Firefox 55 is available now, only two more left till webexte

>>61780743

> 2 more let till everyone left switches to chrome
FIFY

Will they touch the mobile version sometime

>>61781110
Why?

>>61780743
>firefox
who

>>61781128
What do you mean?

>>61781412
Will it get an overhaul
It isnt really nice right now

>>61781531
Using it right now, it's fine.

>>61780743
>on nightly
>greasemonkey does not work
>posting without 4chan X
>no more legacy captcha
>have to botnet help
KILL ME

>>61781531
What's wrong with it?

>>61781748
Enable legacy captcha under settings

>>61781748
Violentmonkey

>>61780743
2 more until i switch to waterfox

>>61781540
>>61781755
Chrome outperforms it and looks better

File: startup.png (39KB, 958x597px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 958x597px

>>61780743
Is the startup times any better now?

>>61780743
pulseaudio is required since 54, so I've finally decided to drop it completely.

>>61780743
can someone please spoonfeed me on the whats actually happening and why are they doing this? I know most addons will be incompatible with the new versions but why? is it really necessary? what the fuck are they thinking?
ADDONS were the one thing keeping me "stuck" to firefox (and commodity)

>>61780743
> not using Mozilla ESR

You plebians

>only two more left until the only option for an extensible browser is Pale fucking Moon of all things

>>61781955
Because they fell for "muh speed" meme without realizing anyone who had ADD and cares about millisecond loading times is already using Chrome

>>61782149
I was willing to put up with the fact that it was extra slow because of the addons. I guess you are right, they are retarded

File: 1499972106629-co.jpg (84KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 640x427px

>>61781955
There are various reasons:
>XUL Extensions can modify and read whatever Firefox can
>XUL Extensions can execute commands and programs in your PC. So they can literally rm -rf /home/user/*, download malicious scripts, etc.
Web Extensions don't have all those features, they're sandboxed and can be denied permission to access parts of the browser/PC.
>XUL Extensions interfere with multi process
An extensive rewrite is necessary to make sure addons will work with multiprocess, which would ultimately break most of them anyway.
Web Extensions in FF aren't the same as in Chrome and Edge, though. Mozilla has added several features, but porting extensions should be easy enough.
>modifications to the browser can break XUL Extensions
Which is why every major browser update broke extensions. It's too much work for both Mozilla and extension developers to make sure every single extension work with every single Firefox update.
This is specially true now, since Mozilla is going to make several major overhauls to FF including the rendering engine.

To summarize: XUL Extensions are not portable, they must be changed to allow the browser to adopt new features and overhauls, creating a new, specific, API makes no sense since the browser has already few users and XUL Extensions may make the browser work maliciously without the user's knowledge.
The only protection users have right now against malicious extensions is that now FF won't allow users to install extensions not signed by Mozilla (a decision that was also criticized a lot here), but that means Mozilla has to review every single extension anyway and that is a lot of time and effort wasted by both Mozilla and extension developers.

>>61782091
Even that too will eventually be "upgraded" past the point of usability. Just on a much sower time scale.

When is the redesign hitting? F57?

>>61782149
>muh security meme
t. retard

>>61781232
Because if you're going to use a locked down browser with no customisation, you may as well use the best one.

>>61782233
So the main problem is that the addons programmers consider it takes too much time (understandably so) to write the code again to work with web extensions?

>>61781939
apulse firefox

>>61781925
>1691 tabs

What the fuck

>>61782295
Had no idea that existed, thanks!

If I expand all images in a thread with 4chanx and the thread dies how do I save images from the thread with alt+click? I would do this a lot with chrome but I just tried it with firefox and ended up with a bunch of broken images.

>>61782518
"save images" extension

>>61782233
But without the abilities that allow XUL extensions to contain malware, you lose legitimate features-rich extensions like Classic Theme Restorer, Tree Style Tabs, download managers, etc. As a browser ENTIRELY dependent on extensibility to be good, cutting that is pants on head retarded.

Does Decentraleyes even work as a Web Extension?

File: nightly.jpg (347KB, 3187x2155px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 3187x2155px

>Not already using based 57
best browser still today

>>61782920
Which addons stopped working? Umatrix is broken atm, right?

>>61782943
No. uMatrix works.

>>61782669
>IMPORTANT: This add-on will stop working November 2017 when Firefox 57 is released due to legacy add-ons being replaced by WebExtension add-ons in Firefox!

I think ill just go back to chrome

57 can't come fast enough, shit is good.

>>61783078
>57 can't come fast enough, shit is good.
This.

The only reason I'm not using nightly is because many webextensions aren't working properly.

>>61783078
True

File: umatrix.png (140KB, 1052x847px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1052x847px

>>61782969
Doesn't work for me. Shows all kind of sites but not actually the site I'm on.

>>61782891
CTR no longer working means I'm gonna have to get used to the newer ui now damn. I mean can we still somewhat customize it even if it's not completely overhauling it with an addon.

>>61783752
userChrome.css will still work at least for a while. I'm sure that by the time they retire that too, there'll be other options for customization.

Though I must say, it wasn't as hard as I expected to drop CTR completely. It is a nice addon, but ultimately it's not as essential as it seems. Firefox 57 looks rather nice OOTB.

install pale moon

>>61782891
No more classic theme restorer? Practically Chrome at that point.

>>61783850
At least it still lets me bring back the file/edit/view menu right? I'm a weird oldfag that still like having that there even if it's not always used screw burger menus.

File: 1482229657005.png (307KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1024x1024px

>>61780743
RIP SJWfox

>>61782891
Yes, it does. Some addons don't work (like Self-Destructing Cookies) but have replacements.
The idea that "every add-on will stop working" is retarded. Most addons are available on Chrome and can therefore be ported. The ones that explicitly change the browser's GUI and/or execute programs in your PC won't work, though.

