr is the last one I'm going to use if they really pull it off.

what's the bare minimum addons/extensions to have on firefox?
ublock, https everywhere, greasemonkey, stylish?

how will my gestures/tabmixplus/status4evar fare with the new versions?

>>59275435
ded

>>59275395
They claim it all over the bugtracker, where the discussions on API proposals are mostly handled. It's future-talk but they are getting firefox into a minimum usable state to handle any number of lower level calls IN A SANDBOX. Current addons are basically running with no limits to the ENTIRE system. That's why shit's getting pushed out.

File: file.png (34KB, 848x285px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 848x285px

This is it /g/uys. No more Java. Full botnet engaged.

>>59275460
Proof. They only promised additional APIs to Webextensions.

>>59275435
noscript, ublock whatever/umatrix, a userscript extension and httpse I guess is BAREST minimum. I have a lot of other security type extensions but most of them aren't REALLY necessary with a global blacklist on scripts/APIs on shit.

>>59275482
Proof of their discussions?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1247628 is an example. I haven't followed many others, but they're around.

>>59272883
yes

>>59275515
>I have a lot of other security type extensions
so do i, and i believe those "bare minimum" addons will continue to work on future versions right? a lot of the others that i use are either iffy or not at all compatible

Protip: Running it in 32 Bit mode is quicker on homosex ;ˆ)

>>59275544
hard to say, noscript isn't exactly 100% e10s ready, but it does get actively developed so they'll probly be ready by the time it's enforced. The ones I use are at least minimally multiprocess-capable, i cut out the rest. They should be compatible for a while yet.

>>59274288
>not using stylish to rice your firefox
Why even use it?

>>59275579
have a list?

>>59275600
>still using stylish and not stylerrr

>>59275579
> hard to say, noscript isn't exactly 100% e10s ready
It's e10s compatible without shims, which is 100%.
You mean webextensions?

>>59275600
See the image in >>59275045

I have no idea how to fix that via Stylish or userChrome.css. If I could, it wouldn't be a problem.

>still not possible to block referral HTTP header in multiprocess

It will be killed with fire and hate against homosexuals and female devs.

File: ed.png (70KB, 185x195px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 185x195px

>>59269504
using waterfox/vivaldi right now, why should I switch?

>>59275612
tab mix plus or

.tabbrowser-tabs tab {
   
   rape and spit on females everyday;
homohate worldwide   
}

>>59275662
Tab Mix Plus does not fix it.

>>59275610
Last i checked it was all usafe CPOW, but it's probly updated since. Maybe it's good now.

>>59275629
why would you think that? I actually have two separate addons that can modify http headers right now.

>>59275673
I do as well, even two like you. But they do not work in multiprocess.

Multiprocess wouldn't work anyway because I need other extensions which don't work as well

>>59269969
>joke
your life is a windows

>>59275474
>Removed AR

Welp, just lost the entire small business/small office population right there, that is still essential. WTF are they doing?

a) about:config still around?
b) uBlock Origin port still possible, if not yet in the works?
c) skinning?

>>59275707
do they not have ppapi versions?

>>59275697
you can still modify http headers in multiprocess firefox, some addons might be dead though yeah.

File: 1488835304121.jpg (167KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1600x1200px

>"lol, we just have to hire homosexuals and make a funny meme on the search bar and then it's work like chrome"

>>59275711
Answered b for myself, dude's already working on it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20161102190146/http://www.ghacks.net/2016/10/30/firefox-ublock-origin-webextension-released/

>>59275673
Noscript is fully e10s now, bugtracker for it resolved and closed 3 month ago.

>>59275657
>Watefox
>>59269825
>Vivaldi
Closed source botnet.

>>59275790
>Closed source botnet.
Boo fucking hoo, cry harder

>>59275758
It's already done, major bugs resolved, but issue is not yet closed expecting minor bugs. You don't need to worry about adblockers and such, they are already existing on chrome and don't need low-level APIs.

