Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum(hacks.mozilla.org)
hacks.mozilla.org
Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/10/firefox-56-last-stop-before-quantum/
189 comments
Hi, Screenshots developer here –
We've gotten similar feedback about the Save and Download buttons, we added the cloud icon in part to make that clearer. I feel like there's a ticket about it as well, but I not able to find it. We're planning on adding a Copy button, and we'll probably do some user research on the buttons generally to make sure the choice is clear.
We did have a full page screenshot feature, but it didn't make the cut for Firefox 56. It's back in Firefox 57.
If you have any issues or feedback on Screenshots, we track most of our work in GitHub and welcome new issues there: https://github.com/mozilla-services/screenshots
We've gotten similar feedback about the Save and Download buttons, we added the cloud icon in part to make that clearer. I feel like there's a ticket about it as well, but I not able to find it. We're planning on adding a Copy button, and we'll probably do some user research on the buttons generally to make sure the choice is clear.
We did have a full page screenshot feature, but it didn't make the cut for Firefox 56. It's back in Firefox 57.
If you have any issues or feedback on Screenshots, we track most of our work in GitHub and welcome new issues there: https://github.com/mozilla-services/screenshots
I too found this dialog to have bizarre choices for function and iconography. My main gripe with it is that there are now two "Save" actions in Firefox that have completely different functionality (Save a page vs Save a screenshot). I found this to be a very odd choice.
I'm on Ubuntu on a Thinkpad that has the trackpad disabled. Plain Jane Microsoft wired USB mouse plugged in.
I use the right-click/context menu a fair amount. Since FF screenshots was added, it gets triggered frequently when I'm popping the right/click menu on a page -- without my making any click after the right-click to open the context menu. And with the trackpad disabled and using a mouse with a physical button and a rather distinct click, I can say this with considerable confidence.
So, then I have to to hit the escape key to kill the FF screenshot functionality. Which is becoming muscle memory, at this point.
I use the right-click/context menu a fair amount. Since FF screenshots was added, it gets triggered frequently when I'm popping the right/click menu on a page -- without my making any click after the right-click to open the context menu. And with the trackpad disabled and using a mouse with a physical button and a rather distinct click, I can say this with considerable confidence.
So, then I have to to hit the escape key to kill the FF screenshot functionality. Which is becoming muscle memory, at this point.
I was pretty pissed it automatically uploaded the image. "Save" refers to saving to your local machine. "Upload" means uploading to a remote server. Fix the damn button.
Thanks for the reply. Adding a "cloud" icon to a button called "Save" does not make it clearer, it makes it contradictory (does it save it or does it upload it?). It's very clear based on the design of the interface that your primary goal is to get people to upload their screenshots to your servers. The "save" button is the only one with a label. The others are icons only. The "save" button is 3x as big as the other two. The "save" button is the only button with any color (the others are black & white). Also note that the current "save" feature (which uploads the screenshot to mozilla servers) actually does the opposite of saving them because after 2 weeks they will be deleted.
I'm not convinced "user research" is the best way to go here. If the majority of your selected users think "save" should mean "upload to mozilla" does that mean they're right? And when they hit "save" in microsoft word or whatever, they think the document is going to microsoft servers?
"Save" means put it in my local storage.
"Download" means copy some file from a remote server onto my local storage.
"Upload" means copy it from my local storage to a remote server.
I also just realized that clicking the "save" button clobbers whatever is in my clipboard.
https://screenshots.firefox.com/oFTVibyVnGx7LPAl/news.ycombi...
I'm not convinced "user research" is the best way to go here. If the majority of your selected users think "save" should mean "upload to mozilla" does that mean they're right? And when they hit "save" in microsoft word or whatever, they think the document is going to microsoft servers?
"Save" means put it in my local storage.
"Download" means copy some file from a remote server onto my local storage.
"Upload" means copy it from my local storage to a remote server.
I also just realized that clicking the "save" button clobbers whatever is in my clipboard.
https://screenshots.firefox.com/oFTVibyVnGx7LPAl/news.ycombi...
After using it to actually upload that shot, I just realized it captured and shared much more than just the screenshot. It captured and shared the page title and domain of the page I took a screenshot of. That seems like quite the security risk given that I wasn't notified such was going to be shared. Imagine if I'm working on a dev server or a private place on a public server. It seems that when people want to share a screenshot, they want to share just the screenshot in many cases.
> I'm not convinced "user research" is the best way to go here. If the majority of your selected users think "save" should mean "upload to mozilla" does that mean they're right?
More or less, yes, if more people understand one design than another, then the one that more people understand is the right one. We're generally shooting for more than a majority though, we'd want most people to understand the interface, and would also take negative reactions into account.
In our past studies we found people generally understood the buttons well enough, and specifically it was obvious after first use what was happening. But we only compared the current buttons to one other option (which didn't compare well), so it wasn't a very thorough test.
There's more overhead in updating this interface than some others, since we have to get updated translations (to more strings than just the button) and change all our onboarding, which is why we've kind of left it be until we can look at the full set of buttons more closely.
More or less, yes, if more people understand one design than another, then the one that more people understand is the right one. We're generally shooting for more than a majority though, we'd want most people to understand the interface, and would also take negative reactions into account.
In our past studies we found people generally understood the buttons well enough, and specifically it was obvious after first use what was happening. But we only compared the current buttons to one other option (which didn't compare well), so it wasn't a very thorough test.
There's more overhead in updating this interface than some others, since we have to get updated translations (to more strings than just the button) and change all our onboarding, which is why we've kind of left it be until we can look at the full set of buttons more closely.
One of Mozilla's major value propositions is a privacy and security focus. Lots of people are interested in Firefox because it doesn't stream tons of data about browsing sessions upstream. It should always be obvious when a user is uploading information to the internet; the intuition on snipping/screenshot tools is that they perform actions locally.