>>61784074
That would look nice without all the artifacts.

When will 57 be released? I'm thinking of switching to it.

Why does it turn off ublock when I drag a tab out to another window?

>>61784081
where is a replacement for Self-Destructing Cookies, and is there multiple?

File: Untitled.png (7KB, 604x55px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 604x55px

wtf is this white space when you have firefox not maximized?

Only one of my plugins has converted from being legacy and that is ForecastFox. I hope more soon get the ball rolling since this shit's not far away from 57. I mean I know some of them like CTR will be gone gone but stuff like noscript and ublock origin should be along pretty soon right? The more popular stuff?

>>61780743
>https://archive.is/65BcU
>One more step
>Please complete the security check to access archive.is
Why the fuck would you link this shitty cancerous site?

>>61780743
>>61784732
https://www.dailystormer.com/the-obsession-with-archive-is-links-is-out-of-control/

wait, how do i even check if something is a webextension

i have an addon that tells me whether something is compatible with multiprocess, is that it

>>61784793
No. Webextensions will marked as "compatible with Firefox 57+" on https://addons.mozilla.org

File: Untitled.png (52KB, 652x329px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 652x329px

>>61780743

Please, how to get Firefox 55?

File: 1502082274070.jpg (473KB, 2000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 2000x3000px

>>61780743

They still haven't even implemented vital webExtensions features

>>61785079
Mods

>>61784769
>https://www.dailystormer.com/the-obsession-with-archive-is-links-is-out-of-control/
>It's a jewish conspiracy;

Bitch, i use it to check neo-marxist shit like TVP as they slowly die.

>>61782283
>>61781110
This.

>>61782384
Yeah right, that's insane, I only have like 500 tabs opened right now.

>>61782233
If anything they should have done it much sooner; they tried to delay the inevitable the longest they could to appease a vocal minority of faggots, and the performance of the browser suffered as a result for far too long.

>>61784769
>https://www.dailystormer.com/the-obsession-with-archive-is-links-is-out-of-control/

http://archive.is/47GUQ

>>61784769
No one cares what some manlet with yellow fever thinks.

>>61785218
Why do you need more than 10 open

>>61785307
To not forget to do or read some stuffs, that you never read or do when there is nothing else to do.

>>61784984
If you don't want to wait till tomorrow, then click on the following link.
https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/55.0/

>>61785092
It's 2017 and there's literally nothing wrong with loving underage girls. Get on with the times, bigot.

>>61785241
kek

>>61784769
Any respectable place like /pol/ will think that andrew anglin is a faggot and a loser.

>>61781755
slow as fuck, almost as bad as the desktop one

>>61786057
for fuck's sake

>>61786057
wtf I hate how 4chanx allows you to retrieve deleted posts now

That dude should be hanged. It's fucking obvious it doesn't quite fit there.

>>61782989
Faggot, use waterfox and enable multiprocess. It works with 54~57+ extensions

>>61780743
I don't care, patiently waiting for firefox 57

>>61781110
WRONG

More like, the next version will be the fork and Mozilla will be left behind as some other group takes over the codebase.

>>61788474
I wish Microsoft gave up on Edge and just forked Firefox.

What does /g/ think about Edge anyway?

>version 55
Stop.

Chrome's worst influence by far is this inflated version number meme

>>61781531
I like it a lot

Lucky that Firefox comes standard with Ubuntu versions :-)

>>61788878
Who's still using Chrome anyway?

>>61788878
Why? It's just as arbitrary as labelling it something like Version 23.5.11

File: .png (41KB, 1002x466px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1002x466px

which of my extensions are getting nuked?

>>61788938
most of /g/ if judging by the last browser screencap thread

File: neat.png (651KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 1280x1024px

Neat.

>>61790799
>2017
>still using a OS that spies on you

>>61790873
It's LTSB with its insides scrambled.

>>61781748
Half of my shit just plain don't work now

Can't install anything with Stylish or any of it's derivatives, even though they're supposedly compatible.

Had to reinstall 4chan-x manually because not even violentmonkey works like it's supposed.

Dark UI theme only mostly works, doesn't affect the new tab page

There's just too much broken shit, maybe I'll try again in a couple of weeks

>>61790443
all of them

>>61784081
>Most addons are available on Chrome
If all I wanted were Chrome addons, I'd be using fucking Chrome.

>>61790443
They all die

>>61784501
It's so that you can drag the window around.

>>61784650
uBlock Origin's already ported, but it's only on the "devel" channel of addons.mozilla.org. I think he's going to push it to the main channel soon.

>>61785307
>Why
Tabs are short-term bookmarks to people such as myself.

>>61783606
Not him but grab the web extention version from github.
https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/releases

>>61790944
Like eggs?

>>61780743
ive been maining chrome since 2010

firefox still crashes constantly on my phone and desktop

>>61790944
How did you "scrambled" it?

>>61790799
>w10
>32 bit
>Steam
>Malwarebytes
>VLC
>1280x1024

You're just a real life meme, aren't you?

>>61782283
Yeah might aswell use a botnet, flawless loguc there.

>>61792875
Explain what's wrong with those without using memes.

>>61792889
>muh botnet

>>>/plebbit/

File: ff.jpg (51KB, 628x321px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 628x321px

>>61780743
New ESR when?

File: Screenshot_2.jpg (11KB, 416x140px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 416x140px

Firefox 55 - 60 Chrome
Will you ever compete?

File: Screenshot from 2017-08-08 00-38-46.png (278KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1366x768px

firefox doesn't have this word search that makes it easy to find threads

>>61781110
Qutebrowser is the future

all of my extensions work perfectly in Nightly, Ublock, 4chan X

wtf?