>>59275745
>>59275707

Yeah, use the chrome extension. What a bunch of cucks.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/chromification-continues-firefox-may-use-chrome-s-pdf-and-flash-plugins-508832.shtml

>>59275819
turning 2 binary-blob containment ghettos into 1, yes.

>>59275805
Why you would use closed source botnet when you have full open-source Firefox and Chromium (not really)?

File: 117547-200x300-Angryman.jpg (10KB, 200x300px)

10KB, 200x300px

I use seamonkey, I don't need your new fangled web features.

>>59275853
Why would you care what I do? Don't you have anything productive to do with your time?

Owait, you're an opensourcelet, you don't.

>>59275855
Seamonkey is based on Firefox, so changes is gonna go down there too.

>>59275819
Mozilla should really just stop developing Firefox and Servo. If they want to be Chrome, they should just use Blink and get it over with.

>>59275807
Nifty.

Sounds like about:config will still be around, but addons won't be able to reach into it. Looks like my user.js still applies, though.

Which leaves skinning. Wouldn't even bother if Firefox's UI people could make it look not-goddamn-terrible.

>>59275867
> Why would you care what I do?
Because you come here and shill Vivaldi.

>>59275887
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/02/25/mozilla-reveals-plan-for-themes-in-firefox/

>>59275923
Stop putting words in my mouth, you retarded piece of shit.

If a browser is open source or not is irrelevant for the end user.
If you don't have a firewall blocking outgoind connections right as they happen, you cannot even trust open source software.
Open source means that everybody can get a voice. Even people that think that there are more than 2 genders, lesbian, gays or fucking retards that just want to start havok and destroy a perfectly fine ecosystem (like it is happening right now with mozilla).

>>59269504
I haven't used firefox in like a month, I had this setup where I could switch between current release and 28 but it just ends up being a hassle when you want to open up the browser real quick, updating but come on op, all browsers still suck

How do I tell if an addon I have will be compatible?

>>59275474
So how I run java applets?

>>59275942
That sounds not-totally-fucking-terrible. As long as I can continue to change their hideous, rounded tabs, I'm content.

I can't imagine how disappointing this is for the people with a billion and one addons, though. Do they ever think they're going to get the market share they had back by aping Chrome? These dolts do realize mom and pop picked it up because "The Google told us to", right?

>>59275994
Won't know til it hits beta anyway.

>>59275994
With what? e10s or Webextensions?

>>59276023
>These dolts do realize mom and pop picked it up because "The Google told us to", right?
You grossly overestimate the sense of Firefox developers. This is the group of people that decided to remove Tab Groups because "not enough people use them."

>>59276027
Both.

>>59276037
I don't think the developers have been in charge for a long time, now. The less-is-more crowd, on the other hand...

>>59276037
>>59276048
Thats a job for an addon anyway. 99% of firefox "features" should have been developed as in house extensions from the get go.

>>59276023
> I can't imagine how disappointing this is for the people with a billion and one addons, though. Do they ever think they're going to get the market share they had back by aping Chrome? These dolts do realize mom and pop picked it up because "The Google told us to", right?
That autists disable telemetry and Mozilla now thinks that there are just too few of them to even bother. Power users BTFO.

Firefox >52 is like the AMD of browsers:
Retarded.

>>59276067
>Thats a job for an addon anyway.
Which has been abandoned by the add-on developer due to Mozilla's plan to only support WebExtensions and give certain add-on developers special treatment to make their add-ons compatible while leaving others like the devs of DownThemAll out in the cold.

>>59276037
Shouldn't have been a part of firefox to start with. I want Mozilla to stop introducing these fucking crap features and start working on the performance, security, and stability.

>>59276076
>Foxes live in packs

Anon & Mozilla, I've got news for you.