I take screenshots of internal graphs, admin pages that may contain pseudo-private endpoints and admin account information all the time ("Logged in as $ADMIN_USER", account numbers with vendors, etc.). Sharing those in a private chat or email is a big part of my screenshotting use case. People screenshot a lot of private data.
I don't think Mozilla is wise in making "send your image to a public bucket protected only by the obscurity of its URL" the default behavior, at least not without making it obvious that this is what's happening. This sneaky exfiltration of private data is a large part of what people hate about Google and Facebook.
Maybe there could be an opt-out on first use? I get that your average grandma isn't going to understand the distinction and will want something she can share (but she's also probably just trying to get to email or Facebook anyway), but this is a real potential security problem for your users.
I take screenshots of internal graphs, admin pages that may contain pseudo-private endpoints and admin account information all the time ("Logged in as $ADMIN_USER", account numbers with vendors, etc.). Sharing those in a private chat or email is a big part of my screenshotting use case. People screenshot a lot of private data.
I don't think Mozilla is wise in making "send your image to a public bucket protected only by the obscurity of its URL" the default behavior, at least not without making it obvious that this is what's happening. This sneaky exfiltration of private data is a large part of what people hate about Google and Facebook.
Maybe there could be an opt-out on first use? I get that your average grandma isn't going to understand the distinction and will want something she can share (but she's also probably just trying to get to email or Facebook anyway), but this is a real potential security problem for your users.
> if more people understand one design than another, then the one that more people understand is the right one.
Something something Henry Ford and faster horses. It's still bad design even if 50%+ε understand save as 'upload to some server' and not the old meaning that predates Windows 95 which is to save it to local storage. You shouldn't be taking liberties whenever you are about to upload any bit of information from your users, instead you should obtain informed consent from all users and not just from better informed ones that can parse the meaning from the cloud icon. The UI is wrong until only a moron in a hurry[1] would be mistaken about what your software is about to perform. Otherwise how are you any better than that other company that starts with a G and ends with oogle.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry
Something something Henry Ford and faster horses. It's still bad design even if 50%+ε understand save as 'upload to some server' and not the old meaning that predates Windows 95 which is to save it to local storage. You shouldn't be taking liberties whenever you are about to upload any bit of information from your users, instead you should obtain informed consent from all users and not just from better informed ones that can parse the meaning from the cloud icon. The UI is wrong until only a moron in a hurry[1] would be mistaken about what your software is about to perform. Otherwise how are you any better than that other company that starts with a G and ends with oogle.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry
Haha I am completely dismayed. So that means if I use File -> "Save Page As..." I can look forward to that eventually sending my entire page to your servers ;)
Again thanks for your replies and hopefully they can be more clear in the future (without being incorrect). And just in case I have sounded like a jerk, I really do love Firefox and I have been using it since it first came out as Phoenix. I appreciate the work you all put into it even if my above comments didn't make that clear. I actually used the Mozilla Suite before that, too. I still have, wear, and love my dinosaur head t-shirt I ordered from the mozilla store soooo long ago. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Mo...
Again thanks for your replies and hopefully they can be more clear in the future (without being incorrect). And just in case I have sounded like a jerk, I really do love Firefox and I have been using it since it first came out as Phoenix. I appreciate the work you all put into it even if my above comments didn't make that clear. I actually used the Mozilla Suite before that, too. I still have, wear, and love my dinosaur head t-shirt I ordered from the mozilla store soooo long ago. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Mo...
This seems to be one of those "dark patterns" in design, where they try to persuade someone to perform a certain action.
At the very least, change it to "Save to Cloud" and "Save to Disk." But to be really clear, "Upload and Share" is definitely the way to go.
At the very least, change it to "Save to Cloud" and "Save to Disk." But to be really clear, "Upload and Share" is definitely the way to go.
> and specifically it was obvious after first use what was happening.
Sure, it's obvious after the first use, but if somebody is taking a screenshot of sensitive information, is the best way for them to find this out to show them that they've already uploaded said sensitive information to Mozilla's servers?
Sure, it's obvious after the first use, but if somebody is taking a screenshot of sensitive information, is the best way for them to find this out to show them that they've already uploaded said sensitive information to Mozilla's servers?
"More or less, yes, if more people understand one design than another, then the one that more people understand is the right one. ", he posted on the one website in the world that still holds on to the original meaning of the word 'hacker'.
Thank you for pointing this out. This is a bug IMHO. No security-focused browser to do that.
honest question, why would anyone use an in-browser screenshot tool when screenshot tools already come pre-installed in basically every operating system?
can Firefox's screenshot tool be disabled? I'd like to switch back from Chrome due to Big Brother concerns but not if Firefox is making questionable choices like this.
can Firefox's screenshot tool be disabled? I'd like to switch back from Chrome due to Big Brother concerns but not if Firefox is making questionable choices like this.
If you consider Firefox Screenshots from the perspective of a Support tool, this makes alot of sense. Customer wants to file a support ticket or bug report, needs to include a screenshot. Screenshot taken, they paste the link into the ticket, done. They never leave the browser.
Outside of the browser, fire up the screenshot tool, crop whatever you want to show, save it, upload it to imgur or website of choice, attach or paste it.
I would liken the tool to Fedora's amazing fpaste tool, which you invoke via the following:
fpaste also takes several safety precautions such as static URLs that delete themselves after 24 hours.
So I can see Screenshots being very useful for that purpose. It just needs to be better about disclosing what it's doing.
Outside of the browser, fire up the screenshot tool, crop whatever you want to show, save it, upload it to imgur or website of choice, attach or paste it.
I would liken the tool to Fedora's amazing fpaste tool, which you invoke via the following:
foo | fpaste
fpaste also takes several safety precautions such as static URLs that delete themselves after 24 hours.
So I can see Screenshots being very useful for that purpose. It just needs to be better about disclosing what it's doing.
cat verysecret.csv | cut -f 1 -d ' ' |fpaste -z -x -a
You can try it for yourself in the browser:
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/
If you accidentally fpasted something sensitive, you're given a deactivation link to remove it immediately.