>>61793401
Same here, but i was not able to use web extension version of ublock

>>61784418
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/

Maybe there are others but I settled for this.

>>61793393
If qutebrowser worked better on windows I would use it more often. A few websites just seem to completely break it.

>>61793502
Is this with v0.11.0? The prebuilt Windows executable for v0.10 and older used a quite old QtWebKit.

>>61793585
I'm honestly not sure, it was late last year when I tried it.

Is there an add on for non-nightly that shows me which add-ons break on 57? They had that for multiprocess

>>61793656
Yeah, v0.11.0 was only released in July - things should work much better with that.

I'm confused. If Nightly tells me an addon is "Legacy", does that mean it doesn't work right now? Or won't work in the future?

>>61793350
Its going to be FF 57.
They don't want you to keep the good firefox.

>>61780743
Mozilla scared me for life from updating it, since the constant crashes/forcing specific search engine i didn't want, have occured.

I'm yet to see anybody exploiting vulnerabilities of my outdated version.

File: release-overview-high-res.78cf477dd915.png (25KB, 1344x672px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1344x672px

>>61794042
More like 59, when did Mozilla start to hate its users?

>>61780743
I'm on ESR and it's so light on resources.

>>61793350
https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar
I'll stick with ESR and when FF57 ESR comes out all the addons will get converted, JUST IN TIME!
Isn't that great?

>>61792090
>short-term
I wish.

I switched from Nightly to the regular build of Firefox for the first time since Nightly came out.

>>61784081
can you show me a functional replacement for DownThemAll! in the chrome marketplace?

the main features of this are
1. downloading all the links to a TARGETED folder, not just dumping everything to Downloads
2. the renaming masks
(3. segmented downloading, but this only really matters for connections that are fucking retarded, so ymmv)

Third party downloaders have a problem with bulk downloads from a page to a targetable folder; haven't found anything that can match DTA!

basically go visit any page with direct links to a bunch of files (not embedded, images and videos count) and download everything in the page to a folder A then go to the next page and download all of the links and download to folder B.

DTA! is the browser download manager to end all browser download managers.

>new version
>another shitty ui change
>have to wait for classic theme restorer update yet again
i cant wait for firefox to die :)

>>61791187
>>61781748
Greasemonkey with 4chan X keeps working for me in Nightly, though

>>61782384
>not have 1500+ porn tabs open at any time

>18 out of 20 addons are incompatible with webextensions
JUST

>about:config
>glx.webrender.enabled to true
>shit bricks

>wanting extensions
https://m.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/03/web_developer_plug_creator_confirms_phishing_attack_and_hes_not_alone/

File: Firefox-one-off-searches.png (26KB, 1366x483px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1366x483px

Just FYI: If you dislike the new display of search options at the bottom of the urlbar, you can turn it off by setting browser.urlbar.oneOffSearches to false. I've always used custom keyword searches so I've got no use for the search addons.

>>61783850
>I'm sure that by the time they retire that too, there'll be other options for customization.
You mean the same way they promised that new API's would be available for WebExtensions that never materialized?

>>61785233
yeah, fuck those devs with million-user extensions

>>61795332
Just fuck my GPU up senpai.

Who else /doesn't need legacy extensions/ here? My only legacy extension left is greasemonkey which is being rewritten as a webextension anyway.

>>61795225
Same, works just fine as usual.

>>61795592
thanks

>When entering a hostname (like pinterest.com) in the URL bar, Firefox resolves to the secure version of the site (https://www.pinterest.com) instead of the insecure version (http://www.pinterest.com) when possible
So https everywhere/smart https is not needed anymore?

>>61780743
with every release the edge of the cliff gets closer and closer
congratulations :^)

>>61791812
>>61791997
didn't they say that firefox will be compatible with chrome addons?

>>61790443
you can find replacements for some of them, ublock is getting an update
and stop using lastpass

>update
>bookmarks gone
>history gone
>theme gone
>still have extensions
>takes 5 minutes to get a webpage while showing "Not Responding"
>all sorts of other things not working
t-thanks

w-what's happening? is firefox kill?

File: Portapapeles-1.png (41KB, 771x450px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 771x450px

JUST

Does Firefox has unified url/search field yet? I mean is it enabled by default? Can someone take a screenshot of current UI?

File: google.memo.leak.png (67KB, 480x617px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 480x617px

Hey guys.
I'm back because google is way more SJW and nightly looks appetizing.

So apparently firefox 55 has the ability to go from http to https automatically if detected, it doesn't seem to be working. Has anyone else gotten it to work?

>>61781748
>>no more legacy captcha
This place is more retarded than 9gag

>>61797703
how is it not working? i've disabled smart https and opened their http link to pinterest and I got the https version automatically

>>61796771
JODE

>>61797703
It did it automatically for me right from the get go. Even when I explicitly enter http:// it defaults to https. Tested on multiple sites.

>>61797686
WTF
I didn't think it was even a big deal?

>>61795177
Classic Theme Restorer can't be updated.

>>61788636
Edge? It's fast, looks alright with night mode, can easily port over chrome extensions. Unfortunately, it crashes much more often than other browsers, has worse devtools, and is generally lacking in convenience features compared to the ff/chrome

File: ok.png (8KB, 873x179px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 873x179px

>>61790443
just do this

>>61795444
Mozilla specifically forbids stuff like that, extensions devs caught messing with their extension to inject ads or other malicious things are banned I believe, or at least the extension is delisted. Extensions on AMO have to be audited by a machine and a reviewer before they're allowed on the main download site.

IS THERE ANY ALTERNATIVE TO OMNILATERAL PANEL?

I need this addon to live.

>>61797744
>>61797766
I tried http://www.4chan.org and it didn't go to https automatically, it must be for whitelisted websites or it's not working.

