Half my add-ons won't be able to work in a few months.

>>61656110
Use firefox esr

>>61656110
Time to hang yourself, furfag.

File: Mojewla.jpg (1MB, 3652x1588px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3652x1588px

>>61656110
move to Waterfox

>>61656110
I want her to step on me barefoot.

>>61656149
Isn't that windows-only?

>>61656151
I want you to die.

>>61656134
that's not furry

>>61656186
Why anon? Do you want her only for yourself?

>>61656110
None of my add-ons are going to be deprecated. What do you use?

>>61656183
No.

>>61656203
deprecated :
-nextvid stopper for youtube (disables autoplay everywhere, this addon is the only one that actually works)
-tab groups (used to be a full firefox feature)

unsure:
-google translator for firefox (highlight + rightclick on dropdown menu to translate)
-greasemonkey
-noscript

>>61656110
move to palemoon.
the """"incompatible"""" addons work if you add this

<em:targetApplication>
            <Description>
              <em:id>{8de7fcbb-c55c-4fbe-bfc5-fc555c87dbc4}</em:id>
              <em:minVersion>27.1.0b1</em:minVersion>
              <em:maxVersion>27.*</em:maxVersion>
            </Description>
          </em:targetApplication>

to the install.rdf

>>61656249
>-nextvid stopper for youtube (disables autoplay everywhere, this addon is the only one that actually works)
Or you know, just un-tick the autoplay

>>61656266
you can't do that with playlists

I fucking hate youtube developers

File: 1501497766242.png (10KB, 172x97px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 172x97px

>>61656249

use the youtube+ userscript.

File: despair.jpg (38KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x375px

>>61656149
Jesus what happened to mozilla? When firefox launched it was a faster, efficient, and great browser with addons that all other browsers later tacked on. Did google just slowly infiltrate and sabotoge them from the inside until they turned into progressive zombies? I find this depressing more than anything.

>>61656302
Is it going to get deprecated? Does it have a replay button as well?

>>61656318
>he doesn't need about the "loop" feature of yt

Just use Chrome

>>61656318

Userscripts rely on Greasemonkey so we'll see. It does have a repeat button under the video.

>>61656249
>-nextvid stopper for youtube (disables autoplay everywhere, this addon is the only one that actually works)
Just set media.autoplay.enabled to false.

>-tab groups (used to be a full firefox feature)
Don't think it'll work but maybe container tabs could be an option, even though it won't provide the full functionality?
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Contextual_Identity_Project/Containers

>-google translator for firefox (highlight + rightclick on dropdown menu to translate)
No idea, but I think it should be possible with WebExtension API and userscripts.

>-greasemonkey
Not sure but there's always Violentmonkey that does the same thing. I don't know if you can easily migrate settings from e.g. 4chan X, though.

>-noscript
Put it under deprecated. uMatrix is what people use nowadays. From my experience it's got better performance and it offers more functionality but you can use it only as a script blocker if you want.

>>61656110
just don't update

File: 1421854154973.jpg (208KB, 499x498px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 499x498px

>>61656110
Waterfox.

File: HA HA HA.jpg (145KB, 936x728px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 936x728px

>>61656336
>Just use Chrome

File: dr-goebels.jpg (79KB, 790x960px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 790x960px

>>61656413
>don't use chrome

File: harper.gif (2MB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x320px

>>61656420
>Just use Chrome

>>61656336
>>61656420
LMAO
>not even chromium at least

>>61656355
The problem with umatrix/ublock is that they do not block local scripts and resources from local pages.

Don't update to 57 until... I dunno. Seriously, it's been several months since I heard about this shit and I still have no clue what to do. Maybe a hero will step up to backport Firefox's security fixes while keeping extensions compatible, but judging by Pale Moon it's not gonna go well.

This is fucked up, I'm stuck at 54.0a2 because of bugs in newer versions.

Stop using add-ons. Leaves more RAM for other activities like vidya.

>>61656317
How is this Asian speak English? Fuck.

I'm on firefox 48. On what version can I update safely to so my addons still work?

Wait for netrunner. You can use ungoogled chrome in the meantime.

>>61656266
>keeping cookies on a google site

>>61656110
I used to be really worried about this, but ever since Mozilla has started rolling out photon and servo components to nightly I've changed my mind.
Most of my addons will either be ported, or a replacement will pop up. The speed and memory consumption improvements are simply too great to pass up because of some add-on that stops working.

>>61658563
You can upgrade up to ff 56, but from 57 onwards they will break.

File: 1500282391829.gif (700KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 300x300px

>>61656110
Waterfox.

stop using outdated software with devs who dont care about you as a user

they have had long enough to get onto the compatibility layer

if they arent willing to put in that effort can you continue to trust that team to provide security updates?

XUL is insecure and unoptimized

I have your solution right here!

Install Sandboxie.
Download an installer of your current Firefox.
Backup your Firefox profile. All of it.
Uninstall Firefox.
Reinstall it inside of Sandboxie.
Copy your profile back.
Make new shortcut to the sandboxed version of firefox.exe
Done.

If anyone manages to hack your browser because you decided to piss off someone powerful, it is extremely unlikely they expect you to have Sandboxie installed, so no harm done.
Every other attack below that is minor and won't matter.
Not that it matters because if you pissed off a government, they'd use hardware-level hacks that work in every OS of worth.

You can make backups of your profile too, so in the extremely unlikely event you actually got a virus, you revert it.
HTML6 is not going to happen for a decade. By then, I assume something wildly different will happen if there isn't already a decent open source browser to replace lost functionality.
So you are very unlikely to miss out on anything of significance in terms of HTML5 featuresets. Most of the base stuff is static and unchanging now. At best there will be improvements here and there, hardware support, etc.

>>61656149
>>61656365
>>61660506
Explain.

>>61661037
From MrAlex94, four months ago:
>I was actually thinking of something like this. I was hoping to get WF52 out this week and with it an accompanying post about the future plans for Waterfox. I might as well divulge as much as I can in this post.

>So the first was to do exactly as you state. Keep an ESR version of Waterfox for as long as feasible, then a version of Waterfox that follows the same RR as Firefox and essentially keep Waterfox as a privacy focused version of Firefox (not sure if it's much of a differentiation to keep people using Waterfox though, but who knows).

>In parallel to that, I was planning to go and try and get funding to create a startup using Waterfox's name to keep XUL/XPCOM alive and modernise it, essentially forking Firefox from its last usable XUL/XPCOM version and creating a new browser based on all that. Get some hard core software engineers/programmers on board and try and follow in Mozilla's ethos that has sort of been my guide as a programmer. I'd imagine following a similar release cycle that Firefox 1-3.6 had rather than the current RR cycle. It would of course not be developed with Rust in mind, which I imagine Firefox will become completely developed in but rather C++ as the core language. Who knows, with that we might even be able to create an embeddable version of the fork and bring some competition to the domination WebKit has in that market.

>So we'd end up with:
>Waterfox ESR
>Waterfox RR
>New Browser

>Of course, I've thought this out more but just wanted to give a gist of what I'm planning, and the post along with the release will go into depth and hopefully people will give feedback, etc and see where we can head from there . Of course this is very ambitious, but I'm still very young and may as well risk what I have now and hopefully end up with something good that people will be proud to use. Better to try and fail than not try at all!

>>61656345
violentmonkey is a thing, it's allready webext.