If you accidentally fpasted something sensitive, you're given a deactivation link to remove it immediately.
Well, once you learn the backwards behavior of the buttons, nothing will get sent to mozilla (click "download" and not "save"). I thought it would be cool to save the entire page, even the parts that aren't in view (difficult with operating-system screenshot tools). (I couldn't figure out how to make this work.) And yes, you can right-click on the screenshot button and remove it from the toolbar (I don't think this would disable the entire feature, maybe there's a keyboard shortcut to activate it as well).
This is one of the best features of new Firefox for me.
Normally I had to start up gimp, select an option, set few seconds timeout, grap the screenshot, and then edit it to show only the part I wanted.
Screenshot in firefox is aware of the page, you can select the appropriate html tag visually.
Actually I thought they removed it in recent Nighlty and was looking for it, after few days I found it in the triple dot, (just next to the start and pocket icons).
Screenshot in firefox is aware of the page, you can select the appropriate html tag visually.
Actually I thought they removed it in recent Nighlty and was looking for it, after few days I found it in the triple dot, (just next to the start and pocket icons).
Note that there are a ton of ways to grab screenshots on linux that don't require you to start gimp. (I'm assuming you're using linux since you mentioned gimp; yes I know it runs on other platforms, but those platforms also have other, much easier ways to capture screenshots). On linux workstations I usually have one of those quake-console things so I hit whatever key combination triggers it (on my mac it's double-ctrl, brings down iterm 2 window). From any console you can use the "import" command (part of imagemagick package). This lets you grab the whole screen, a single window, or an arbitrary rectangle. `import foo.png` Gnome has its own screenshot tool, and there are likely dozens of other packages that do the same thing.
[deleted]
Screenshots, what.. ? Is this even if you're not signed into Mozilla?
I remember recent HN submissions about Mozilla sharing information with Google...
I remember recent HN submissions about Mozilla sharing information with Google...
>it could screenshot the entire page
I saw that too, but it seems the only way to do it is the old ctrl+shift+i and use the dev screen shot tool after enabling it in the toolbox. This method does always save locally though.
I saw that too, but it seems the only way to do it is the old ctrl+shift+i and use the dev screen shot tool after enabling it in the toolbox. This method does always save locally though.
I've tried Developer's Edition, but gave up when I saw that Vimperator would not work on it.
Hopefully someone from Mozilla reads this and takes notes. I completely agree with you on this one.
was super shocked when the button uploaded to the servers.
The straightforward way most people use screenshots nowadays is to paste in Slack/Messenger/Google doc. Seems like a no-brainer for the default to be "copy to clipboard", but instead it's "upload to servers with no indication of this on the first click".
The straightforward way most people use screenshots nowadays is to paste in Slack/Messenger/Google doc. Seems like a no-brainer for the default to be "copy to clipboard", but instead it's "upload to servers with no indication of this on the first click".
On your second point, I'm running the 57 beta and am not sure what you're talking about.
It's true that there is no "always on" status bar at the bottom. However, when I hover over a link, its URL does appear in the bottom-left corner. Exact same behavior as Chrome.
It's true that there is no "always on" status bar at the bottom. However, when I hover over a link, its URL does appear in the bottom-left corner. Exact same behavior as Chrome.
Thanks to you and others for pointing this out. I've been using status 4 evar addon since they removed the status bar. I think the original behavior when they removed the status bar was to have a tooltip popup with the URL, but looks like it has changed since then. Does it popup immediately or is it like the tooltip where you have to hover for a couple of seconds before it shows up? I'll try removing my addon to check. Note that the addon allows me to configure how long the delay is (current setting=0ms) and how long it stays there after I move my mouse.
It takes a fraction of a second to pop up (maybe a few hundred milliseconds).
Yeah just confirmed by removing the addon. The url shows up but only after an annoying delay and an animated fade-in. Ugh.
Flickering in and out instantly as you move the cursor across a page and happen to pass through a bunch of links would be a lot more annoying.
Alternate implementation would be to make sure the cursor has actually stopped, which still needs a frame or two before you act on it.
I could definitely do without the fade-in, that's inconsistent with the rest of the OS and it feels clunky. I wonder if the designers are on a different OS where this is normal for tooltips?
Alternate implementation would be to make sure the cursor has actually stopped, which still needs a frame or two before you act on it.
I could definitely do without the fade-in, that's inconsistent with the rest of the OS and it feels clunky. I wonder if the designers are on a different OS where this is normal for tooltips?
Just did some browser comparisons:
Safari has a fade-in and triggers it immediately, so you do get a pop-up as you move your mouse around. But the fade and delay on closing smooths it out enough that it doesn't flash on and off. I don't love that it pops up instantly when I don't want it to.
Chrome and Firefox feel pretty similar. There's a delay on fade-in and a (longer?) delay on fade-out. Looking at it more closely, I think it does check that the cursor has stopped. Moving left to right across a link won't trigger the popup even if you're over it for a long time. So is it just the fade that makes opening feel slow?
I'm not totally sure whether I'd like it better without the fade. Since I don't see a way to turn it off there's no easy way to find out.
Safari has a fade-in and triggers it immediately, so you do get a pop-up as you move your mouse around. But the fade and delay on closing smooths it out enough that it doesn't flash on and off. I don't love that it pops up instantly when I don't want it to.
Chrome and Firefox feel pretty similar. There's a delay on fade-in and a (longer?) delay on fade-out. Looking at it more closely, I think it does check that the cursor has stopped. Moving left to right across a link won't trigger the popup even if you're over it for a long time. So is it just the fade that makes opening feel slow?
I'm not totally sure whether I'd like it better without the fade. Since I don't see a way to turn it off there's no easy way to find out.
I don't know what your delay is set to, but for me it's faster than I can move my eyes from the link to the bottom of the screen.