>>61780743
Why does anyone ever use plug ins? I never used any. Tried sum sure, worthless tho. Do nothing special.

Adblock, who cares. Don't have Java, or flash, most annoying adds don't work, most scripts disabled. I don't need shitty plug ins for that

>>61782122
Finally some utility for the pale meme

When does the 64-bit version come?

>>61791187
>>61781748
>muh things don't work
Friendly reminder you're using "NIGHTLY". They fucking warn you about it breaking shit because IT ISN'T THE STABLE VERSION.

>>61798307
That could be a 4chan thing since the site has a option in settings to turn https on.

>>61782920
>that logo

i think i'm in love

>>61798365
Firefox has had 64bit builds for years. Stable has had them for a year or so now. They're on the website. Mozilla are planning on moving users of 32bit firefox who are on a 64bit OS to 64bit firefox with the next release.

>>61798434
Starting with 55, 64 bit is the default on windows machines with 64 bit OS and 2 GB of RAM

I got to admit, nightly is fast with stylo.

This is also the first version that nightly goes to directly beta, developer edition is behind stable. They'll remove the developer edition binaries and make that developer build of beta soon.

>>61797248
>>61797248
>>61797248
>>61797248
ANYONE?

And most of all, no more vimperator. Likely ever.

thx mozilla :(

>>61798309
plugins and extensions are two different things. Java and Flash are plugins , things like adblock are extensions.

>>61798981
Extensions I meant then

>>61798544
Why would you even want that?
Anyway, for me it was not enable in Nightly, might just be it taking my normal Firefox config though.

Why is Firefox such a laggy, crash-prone piece of CPU hogging shit? Opera and Chrome have never been so awful.

>>61793816
It means that the extension hasn't currently been ported, but it doesn't exclude a future update. For example, uBlock Origin is going to be ported to WebExt, but the dev isn't done yet doing that, so it gets marked as legacy . A good way to be sure if your extension is going unsupported is to check for it on the Chrome Web Store(if it's there it can be ported to nu-Firefox), as well as checking the Github page of the developer for details.

>>61798153
but how long will that work? sjwfox team likes to silently remove about:config settings.

>>61800461
You're on nightly, so duh they can remove it at any time. As you get closer to the september release, be prepared for them to remove the config setting that lets you use XUL extensions.

>>61800513
Yeah but I'm on stable. I'll just switch to ESR when stable hits 57.

>>61800546
I'm thinking about jumping to qutebrowser or surf

>>61800546
Don't, a lot of settings in 55+ will get corrupted when downgrading to ESR.

>>61801004
Oh fuck I just restarted FF and it upgraded from 54 to 55. But really what issues would I have if I just nuked the whole installation and started fresh with ESR 52 and synced addons? The only real change I made to about:config was disabling the cache.

>>61782283
Both are botnets idiot.

Okay I'm about to emerge www-client/chromium-60.0.3112.78 y'all better not be meming me.

>>61801466
meant to reply
>>61792889

>>61801490
Important question I have, is there a DownThemAll equivalent?

>>61801549
No. There won't be one on Firefox soon either, as the DTM author has already confirmed that the new addon framework doesn't offer the functionality it needs.

>>61782233
>An extensive rewrite is necessary to make sure addons will work with multiprocess.
Hi, addon dev here, xul extensions can be made FULLY e10s compatibe, only the addons that dev decided not to update (mostly cause xul was going to be deprecated anyway) where no e10s compatible.

>XUL Extensions interfere with multi process
Only if bad written or old and unmaintained, web-extensions can reduce your firefox to a crawling mess too if you do it wrong enough.

>can be denied permission to access parts of the browser/PC.
They could have been done a permission system for legacy addons (not as easy as webext but doable) the problem with web-extensions is not that you "can" denied them some permissions but that you CAN'T give them some permissions even if you want.

>XUL Extensions can modify and read whatever Firefox can
See no problem, the addons get reviewed and you can see the code if you don't thrust the reviewers enough, that's more than you can do with the hundreds of closed source programs and binary blobs you use in a daily basis.

>Mozilla has added several features, but porting extensions should be easy enough.
Just pray for your extension not to need some additional api that they don't want to add.

>>61801610
>modifications to the browser can break XUL Extensions
I was using an hybrid extension,using xul for some parts that needed the extra features and the rest were sdk apis of course updates can break it that's why i used 30 seconds of my life to check if it was working on nightly everyday, if for some reason it was broken looking to that day changes usually was enough to found the culprit and fix the addon (usually didn't take long to fix) this way only nightly users will notice breakages.
I was OK doing it this way cause i wanted the extra functionality, if you wanted stability the sdk apis were supposed to be as reliable as web-ext will be, but it was more limited than xul.

>This is specially true now, since Mozilla is going to make several major overhauls to FF including the rendering engine.
My addon still works even using stylo and webrender, most addons, if not all, works before the rendering stage, they add panels, buttons, elements, modify webs and interface, then they got rendered and they don't care which engine is used for it.

>XUL Extensions are not portable
Because new restrictive policies.

>they must be changed to allow the browser to adopt new features and overhauls
Web-extensions are not powerfull enough and they're not going to be mature for firefox 57, maybe the price is too high.

>XUL Extensions may make the browser work maliciously without the user's knowledge.
Web-extensions can access your browser history, passwords, all you type and then call home and sometimes they got automatically reviewed so we'll see some malicious extensions either way, chrome extensions are an example.

>>61801588
So what to do? I've recently written a lot of python scripts to scrape data from various sources, maybe I can reuse that code to make my own download manager but I'd have to build out the features like resume incomplete downloads.