>>59276084
>I want Mozilla to stop introducing these fucking crap features and start working on the performance, security, and stability.
Alright, so you're in favor of future versions of Firefox removing bookmarks, history, and tabs.

>>59276038
You don't need to bother with e10s anymore then, it's not matters anymore since there is gonna be only Webextensions.
Go to an addon's AMO page. There is a Permissions link next to the install button. If there is a yellow warning symbol next to the link, it is a legacy addon and if there isn't, it is a webextensions.

Why is mozilla so shit?
Is it top down?
Can they simply not attract talent and only get dregs?

>>59276114
There's no benefit in doing any of that. I don't mind Mozilla breaking firefox into components that can be independently updated though.

>>59276137
>There's no benefit in doing any of that.
Removing features will increase performance, security, and stability. That's what you said you wanted.

>>59276119
Well most of mine are legacy.
When should I stop updating?

>>59276083
But someone will come and pick up the torch later when the means are available again. Firefox is literally being rebuilt from the ground up so keeping projects on the same codebase as they would have been in 2001 or something MIGHT not be the best option either. There's not an easy compromise solution (yet).

>>59276144
None of that is blocking security, performance, or stability updates.

It's happening! FF55 released.

>>59276155
Install 52 ESR, it's going to stay 52 until 2018-something

>>59276174
>Firefox is literally being rebuilt from the ground up
There's literally zero need for that since they're working on Servo at the same time.

They should be leaving Firefox alone, only updating it for security patches while they spend all of their actual development time on Servo.

>>59276155
57. Go back to ESR 52 after 56 or stick to it now.

>>59276194
The fart noises from their gapes anusses prevent them from having clear thought

>>59276194
They're something even better than that, they're updating both together.

>>59276194
>>59276219
Servo isn't a standalone browser. Servo is a tech-demo of the new rendering engine that will be part of firefox/quantum later. All of their projects are still the same project at different stages of development.

What's Servo for? Replacing Gecko in long term?

>>59276241
Maybe.

>>59276194
> only updating it for security patches
They already kinda did it while they were occupied with Firefox OS and look in what shithole they are now. We had years of minor releases and now shit is hitting fans.
> spend all of their actual development time on Servo.
They explained why they wouldn't do it when they announced Project Quantum.

>>59276274
>They explained why they wouldn't do it when they announced Project Quantum.
And they most likely lied.

The competent guys having built the base are long gone. Otherwise we wouldn't have to ditch old code bases for web ext - there's no denying that.

>>59276177
Until they do.

Mozilla's modus operandi is to remove what they can't improve.

>>59269632
So for the most part. Nothing

I'm thinking of switching from Chrome only because Chrome is butt ugly and they don't let you change anything other than the background wallpaper

>>59270100
It doesn't.

Firefox is switching to the same API standard for addons that Chrome uses, but then expanding it to include more functionality, allowing for more powerful addons.

It still sucks imho, but I get why they're doing it (security + stability + less legacy code weighing things down).

I heard that they are thinking about dropping aurora release, so Nightly would go straight into beta. Has anyone have links with discussions about it?

>>59276374
I kinda wish they would having two unstable releases is redundant.

>>59276370
They're calling it API triage for now. Trying to kill things in the order of most-fucked, then build back up to complete functionality later on top of a proper running browser.

Chrome's webextensions are the MINIMUM level of functionality they're willing to live with during the process of completely restarting their browser development.

>>59269504

why is chromse so fast fffffffffffffuck

Does this mean that icecat will finally get updated? Praise rms if so

>>59269646
> I just parrot what others say instead of looking at the code

>ftp
didn't firefox remove that

>>59275875
I honestly don't see how. Killing the modular nature of Firefox seems like it would kill the parts of SeaMonkey that make up the former Mozilla/Netscape suite aspects. Basically what makes SeaMonkey, SeaMonkey. My best guess is the two browsers are going to be irreconcilable soon. However, since we seldom get significant word from SeaMonkey devs just a new update every 6 to 10 months. Who knows what they'll do.