What model of computer are you using (and what operating system)? For me it is practically instantaneous.
> Showing me where the link points when I hover the mouse over it is something so fundamental to browsing I just can't figure out why it was ever removed
Firefox 57 (and maybe previous versions, I can't remember) pops up a "temporary status bar" (for lack of a better phrase) with the link destination in it when you hover on a link (https://imgur.com/a/Vo7AZ).
Firefox 57 (and maybe previous versions, I can't remember) pops up a "temporary status bar" (for lack of a better phrase) with the link destination in it when you hover on a link (https://imgur.com/a/Vo7AZ).
> and maybe previous versions, I can't remember
Yes, this has been the way it's done for a very long time. It's such a basic feature that I don't think there was ever a version of Firefox without this feature in one form or another.
Yes, this has been the way it's done for a very long time. It's such a basic feature that I don't think there was ever a version of Firefox without this feature in one form or another.
> Firefox Quantum’s new engine uses 30% less memory than Chrome
This is a pretty appealing claim. I'm ashamed to admit that one thing that might keep me on Chrome is the trove of passwords in my sync'd up account. But I'll definitely give Quantum a test drive.
This is a pretty appealing claim. I'm ashamed to admit that one thing that might keep me on Chrome is the trove of passwords in my sync'd up account. But I'll definitely give Quantum a test drive.
> I'm ashamed to admit that one thing that might keep me on Chrome is the trove of passwords in my sync'd up account.
I was the same until a few days ago when I finally took the time to switch to a real password manager. A HN'er recommended Bitwarden[0] and I have to say it was pretty painless and I am much happier knowing my passwords are with a third party (not that I have any real issue with Google but I did worry about having all my eggs in one basket as such).
I haven't paid for Bitwarden yet but I plan to providing it doesn't have a massive failure in the next couple of weeks. Looks like it will easily be worth the $10/year though.
Another added bonus is that their Android app is very decent as well and so far has worked with all my apps as well which is handy and not something I had thought much about in the past. Makes life that little bit easier although I don't have to enter app passwords much in Android it is nice to have the option now.
But back to Firefox - I checked out Nightly when it hit 57 a while back and was extremely impressed. It felt like a whole new browser. Not sure if I will switch from Chrome just yet but I am excited for the future of Firefox again.
[0]https://bitwarden.com
I was the same until a few days ago when I finally took the time to switch to a real password manager. A HN'er recommended Bitwarden[0] and I have to say it was pretty painless and I am much happier knowing my passwords are with a third party (not that I have any real issue with Google but I did worry about having all my eggs in one basket as such).
I haven't paid for Bitwarden yet but I plan to providing it doesn't have a massive failure in the next couple of weeks. Looks like it will easily be worth the $10/year though.
Another added bonus is that their Android app is very decent as well and so far has worked with all my apps as well which is handy and not something I had thought much about in the past. Makes life that little bit easier although I don't have to enter app passwords much in Android it is nice to have the option now.
But back to Firefox - I checked out Nightly when it hit 57 a while back and was extremely impressed. It felt like a whole new browser. Not sure if I will switch from Chrome just yet but I am excited for the future of Firefox again.
[0]https://bitwarden.com
I would like to switch to Bitwarden, but I don't know how I can assure I can trust them with all my passwords. Are any of the founders well-known security experts? Has the service been recommended by respected security researchers?
I am not a security expert, so I cannot assert their trustworthiness myself. I know that you can run your own server. But even then, without auditing the code, configuring a firewall, and checking network logs, I cannot assure the server and the clients do not call home. And all of those solutions are both prohibitively time-consuming and way out of my area of expertise.
How did you decide Bitwarden was trustworthy? How can I stop worrying and give them my passwords already?
I am not a security expert, so I cannot assert their trustworthiness myself. I know that you can run your own server. But even then, without auditing the code, configuring a firewall, and checking network logs, I cannot assure the server and the clients do not call home. And all of those solutions are both prohibitively time-consuming and way out of my area of expertise.
How did you decide Bitwarden was trustworthy? How can I stop worrying and give them my passwords already?
I didn't pick Bitwarden right away. The comment that mentioned it prompted me to research password managers in general. I looked at primarily online (1Password, LastPass, Bitwarden, etc) and offline desktop client ones (Keepass).
I do prefer the idea of using something like Keepass and not relying on a service but I found it rather frustrating to manage between my multiple devices. I knew if I were to actually make use of a password manager it needed to be a smooth experience because otherwise I would just return to using Chrome's built in one out of laziness.
After researching the main online managers I decided to go with Bitwarden. It is open source so if it does do something dodgy I would hope it is found and reported. I do not have the time nor expertise to audit all of the code myself so I have to put some trust in others.
Plus while it would be a real pain in the ass if accounts were compromised due to the developer being an asshole/idiot it wouldn't destroy my life. I have a strong password on my primary email account (not stored in Bitwarden) along with 2FA. Most of the logins stored in Bitwarden are for things like Hacker News, Reddit, Slack (personal not work), etc. Randomly generated 18+ character strings that are a pain to enter manually, especially on a phone.
I do prefer the idea of using something like Keepass and not relying on a service but I found it rather frustrating to manage between my multiple devices. I knew if I were to actually make use of a password manager it needed to be a smooth experience because otherwise I would just return to using Chrome's built in one out of laziness.
After researching the main online managers I decided to go with Bitwarden. It is open source so if it does do something dodgy I would hope it is found and reported. I do not have the time nor expertise to audit all of the code myself so I have to put some trust in others.
Plus while it would be a real pain in the ass if accounts were compromised due to the developer being an asshole/idiot it wouldn't destroy my life. I have a strong password on my primary email account (not stored in Bitwarden) along with 2FA. Most of the logins stored in Bitwarden are for things like Hacker News, Reddit, Slack (personal not work), etc. Randomly generated 18+ character strings that are a pain to enter manually, especially on a phone.