>>61801650
>The only protection users have right now against malicious extensions is that now FF won't allow users to install extensions not signed by Mozilla (a decision that was also criticized a lot here)
They're gonna rely more on automatics review so it may be even easier to create malicious extensions now, for the signature enforcement, i was ok with that i though it was a good idea then discovered that it was easier to get reviewed a malicious extension that a legit one. (some dev made a malicious one and got it reviewed and accepted much sooner than the legit one he was trying to update just to demonstrate this point).

>>61782287
>So the main problem is that the addons programmers consider it takes too much time (understandably so) to write the code.
That's not usually the reason for not porting, usually devs are waiting for APIs that are not ready yet (some apis are not going to be ready for 57 so those addon will temporary stop working), or they just cannot port cause web-extensions are way too restrictive and has no low level APIs, so the main problem is mozilla making impossible to port extensions and deprecating legacy extensions before making web-extensions mature enough.

>>61801610
>the hundreds of closed source programs and binary blobs (You) use in a daily basis.
FIFY.

>>61781851
>Outperforms
Maybe
>Looks better
Hell no. The UI is garbage.

>>61801880
So you're using no proprietary software plus a blob free distro and after all that trouble you're gonna download a random dev addon without looking at it's code?

>>61783850
>userChrome.css
No anonymous content customization (scrollbars, tooltips...)

File: capture.png (66KB, 1364x649px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1364x649px

Fuck me

>>61785233
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/

Yeah fuck that minority they're just 1,755,390 users (and that's just for noscript) and fuck Giorgio Maone (noscript dev).

ps. Noscript will be ported but the APIs are still being worked on.

>>61802279
Just use better addons, Pierre.

File: 1485448595232.jpg (100KB, 500x334px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 500x334px

>>61802311
You sounds like a Jobs or Poettering fan.

Disgusting.

File: desktop_percentage.png (80KB, 1680x846px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1680x846px

Let mozilla hit the floor

>>61784501
The top one or the left one?

>>61800513
They can't, there's still system addons using xul look at extensions.legacy.exceptions on nightly.

>>61781748
I use nightly and greasemonkey+4chan X works like a fucking charm. What are you on about?

File: scr.png (83KB, 938x801px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 938x801px

>cut my life into pieces

>>61801225
Clone the profile first just in case and try, afaik you should miss only the favicons (the ones in history and bookmarks) but should be generated again the next time you visit the web.

>>61793389
CTRL+F,

Or bait?

File: 1389305711963.png (395KB, 1123x1160px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1123x1160px

>>61802619
Well, Stylish is botnet...

>>61781925
Actually it fucking isn't. That blog entry was a scam. I just updated and it's still slow as shit. And I only have like 40 tabs.

>>61802307
>Noscript will be ported
Then where is the issue?
Umatrix is better anyway.

>>61802920
Well there's others that CAN'T be ported or will be ported with reduced functionality.
There's the issue.
ie:
DownThemAll: Will need to be crippled down a lot to port so the author decided not to, (Wontfix on requested APIs).
Greasemonkey: Will be ported with reduced functionality.
No resource URI Leak: Can't be ported, the bug is still not fixed but with some luck will be fixed for 57 release.
Stylish: Will be ported with reduced functionality.
Ublock origin: Will be ported slightly reduced functionality.
Umatrix: Will be ported slightly reduced functionality.


>Umatrix is better anyway.
True

Weird, on my laptop It just updated automatically to 55 today but on my desktop when I try to update it say my firefox is up to date (54.01)

>>61802279
Good news for you, the star will be in the url-bar again on the new UI.

>>61803053
>Ublock origin
>slightly reduced functionality.
>Umatrix
>slightly reduced functionality.
Citation needed.

>>61802818
The chrome version, the firefox one never got the botnet update.

>>61802822
You need to remove all addons (web-extensions included) and run a fresh profile.
ie:
Zoom page WE (web-extensions) makes loading webs and restoring session slower.

>>61803120
Only because they haven't bothered to update it at all. That's how relevant Firefox is these days. There's zero reason to use it when Styus is available and already working with FF57.

>>61803173
*Stylus

>>61803173
>There's zero reason to use it when Styus is available
Stylus can't style UI so there's no reason to use it while the legacy one still works.

>>61803084
Is anyone else not getting 55 when they try to update firefox?

File: 1471459097921.gif (2MB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x400px

Who /waterfox/ here

>>61802818
There's https://github.com/openstyles/stylus - and >>61803120 seems to be right from a quick check I did.

>>61802174
Yeah, I know.
Not being able to style the scrollbars is gonna hurt the most (besides DtA, of course).

>>61803274
There's an addon to do that for chrome/ium (works on vivaldi too) but can't be ported for firefox.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/rescroller/ddehdnnhjimbggeeenghijehnpakijod

What is the best fork that can work alongside with FF so I can use just DownThemAll on it, while doing everything else on FF when 57 comes?

>>61803110
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/issues/622#issuecomment-313128143

>>61795846
So why aren't you using a Chrom* clone?

File: 1374522996822.jpg (380KB, 737x1024px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 737x1024px

>>61803100
For real ?

Great !

The "new" design was cumbersome and counter intuitive as fuck

>>61803310
Waterfox is afaik the only fork keeping XUL

>>61803216
No addon can style the UI in FF57 and beyond. And if you're using anything except Nightly at this point, what the fucking hell are you doing with your life? Mainline Firefox is pure shit, addons or no addons.

Either way it's irrelevant, as if Stylish is updated for the new system, the botnet from Chrome's version will be added too. All you can do is cling to some old version of Firefox as it becomes ever-more obsolete, like the Pale Meme faggots do. Or you can get over it and move on.