>>59275875
>Seamonkey is based on Firefox,
Nope. SeaMonkey and Firefox are both based on Mozilla but SeaMonkey is not directly based on Firefox. They're like siblings rather than parent and child. SeaMonkey devs copy rendering engine updates over from Firefox but they basically don't bother with anything else unless it interests them.

>Touch events are finally implemented
Fx is now perfect on touchscreens. Smoother than Edge, too

>>59276774
>I just deny what others say without actually looking at the code.

>>59277473
> You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore, there is a 50% chance he exists.

GUYS IS FIREFOX GETTING CHROMED?! PLEASE MY HANDS ARE LITERALLY SHAKING RIGHT NOW, SOMEONE START A PETITION TO STOP THIS.

>>59274560
I mean, there's Adblocker plus, but regular Adblocker, the one which lets you whitelist youtube channels, is not a available for Firefox at all.

File: 1467098362831.jpg (49KB, 300x392px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 300x392px

>>59277592
>botnet retard is also an atheist

Can't say anyone is surprised.

is tree style tabs kill?

>>59269632
What does that mean to the average shitposter?

>>59278435
>is tree style tabs kill?
ARE tree style tabs kill?

Learn to fucking grammer fucktard

>>59278579
Tree Style Tabs is the name of an extension. If you're going to criticize him for grammar, you should have criticized him for saying "kill" instead of "dead."

Of course, that's not even mentioning the fact that all grammar rules were literally made up anyway.

>>59278630
>Of course, that's not even mentioning the fact that all grammar rules were literally made up anyway.
So we can have structure in this shitty ass language.

File: 1488429593332.jpg (87KB, 409x409px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 409x409px

>>59278425
>he's not an atheist

>all this arguing over web browsers
why doesn't someone just write a program that can only view html files you have stored on your computer.
it won't follow links you click on, unless you have the destination file downloaded, because it would be like a photo viewer but for webpages.
people can use curl or wget or whatever to download whatever webpages they want.
image/audio/video files will be opened with whatever preferred program you have.
you won't have to worry about the program not gaining traction because it will be aimed towards /g/ people and only /g/ people will use it.

you have all these threads about programming, so then why don't you put it to use? change how you interact with the web and really unix it up.

So since all browsers are fucking shit now, how difficult would it be to create an entirely new one? Would it be feasbile to fork an older version of FF, or does this type of undertaking require a whole team?

File: 1488664803154.png (212KB, 333x325px)

212KB, 333x325px

>>59269504
>>59269504
GET YOUR SHIT AND GET OUT

>>59279465
STOP POSTING THIS SHIT EVERYDAY

WE KNOW IT"S YOU MOOT U FUCK

File: huh.png (127KB, 467x333px)

127KB, 467x333px

>>59279475
>MOOT

wow it's much faster now and doesn't hang good job mozilla

>>59279552
im on to you moot you google shiller

>>59270123
(major) esr releases introduce new "features" from regular releases and happen about once a year

esr updates are security backports only and happen when needed

why the fuck is firefox still so choppy when scrolling holy fuck

>>59280562
also, even nightly is smoother than the stable release

>>59269862
With nightly is everyday

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck this gay ass Firefox update shit god damn I AM SO RAGE RIGHT NOW

Update 51 broke half my plugins, really broke them to shit and I had to reconfigute shit for like 30 minutes to not go crazy

Update 52 breaks the GOD FUCKING PLUGIN MANAGER WHY HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT HAPPEN MOZILLA WHY SWITCH THINGS AROUND YOU STUPID FUCK HEADS FUUUUUUUCK!