FYI: KeePass plus Syncthing works great for me for cross-device password databases.
I use KeePass as my password manager, it doesn't sync automatically across all my devices, I occasionaly transfer my keys database to my phone.
You could always upload your encrypted key database to dropbox, and keep your private key on your phone, on your computer, or on a USB stick, if you want automatic sync.
You could always upload your encrypted key database to dropbox, and keep your private key on your phone, on your computer, or on a USB stick, if you want automatic sync.
Syncthing + KeePass works very well for cross device peer-to-peer syncing.
Just make sure to configure Syncthing to ignore KeePass lockfiles.
Just make sure to configure Syncthing to ignore KeePass lockfiles.
It has no unit tests.
I like bitwarden at a high level, but there are tons of things that feel extremely janky with it.
Also for some reason, Firefox keeps complaining that bitwarden is freezing its UI thread.
Also for some reason, Firefox keeps complaining that bitwarden is freezing its UI thread.
I'm not in love with LastPass so am curious as to what you don't like about Bitwarden?
It seems to lag on Firefox. Multiple times I've gotten notifications from Firefox Dev that Bitwarden is causing my page to not render (which was true).
Can't change hotkey for auto-fill login form in Firefox.
No Support for standard notes (yet I guess).
UI renders very slowly on FF and has tons of strange inconsistencies.
It definitely has the FEEL of a somewhat younger open source project while LastPass was much more refined.
I'm debating if I should bother learning C# for the sole purpose of trying to fix some of these issues, because it is maddening enough where I actually use Chrome when i do things that require logins.
Can't change hotkey for auto-fill login form in Firefox.
No Support for standard notes (yet I guess).
UI renders very slowly on FF and has tons of strange inconsistencies.
It definitely has the FEEL of a somewhat younger open source project while LastPass was much more refined.
I'm debating if I should bother learning C# for the sole purpose of trying to fix some of these issues, because it is maddening enough where I actually use Chrome when i do things that require logins.
Thanks. Will probably wait for LastPass to release the firefox plugin for 57 then. Will check Bitwarden again in a few months.
Just to give a second opinion, I have not had any of the issues NikolaeVarius mentioned.
Well that is not quite true actually. In Firefox you can't change the hotkeys but that is more of a Firefox issue as you can't change the hotkeys for any extension. You can in Chrome though.
Well that is not quite true actually. In Firefox you can't change the hotkeys but that is more of a Firefox issue as you can't change the hotkeys for any extension. You can in Chrome though.
BitWarden is new to me, thanks for recommending it! Always good to see new open-source password managers. There are already enough proprietary ones.
You can export passwords from Google:
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/07/10/google-chrome-password-exp...
It may also be possible through the data portability site.
You can also see them by going to https://passwords.google.com
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/07/10/google-chrome-password-exp...
It may also be possible through the data portability site.
You can also see them by going to https://passwords.google.com
And also good to know is that Firefox can do syncing just fine.
I switched to the beta a few days ago and it's crazy fast. I only use ublock origin so I don't miss any extensions, but I'm definitely not switching back.
Agreed. I switched to Nightly and it's completely stable and completely noticeably faster.
Firefox will offer to import those (along with bookmarks) when you start it up, and it offers its own syncing service as well. I switched about a month ago and it's been pretty seamless.
Sending tabs and syncing bookmarks is especially useful. Find sth. nice to read on the PC but have to leave, send the tab(s) to your phone. Stupid registration form, bad mobile site, sth. to copy or paste from: send it to your laptop.
Also, a bit off topic, but the Tab Queue thing in Firefox for Android is incredibly awesome. I have some newsletters that I follow, hit the links, they're queued in Firefox, and I stay in my (K-9) mail app. When I've gonr through all the newsletters, I switch to FF, and all my pages are there.
Also, a bit off topic, but the Tab Queue thing in Firefox for Android is incredibly awesome. I have some newsletters that I follow, hit the links, they're queued in Firefox, and I stay in my (K-9) mail app. When I've gonr through all the newsletters, I switch to FF, and all my pages are there.
Might be looking into bitwarden myself as lastpass as of this post does not support firefox 57.
I also switched to nightly for the speed and immediately started missing LastPass. I switched to bitwarden after eyeing it for a while on recommendation of someone from HN and I'm pretty happy with it.
This has been a constant annoyance for me for a few weeks (since I switched to Nightly), but for what it's worth, Lastpass says they'll have a WebExtension version out by the time Firefox 57 is officially released (2017-11-14).
I was like that a few months back, but then I started using 1password to centralize all my passwords (and for security obviously). Makes switching browsers much easier, especially because (I think) Firefox doesn't use OSX's Keychain.
Same here, I have both Firefox nightly and safari but I tend to use safari more still...
There is one thing that stops me from using Safari (or Chrome/Opera) on Mac OS: the lack of middle-click autoscrolling.
Firefox lets me do a triple-finger tap and then scroll a page smoothly at a consistent pace. This is wonderful for reading sites such as HN without getting RSI from doing the same motion again and again.
Firefox lets me do a triple-finger tap and then scroll a page smoothly at a consistent pace. This is wonderful for reading sites such as HN without getting RSI from doing the same motion again and again.
Use the spacebar?
I've been following https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/Firefox56AddonW...
It's surprised me the amount some people rely on addons for their workflow and the amount of effort they will be going through to resist this change come 57.
For my usage, I've found Firefox Klar/Focus (which I believe already include the speed improvements from 57+?) on Android and have been extremely impressed.
It's surprised me the amount some people rely on addons for their workflow and the amount of effort they will be going through to resist this change come 57.
For my usage, I've found Firefox Klar/Focus (which I believe already include the speed improvements from 57+?) on Android and have been extremely impressed.
For people who are uber concerned about keeping v56 without losing your extensions as part of the 57 update, you can turn off auto update for Firefox:
Go to about:preferences In Firefox Updates choose "Never Check for Updates"
Breathe easy!