>>61803319
Thanks i was looking for a post somewhere where gorhill mentioned all the stuff that's going to stop working, but that's a good exaple for >>61803110

Also, umatrix/ublock will stop working on some mozilla pages and internal About:* (web-ext restrictions) if it found something that needs to be blocked it'll report it blocked without blocking it, that's confirmed by gorhill during the "firefox using google analytics inside internal about:addon page even with telemetry disabled.

There are at least one more limitation but can't remember where gorhill mentioned it and your not gonna take my word for it.

>>61803435
It doesn't need to be something that will be updated. I would use even just another instance of old Firefox if it was possible.

>>61803441
And there's always option B (that I'm going to abandon today) fix the addons myself.

JFI some addons just needs to change names of some APIs that got renamed on firefox 57 or rebind buttons cause the interface has added some new stuff that has made some addon element to miss where it should be inserted, others need more work, obviously, and there's no way to fix it before breakage unless you're using hourly builds all day but that's not gonna give you enough time anyway, so i give up, i prefer to use 55 with tweaked about:config than using 57 without addons.

Sometimes the name changes are so minor that I'm not sure why they've bothered doing it.

>>61803441
If you're using ANY Firefox derivative with Chrome tier addon support, you are literally just using slower Chrome

File: RIP.png (33KB, 309x534px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 309x534px

I can live without many of these but I keep reading how there's supposedly good replacements for SDC. What exactly are said replacements because Cookie Monster for example has been removed by the author.

>>61803435
AFAIK the dev said that he's gonna try to keep xul as long as he can but his resources are very limited, palemoon is going to keep supporting xul (but it's imo far behind firefox) and i heard that they'll make a new fork based on 52esr.

Just don't get your hopes too high, cause this is gonna be hard.

>>61803642
Cookie AutoDelete

>>61803642
Not as powerful but that's what web-extenions are:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/

>>61803701
>>61803733
Thanks I'll give it a shot.

>>61785307
I'm retarded and need to consult the same git documentation pages all the time. So that's a bunch right there.

Is there any non-shit fork?

>>61803642
Any good replacement for Feed Sidebar?

File: Screenshot_20170808-172817.png (28KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1080x1920px

>>61781531
Nightly, 57

>>61788878
>inflated version number meme
I'm glad to see I am not the only that finds this utterly stupid.

>>61790431
Only if they have no idea what they're doing. Everyone that has uses something similar to http://semver.org/.

>>61782278
Are you lost?

>>61792875
>1280x1024
5:4 is good for single tasking though.

>>61794346
More DownThemAll! shilling by another anon.
-- single click downloads
-- filters and advanced filtering
-- download mirrors

>>61797248
I don't see the reason not having. I haven't used the search bar in ages. The only thing you don't have on address bar is recommendations which every sane person disables.

>>61797766
What if I want to visit a site over http though to test something? Do I use Chrome?

>>61798309
They have killed plugin already.
They are now killing extensions as well.

>Firefox does not support downgrades, even though this may have worked in past versions. Users who install Firefox 55+ and later downgrade to an earlier version may experience issues with Firefox.

Well there it is, 54 is the last reasonable version of firefox to exist. RIP

>>61801657
Not sure how you're doing it but you could wrap aria2 or use a module such as pyaria2 instead of doing it yourself.

>>61804821
DTA! is kill as well.
http://www.downthemall.net/re-downthemall-and-webextensions-or-why-why-i-am-done-with-mozilla/
Fuck Mozilla. Fuck Google. I'll be using links or the alternative /g/ is developing if it becomes useful.

>>61805036
sed -i '/IgnorePkg/s/$/ firefox/' /etc/pacman.conf

Why does it get an update every day?

File: 1482788845607.png (12KB, 548x96px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 548x96px

>>61801490
I did it. By a wide margin the longest emerge time. For comparison Firefox only takes 11 minutes, and dev-qt/qtwebengine takes 30 minutes.

Only two more left until I switch to WaterFox to continue using Tree Style Tabs.

File: .png (58KB, 652x324px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 652x324px

Downgraded to ESR. Only problem was that only 53+ has the default dark theme, but that one extension fixed it. I mean it's only 3 versions behind stable and 5 behind nightly but at least it'll give me some more time before I have to switch right?

>>61805640
You have until june 2018 until ESR 52 is no longer supported, you got plenty of time

https everywhere alternatives?
does smart https work the same way?
which is better or less crippled?

just get brave. fuck firefox

>>61805878
https://www.eff.org/files/https-everywhere-test/index.html

>>61781110
you mean iceweasel right?

>>61805829
Well I still got ESR until 56 (whenever it comes out) before extensions go bad, so I probably have a year at the least even after that.

What's the best alternative to treestyle tabs?
Conversely, how do I get rid of he tab bar?

>>61806314
>What's the best alternative to treestyle tabs?
Webextensions can't create exclusive sidebars, so you can never have vertical tabs + bookmark/history sidebar.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-tabs/ is the only available webextension with tab trees, but it has non-native context menu and an animated donate button annoying you every time you open settings.
>Conversely, how do I get rid of he tab bar?
userchrome right now, mozilla will implement an api to hide it at some point.

>>61806542
But https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/vertical-tabs-reloaded/ lets you remove tab bar and keep some of the Tab Mix Plus functionality in Nightly.
(But it doesn't even let me make tab trees so it's dogshit at the moment.)
Anyway it means we just have to wait, right?

>>61806778
That's not a webextension. Doesn't even work anymore with the tab api removals a couple nightlies ago?

>>61781110

why would we switch to a worse option?

>>61780743
Eh, what's web extension and why is it bad? Searched online a bit, isn't it just to make Fx's plugin system compatible with Cr?

Anyone who wants tree style tabs and the faster 57 experience at the same time, see
https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/issues/1304
As long as you don't update to newer nightly it will work.