Not only that, firefox now requires PULSEAUDIO WHAT THE FUCK YOU FUCKING IDIOTS MOZILLA NOW MY SOUND DOESNT WORK I DONT CARE HOW MANY BACKENDS YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN THIS SHIT BREAKS MY USER EXPERIENCE IN A MASSIVE WAY YOU FUCKING IDIOTS FUCK FUCK

And Firefox was the last browser i could reasonably use, and Mozilla find it in their idiotic brains to FUCK MY SHIT UP EVERY FUCKING UPDATE FUCK FUCK IM SO FUCKING ANGRY

What the fuck was that Pocket acquisition about, that money would have been better spent NOT BREAKING MY FUCKING BROWSER EVERY UPDATE YOU STUPID FUCKING FAGGOTS

I swear Im going to go on a killing spree in the nearest Mozilla office if this shit doesn't stop!

FUCK

>>59278636
Structure that was entirely made up.

>>59280782
start a petition,

i swear i going to pick up catcher in the rye, if my firefox doesnt stop lagging

>security patch breaks api

> To play audio, you may need to install the required PulseAudio software.
> sudo pacman -Rsn firefox

>>59269793
How's stylish though?

>>59272180
I don't have gfx.xrender.enabled wat do

I have had 53.01a for ages.
Why should anyone be on suicide watch

This is nothing to write home about

Even if there is no Firefox or Chrome, There is Pale Moon.

>>59275394
No one really cares about a bunch of useless features. Adding more, mostly-pointless, features to the browser itself is just bloat, which is really annoying when it is missing so many other important features.

>>59275515
Why are you using NoScript AND uMatrix?

>>59276236
Mozilla
>we'll do later what chrome does now

>>59269504
Fuck SJWfox, OP if faggot.

>>59269626
use ungoogled-chromium

does firefox nightly gets security updates first? whenever i check changelog there is no sign of security fixes

>>59281301
>>59272705
>>59274498
on gnu/linux you have to set layers.acceleration.force-enabled to true in about:config

>>59269538
>drops ALSA
Hmmmm will need to check this. My system is ALSA-only (or at least, not PA), so I need to make sure package upgrades won't install PA by mistake when trying to upgrade the browser.

File: 1487243061557.png (100KB, 352x345px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 352x345px

>Can use unverified addons in dev firefox
>Can't use unverified addons like https finder in nightly

Why

>>59284815
why would they enforce signing in a development version? that just impedes development
why are you even using development firefox if you don't use it for development?

>>59285214

I've been using https finder for years and don't see why I should stop

>>59285276
Set this in about:config:
xpinstall.signatures.required = false

>>59276370

Have they fixed zooming in macOS yet?

>>59276370
>Firefox is switching to the same API standard for addons that Chrome uses for no reason which nobody asked them to do, but then expanding it to include more functionality, allowing for slightly less functionality than FF extensions have now and only AFTER they've killed many popular extensions and driven away their entire development community

Fixed. Mozilla Foundation needs to be taken behind the woodshed.

>>59285348
Deprecated.

File: firefox-boob.jpg (137KB, 538x414px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 538x414px

>>59269504
cool, I think I will upgrade from my v40 firefox version

>>59285276
Make an AMO account, and submit https finder as an unlisted addon.
It will auto sign it assuming it doesn't use a couple red flags like eval.

>>59278563
Nothing

>>59269504
updates are not upgrades

>>59285581
Not in development versions.

>Added support for WebAssembly
I'm really hoping this actually takes off.

>>59269504

Is it just me or does Fx52 feel noticeably faster and smoother compared to previous version?

Why does firefox suck so much with videos. CPU ramps up a lot more than when watching with chrome.

>What kind of font rendering do you want, familia?
>JUST

>>59281763
>Adding more, mostly-pointless, features to the browser itself is just bloat
Which is funny, because Opera had far more features than stock Firefox and always ran better and used fewer resources.

Maybe the problem isn't in the features, it's in the lack of talented programmers.

>>59291514
It doesn't have to be one or the other. It can be both.

>>59291536
Opera proved that it was the latter.

>upgrading past version 27

>>59269595
Problem? Retard.