I know this is not recommended, but I love my XUL based extensions a little too much (Tab Groups primary among those) to give them up so easily.
Go to about:preferences In Firefox Updates choose "Never Check for Updates"
Breathe easy!
I know this is not recommended, but I love my XUL based extensions a little too much (Tab Groups primary among those) to give them up so easily.
If this is a problem for you, please switch to 52 ESR and use it until June 2018, and file bug reports against those legacy extensions. Disabling updates for a piece of software that is used to run untrusted code is a terrible piece of advice.
Unfortunately, a profile backwards-incompatibility was added in FF55, IIRC, so if you're already on 56 you can't downgrade to 52.
A forum thread[1] suggests it may be possible to use the profile refresh functionality to recover most of the profile. Only problem is that it does not preserve extensions or settings.
[1]: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3032457
[1]: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3032457
What does it preserve, then? (Bookmarks? That's the easy thing to restore. Transfer to another browser then transfer back.)
This link should clarify what is preserved by the refresh.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/refresh-firefox-reset-a...
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/refresh-firefox-reset-a...
I believe this has something to do with moving favicons out of places.sqlite and into favicons.sqlite. This completely destroyed my favicons (thousands) SeaMonkey's Bookmark Manager (and search history going back years).
If Firefox Sync can sync the important bits of your profile, that may be a sufficient solution to this problem?
TBH, Firefox has made great strides in the last 2 releases (55/56) in terms of pure speed and snappiness, which is why the suggestion to keep the best of both worlds. FFx 52 pales performance-wise in comparison with FFx 56. I understand what you are saying and hope that people (on HN of all places) are smart enough to understand the trade-off being made.
I have (sadly) taken this step.
I'm also saddened that a transition with such a large change in functionality for end users didn't warrant syncing up with a Long Term Support version.
There's going to be a bit of a waiting game to see which extensions get ported and with what percentage of their original functionality retained.
Then it will be decision time.
I'm also saddened that a transition with such a large change in functionality for end users didn't warrant syncing up with a Long Term Support version.
There's going to be a bit of a waiting game to see which extensions get ported and with what percentage of their original functionality retained.
Then it will be decision time.
Unfortunately that's also where I'll stop during at least a few months after Firefox 57 is released. Quantum is ultra fast, but my extensions are more important. Greasemonkey and Stylish, for example, have equivalent WebExtensions, but they're not as polished. Same with DownThemAll.
I think WebExtensions should have matured a bit longer, with Quantum, electrolysis, and Photon being made available for all with the old extensions.
I think WebExtensions should have matured a bit longer, with Quantum, electrolysis, and Photon being made available for all with the old extensions.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm fairly sure that if the Firefox developer team could support XUL with the new internals, they would (just look at the insane backlash for a source of motivation). But they didn't, and there must be a reason. Likely it's due to how integrated XUL is with the internals of Firefox and that couldn't gel with the Rust rewrites.
Oh I totally understand why Mozilla did what they did. It was the logical step to make Chrome addons available on Firefox, abandon the structure XUL imposed, and migrate to Servo-based components. But while they promised a better WebExtension standard (which I defended at the time), they didn't deliver. They needed more time to improve the API and make sure the most used extensions were ready[1]. Developers needed more time too to totally change the architecture of their addons.
And today, they're not ready. And they won't be in six weeks either.
[1] https://arewewebextensionsyet.com/
Edit: [1] answers "Are we WebExtensions yet?" as Yes. I don't agree.
And today, they're not ready. And they won't be in six weeks either.
[1] https://arewewebextensionsyet.com/
Edit: [1] answers "Are we WebExtensions yet?" as Yes. I don't agree.
Well they gotta make the cut at some point. If Firefox waits forever then Chrome will just eat up all their users.
Don't listen to the stragglers who want all the old Firefox behaviors supported forever. The wast majority of users don't care about Tree style tabs and vim style keyboard navigation or what XUL even is. They just want something snappy and fast like Chrome. That's how you get users to use your browser. That's how Firefox became popular in the first place. That's how any browser ever became popular. Yes even IE was faster than Netscape at one point, maybe because of nefarious practices by MS, but it was faster, and that's what the users wanted. It's all about the speed.
Don't listen to the stragglers who want all the old Firefox behaviors supported forever. The wast majority of users don't care about Tree style tabs and vim style keyboard navigation or what XUL even is. They just want something snappy and fast like Chrome. That's how you get users to use your browser. That's how Firefox became popular in the first place. That's how any browser ever became popular. Yes even IE was faster than Netscape at one point, maybe because of nefarious practices by MS, but it was faster, and that's what the users wanted. It's all about the speed.
It's because of the killer combo of increased sandboxing, multi-process architecture and performance constraints.
I think they couldn't keep everything together with the degree of access old plugins had to Firefox internals. So at some point they had to rip off the band aid.
I think they couldn't keep everything together with the degree of access old plugins had to Firefox internals. So at some point they had to rip off the band aid.
Multiprocess already shipped. One of the reasons extension developers are frustrated is that Mozilla told them to make their XUL extensions multiprocess-compatible and then told them they'd have to throw that work away.
Notice how I carefully avoided your strawman. There were several reasons for their action. I listed what I believe are the 3 main reasons.
They did have the choice to not ship the increased sandboxing, multi-process architecture and performance constraints until three months after the new extension APIs were ready. They didn't because they thought the trade-off wasn't worth it.
They really couldn't. People don't do things until pressured. Look what happened with Python 3. It took 10 years for it to reach Python 2 parity in terms of packages...
The problem with WebExtensions has been Mozilla not providing APIs, not extension developers dragging their feet.
I really do miss the slow and methodical Mozilla that was not out to chase the latest Chrome fad...
Absolutely. I won't be upgrading and I'm already looking for alternatives, as long as crucial parts of my workflow (tree tabs, session manager) have no adequate replacement.