>>61807428
It killed some extensions for some people so they are mad.
Some are gonna get updated, some not.

>>61804633
I know Firefox power users will go down fighting, but, as a Chrome using normie (who used FF for years prior), I'm about to switch back when this hits stable.

I've always much preferred the Chrome UI, and I won't feel the loss of XUL extensions since Chrome only has their WebExt variant anyways. And mobile Firefox supports extensions so that's actually an upgrade.

People can say what they want, and I get that it sucks to lose the only good power user browser, but if Mozilla's goal is to appeal to normies and regain market share then this is a step in the right direction.

>>61807428
There's nothing wrong with webextensions, problem is they're killing off the old style addons. Even worse, they're doing it before webextensions are even fully working.

>>61807055
If you can live with staying on 2017-08-04 nightly for some time then just use >>61807726 until it get a webextension.

>>61792889
>not using ungoogled chromium
weak bait

Will nightly disable XUL in 58 or sometime before it?

>>61808535
They've started removing apis as of 57

>>61808482
Yeah that's what I'm doing.

>>61808640
Yeah, but will they finish within the next few weeks or at 58?

File: 2017-08-09_04-21-04.webm (209KB, 476x292px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 476x292px

test 2

>Add-on bar restored extension broke
>No more add-on bar down the bottom
>Now need to have all the icons at the top
>Menus upside down
Time to go back to 54.

>>61780743
Is it my imagination or is the font rendering in nightly for youtube suddenly amazing?

>>61798309
image zoom addons are a must for me, session managers, 4chanx, adblock stuff, youtube adjustments.
Tab scissors for chrome because of the stupid way the tabs shrink and they become nearly the size of the x to close them.

>>61809581
It's not your imagination

>>61781851
I've currently got 46 items related to chromium littering my task manager. That's just taking the piss desu.
By google, not by you.

>>61780743
Firefox 55 caused my File, Edit, View, Historu, Bookmarks, Tools, Help Tabs to lose color in their first two options.

For example, in the Tools Tab, Downloads and Add-ons have been Grayed Out instead of their usual black color.

Anyone else have this bug?

>>61809639
Do you use Tab Scope too?

>>61785307
When shopping for any item, I open every product page I can find related to it, even terrible ones to read the comments.
I open most of the threads on a board/s.
I'm not that guy, but things can get busy quickly.
Powerbrowsing.

>>61809722
No, just added it but should of knew it'd be legacy. there will be something like that for chrome as well I'm assuming, it'd be even handier on there. Good idea anon. I use Opera's built in tab preview thing.
I usually have Chrome, Firefox and Opera open.

My new fave extension is enhancer for youtube, because if you scroll to read comments the video goes to a popup on the side and you can keep watching and resize it.
Nightly seems to have fixed issues with youtube buffering too, I only used Chrome because firefox youtube was borked.

Won't happen, the outcry will cause them to delay forcing the new extension system.

>>61809968
Nope, they're really forcing everyone to use webextensions with 57.

>>61795885
https everywhere works for... everywhere. even links you click on. the "forcing https" aspect of Firefox you're talking about only works for typing in the address bar.

Keep getting "Firefox is up to date".

Anyone have any idea why or suggestions on how to fix? Already tried restarting Firefox several times.

File: batman.gif (442KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 500x375px

I've installed NIghtly (FF 57) and it's so god damn fast. No memes. The memory management is also amazing.

Looking at the addons page, almost all the top addons have already been ported to webextensions, and the few remaining (like uBlock Origin) and in the process of being ported and almost complete.

You guys can bitch and moan all you want, but Firefox has shifted its forcus to performance and I'm loving the results so far.

>>61780743

Version 55 has killed Selenium IDE for me, so uninstalling and rolling back to 54.

>>61793445
>No LocalStorage delete
It's shit

Is there any viable Rikaisama alternative (especially the auto import feature is very nice) or some way to make i work in 57+ ? Will the dev try to update it?
Will I just be forced to use some fork of Firefox solely for reading?

>>61810650
That thing have a chrome extension version known as rikaikun so you can just switch to that

>>61810951
I heard it's miles worse but I will try that.

>>61810959
A quick google search say it have an enhanced version known as rikaigu

>>61810959
Just like majority of replacement addons

>>61811067
>>61810982
I thought it some new update broke it but thankfully it turned out FF was blocking from installing it because it's not multiprocess compatible without informing me about it.
Fucking chucklefags.

>>61811208
They could at least bother to give any more info than 'add-on is incompatible'.
This new fad started by W10 of giving absolutely no info about encountered problems is retarded as fuck.

Why is it telling me my firefox is up to date at 54 when I try to update? When I go to the site it also says 54.01 is the latest but all the installers are 55. Are they rolling it out delayed for some people?

Thanks OP, if not for your post, I wouldn't know I can't downgrade 55. GG Mozilla.

So, Waterfox or PaleMoon or Seamonkey?

>>61811387
Nightly from 4 days ago still lets me keep all my extensions (including tree style tabs and other extensions that modify the UI). Newest one killed tree style tabs though.
Just get https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/issues/1304 change the extensions.allow-non-mpc-extensions boolean, disable updates and enjoy two times better performance than 55 (at least with my extensions and 50 tabs opened) while still keeping all your extensions.

File: firefox_2017-08-09_08-31-44.jpg (2KB, 58x34px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 58x34px

I managed to get rid of all the other useless stuff by using about:config and some userstyles but how do I remove this bullshit?

>>61781925
Who gives a shit about startup times? I start firefox like, once a month.

>>61782233
>>61780743
Wait, does this mean tree-style tabs won't work anymore???

What the hell am I going to do now?!

>>61784769
Fuck that nigger lover Anglin. If I ever met him I'd murder him and be hailed as a hero by the kike press AND /pol/.