The ugly redesign is also a thorn in my side.
The ugly redesign is also a thorn in my side.
The session management piece is my big sticking point. I've come to rely on Session Manager, but the developer has already stated it will not be ported because necessary APIs are not available through WebExtensions. Since Chrome has better options (mostly through Session Buddy, which isn't nearly as good as Session Manager, but it'll have to do) I guess I'll be going to Chrome full time.
Tree style trends had already been ported
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta... has a 'Compatible with Firefox 57' badge, and I've been using it with no issues.
I've always been satisfied with the built in session management (restore last session on open) and don't have any feedback on the other.
I've always been satisfied with the built in session management (restore last session on open) and don't have any feedback on the other.
Not only is the new Tree Style Tabs a step backwards from the old, I'm also not running that addon, but this one: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-tree/ I find it lighter and more responsive.
As for the session manager, I need more features: saving and loading several sessions, etc.
As for the session manager, I need more features: saving and loading several sessions, etc.
Agreed. The inability to customize button placement and the enforcement of a lowest-common-denominator default placement is painful. Unfortunately, all the other major alternatives are just as bad or worse.
Unsure, but doesn't the 'Customize' option give you exactly the ability to customize button placement?
There are some things you could change that will be going away - such as having separate (and equal sized) forward and back buttons and separating them from the location field; breaking out the stop and reload buttons; changing button appearance; and the like that depended on XUL and are going away with the new "Proton" UI.
Even now adjustments I used to be able to make in seconds by installing an alternative theme now take an hour of wrestling with the Classic Theme Restorer extension to restore and unbreak with each version upgrade.
Even now adjustments I used to be able to make in seconds by installing an alternative theme now take an hour of wrestling with the Classic Theme Restorer extension to restore and unbreak with each version upgrade.
The problem is that electrolysis alone already kept breaking hundreds of addons, so that wouldn't have worked. The only way to prevent breakage, from what I've gathered, would have been to just keep Firefox like it is and not go on with Quantum, which really wouldn't have been great either. And of course, with more users testing WebExtension addons, those new addons hsould mature a lot faster than before.
Oh shit. I had not been following this and I didn't know that DownThemAll wasn't going to work. Now I'm sad :(
At least for the time being, you can use legacy extensions, by enabling the right option [1] in about:config.
[1] extensions.legacy.enabled -> true
[1] extensions.legacy.enabled -> true
You can enable legacy extensions but this is not the same as being able to use them. Many significant and important-to-me legacy extensions (such as FireGestures) are currently non-functional on Firefox Nightly and have been for some time. I can only assume that Mozilla has decided that they don't care about keeping any legacy extensions working other than their own (they have some).
> which I believe already include the speed improvements from 57+?
Interestingly Firefox Focus uses WebKit (/Blink?), since that's what Android's webview provides. Firefox for Android should get the improvements around version 58 or 59.
Also good to note, for people planning to stick with an older Firefox for as long as they can: Firefox 52 is an Extended Support Release, and as such will actually be actively supported until June next year. This will give WebExtensions some extra time to mature for more use cases: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/
Interestingly Firefox Focus uses WebKit (/Blink?), since that's what Android's webview provides. Firefox for Android should get the improvements around version 58 or 59.
Also good to note, for people planning to stick with an older Firefox for as long as they can: Firefox 52 is an Extended Support Release, and as such will actually be actively supported until June next year. This will give WebExtensions some extra time to mature for more use cases: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/
Yes, Focus uses WebView. On newer Android versions it's actually provided directly by Chrome (Android 6+ IIRC), on older Android's (Android 5) it's a separate package that's still built from the same sources. (Android 4 is more complicated but also not supported by Focus for that reason.)
I'll be doing the same, staying on 56 for quite awhile. This transition has been very poorly managed by Mozilla. I understand the advantages to Quantum but they have left a very large percentage of their extension developers hanging. Web Extensions is not mature enough for many of the large extensions to be ported but despite that they are proceeding with this transition anyhow.
If I was an affected extension developer I would be walking away now. My user base is about to crumble and the best I can do is maybe offer a pale version of my extension in the new system along with a bunch of excuses out of my control. If perhaps WE does get the features I need, why go to the work to re-write? My users will be long gone.
Quantum is great, don't get me wrong. But the new APIs are too immature to be shutting down a huge number of mature extensions and the users that rely on them. It really makes me question the leadership decisions happening at Mozilla in general.
If I was an affected extension developer I would be walking away now. My user base is about to crumble and the best I can do is maybe offer a pale version of my extension in the new system along with a bunch of excuses out of my control. If perhaps WE does get the features I need, why go to the work to re-write? My users will be long gone.
Quantum is great, don't get me wrong. But the new APIs are too immature to be shutting down a huge number of mature extensions and the users that rely on them. It really makes me question the leadership decisions happening at Mozilla in general.
Not sure if you're aware of the Extended Support Release of FF but it seems better than staying on 56: Firefox 52 ESR will continue getting security patches up through June 2018.
I suspect I'll be on 56 for a very long time as well. I ran on nightlies for many, many years but that ended at 57. At a bare minimum, noScript must be shown to be fully and consistently functional. But I have quite a few other extensions that appear to have been dead ended - self-destructing cookies and session manager are just two.
I think mozilla failed to understand that extensions were the prime differentiator and that a faster Chrome is far down the list of requirements.
I think mozilla failed to understand that extensions were the prime differentiator and that a faster Chrome is far down the list of requirements.
The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
IMO Gutting your developer base is seldom good.
The web developer base is far more interesting and relevant to Mozilla's mission than the extension developer base, and Quantum is the only shot Mozilla has at regaining mindshare there. Looks like it's working, though.
Here's the thing though. Developers understand the technical differences between Chrome and Firefox. To 95% of general users they don't see why they are different. They look about the same and hey, I get Chrome offered to me every time I visit Google so why not use that? The average user doesn't see the difference that gives them any reason to want Firefox. Now the extensions base will be essentially the same, stripping away those that were truly unique. The extensive UI control is disappearing. Firefox (IMO) is slowly stripping away the things that make it unique to 90% of its user base who just see the UI.