>>61811533
Read the thread.
But yeah you won't be able to move past 57 for some time.

>>61811473
How long is Nightly supposed to support legacy addons? Why does 57 nightly support them, but 57 stable won't?

>>61811586
Because FF wants to force webextensions but they ain't ready yet and nightly always gets most freedom anyway.

>>61811586
>Nightly supposed to support legacy addons
Wasn't 57 supposed to be the last one for Nightly?

File: HOW.png (66KB, 255x643px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 255x643px

>>61811577
If I'm reading this thread right.. even Firefox 55 is going to kill my Tree Tabs?

Because if so, god fucking dammit. How am I supposed to handle these tabs in a fucking horizontal light? Why won't firefox just implement a tab sidebar natively already? FUCKING WORTHLESS COCKSUCKERS

>>61811629
Make do with Nightly 57 until some other option appears.

>>61811645
I'm going to keep Firefox 54 until somebody else makes a fucking browser that works right.

>>61811659
Nightly 57 should have all your extensions and is significantly faster than 54.

>>61796042
>and stop using lastpass
Speaking of, I just use the base password keeping system, I'm going to assume that's a terrible thing so are there any good, free alternatives outside of having a notepad file?

Does anyone know how to search for only webextensions and not all addons on mozilla's site?

>>61792875
What in the world is wrong with using Malwarebytes as a side thing to scan for malware? If he's using it as his main antivirus that's a bit of a worry but there's nothing wrong with using it just to scan.

>>61811666
I'm not a fucking ricer, I'm not using a fucking nightly build of a web browser.

File: 1454396352067.png (171KB, 374x347px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 374x347px

>>61811765
>I'm not a fucking ricer, I'm not using a fucking nightly build
What did he mean by this?

>>61811775
What I mean is I don't want to wake up every day wondering what browser feature will be broken this time because I want a few extra millisecond faster page loads. I have more productive things to do with my life, like self harm and gambling.

>>61811792
You misunderstood me.
The version I mentioned is fully stable for me and loads my 50 tabs two times quicker 9measured with a stopwatch). I turned the updates off and I'm enjoying a stable, snappy browser.
Still not sure what ricing has to do with that, I thought ricers don't like bleeding edge because heavily riced shit is more prone to break with even a slight change.

>>61811851
>Nightly 57
>the version I mentioned is fully stable for me
Yeah, today. What about tomorrow?

>>61811902
That's why I recommended turning updates off.

>>61811908
So what am I to do, run regression tests on my browser every day until I find a version that works, then turn off upgrades?

I have better things to do with my life. Maybe 10 years ago that would sound appealing, but not anymore. I've wasted too much of my life jacking around with computer bullshit already.

>>61811939
Either try the one I'm recommending to you or stay with the shitty, slow stable.
Your loss.

>>61782384
I tried Firefox for a while, but at the time the session manager wee incapable of handling the amount of tab I open and the last hundreds of tabs I opened were always unrecorded by the session manager, thus I stopped using Firefox.

>>61811946
My gain really. The amount of time I'd spend dicking around with nightly builds is orders of magnitude more than what I'd spend waiting for firefox to start on the RARE occasion that I close firefox.

>>61811989
It took me a whooping two minutes to install the version some anon recommended ITT.

>>61812001
I restart firefox maybe a whopping .5 times a month. And it takes what... 20 seconds to start? I don't even know, never long enough for me to be particularly annoyed by it.

Trying to shave seconds off something like that is real ricer shit.

>>61812010
It's also quicker in general, but I guess not everybody cares.

So, what other browsers support XUL extensions?

>>61812021
No, I care not a fucking wit about it being marginally faster because I never find myself waiting for it to be done with something.

What I care about is my tab management works and continues to always work, because that's the sort of thing that ACTUALLY impacts my workflow.

>>61811908
Would you be able to point to the version you're using?

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/2017/

>>61797814
It's a very big deal

>>61797814
Some dumbass was on /g/ on Saturday trying to say there was no way Google would fire the guy. What a dumbshit.

>>61812038
And it will still work.
Just say you anymore that you hate change. Let us be done with it.

>>61812259
>Just say you anymore that you
wut?

And yes, I hate when shit that works, breaks. Any sane man does.

>>61812601
I still don't get why you assume it would, but w/e.
We're done here.

>>61800546
>I'll just switch to ESR when stable hits 57.
So what will you do once ESR hits 59 next year?

You're pushing back the inevitable.

So why would you do the extensions.allow-non-mpc-extensions trick if you still have to disable multi-process Nightly for the extension to work?
Without multiprocess you may as well use the current stable.

>>61787152
>>61787152
>wtf I hate how 4chanx allows you to retrieve deleted posts now
It's been doing that since I can't remember
You can disable it.
Guy looked as young as her desu

>>61807726
yeah, he needed to change mTabContainer to TabContainer

>>61811586
>>61811621

There's no plan to remove legacy extensions on nightly.

What's more stable runs legacy extensions if they have an special signature so mozilla can have system addons that needs a more powerful api than cripple-extensions, they just removed the access to addons devs on stable releases removed some old as fuck parts that are probably not being used for any maintained legacy extension and changed names of some apis, a good example is tree style tabs that just needed to change "mTabContainer" to "TabContainer" also some extensions thad adds stuff on about:addons or similar places needs to rebind the menus cause they have added some new element (in some cases an invisible element that doesn't seem to have any use).

Mozilla just want to give users the impression that removing legacy addons is what makes firefox faster so they have a good excuse and a lot of blind users defending the decision.

>>61811491
You call that bullshit while having the fucking 3 dots of "i don't know how hotkeys works"?

seriously nothing is more useless than that fucking 3 dots button.

>>61811746
that should work, probably.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/tag/firefox57