Tgis is not true The extension base is not the same. Firefox 57 will have tree style tabs, for example.
Indeed. Just look at PocketPC vs Mobile/Phone/whatever.
Of all companies one would have thought Microsoft understood the value of backwards compatibility...
Of all companies one would have thought Microsoft understood the value of backwards compatibility...
Speaking of pale, i guess there is always Pale Moon...
>By 'as long as possible', I mean well beyond when Firefox 56 is officially supported; I hope to keep using it until it actively breaks or is too alarmingly insecure for me.
or you know, use ESR and get 6 more months of support/bugfixes.
or you know, use ESR and get 6 more months of support/bugfixes.
I know how he feels. Been sitting on 45 for ages now because of their hamfisted move to GTK3.
As for Focus/Klar, it is just a shell. The engine used is webview, and the oldest supported Android is 5.0 (because of an API and because that was when Webview was made updateable outside of Android proper).
As for Focus/Klar, it is just a shell. The engine used is webview, and the oldest supported Android is 5.0 (because of an API and because that was when Webview was made updateable outside of Android proper).
Tab Mix Plus, DownloadThemAll, RightToClick, Status-4-Evar... all regularly used by me, none migrated yet. Not to mention the loss of Classic Theme Restorer's control over the UI highly disappoints me. I really really dislike being locked into the "Chrome Style" UI. I've disliked it since Chrome was released.
I'm using Nightly (v58a) and you can customize the UI a lot more than in the current release (v56).
You can move back/forward and refresh, auto-hide certain buttons like downloads, add items to the "overflow" menu, toggle full/compact mode, toggle title bar, toggle a "grab" space...there are a lot of options.
They've also added proper support for light and dark icons for plugins. So now buttons like 1Password don't stand out with a dark theme.
To me it feels like a return to the level of customization I'd gotten used to in older versions of Firefox. And FWIW, this is what mine looks like: https://i.imgur.com/seJZeg6.png
You can move back/forward and refresh, auto-hide certain buttons like downloads, add items to the "overflow" menu, toggle full/compact mode, toggle title bar, toggle a "grab" space...there are a lot of options.
They've also added proper support for light and dark icons for plugins. So now buttons like 1Password don't stand out with a dark theme.
To me it feels like a return to the level of customization I'd gotten used to in older versions of Firefox. And FWIW, this is what mine looks like: https://i.imgur.com/seJZeg6.png
What you just described is literally nothing like the level of low-level customization that past releases of the Mozilla Suite/Firefox had to offer. Not only can extensions no longer modify any of the browser XUL/chrome://, you can't even install Complete Themes that previous let you control the layout of every single browser css element.
It's like Mozilla is deliberately committing corporate suicide with these hasty feature removals.
It's like Mozilla is deliberately committing corporate suicide with these hasty feature removals.
Is it now possible to make the title bar blue when the window is active and grey when it's not? The lack of this feature (that once used to be the norm) is one of the most painful things for me.
Read the news for DownloadThemAll: http://www.downthemall.net/
It's coming. He has started. You can help by becoming a patron.
It's coming. He has started. You can help by becoming a patron.
> There is things we could do with blob: “files” to support segmented downloads and proper resuming and a ton of other things, but browser support right now looks fragile at best…
Woah!! I didn't think it was possible but...download acceleration post 57?
Woah!! I didn't think it was possible but...download acceleration post 57?
For me it's DownThemAll, EdgeWise, GMail Notifier, Session Manager, Status-4-Evar, SuperStop. Not upgrading until at least most of them are ported.
Nice to see FF picking up momentum again. I don't want to use Chrome because I don't trust Google with my data (using Chromium right now). Can't wait to switch back, once it's GA.
Chromium also sends data back to Google... unless you use Ungoogled-chromium, but the latter has the issue of not being up to date (= missing recent security updates).
Honest question: does Chrome share any data with Google, assuming you turn the right switches off?
> assuming you turn the right switches off
That's the problem. I shouldn't have to find the switches in the first place. Plus they constantly keep shuffling the settings around(on other google apps and android too) and I can never find the ones I am looking for.
That's the problem. I shouldn't have to find the switches in the first place. Plus they constantly keep shuffling the settings around(on other google apps and android too) and I can never find the ones I am looking for.
Take a look at https://iridiumbrowser.de/
> Before Iridium Browser, we had to decide if we wanted to have cutting edge technologies like sandboxed processes, WebRTC, WebUSB … , or if we wanted to use a browser that respects our privacy. So we decided to use the power of free software and build a browser that can do both. We analysed the code of Chromium and stripped out the functionality which exposes data to others in a way we don‘t like. See most important changes here: https://github.com/iridium-browser/tracker/wiki/Differences-...
> Before Iridium Browser, we had to decide if we wanted to have cutting edge technologies like sandboxed processes, WebRTC, WebUSB … , or if we wanted to use a browser that respects our privacy. So we decided to use the power of free software and build a browser that can do both. We analysed the code of Chromium and stripped out the functionality which exposes data to others in a way we don‘t like. See most important changes here: https://github.com/iridium-browser/tracker/wiki/Differences-...
I would love to see some evidence for this. The privacy policy contradicts you, hence I would treat this as FUD in absence of actual evidence:
https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/index.html#ser...
(Just make sure you don't sign chromium into your google account. If you sign into your firefox account in firefox, then data is also uploaded, albeit in an encrypted format.)
(Just make sure you don't sign chromium into your google account. If you sign into your firefox account in firefox, then data is also uploaded, albeit in an encrypted format.)
Is there a long term plan from Mozilla to implement declarative and built-in (native-speed) content blockers like Safari?
Would love to not have to use an extension to do this.
Would love to not have to use an extension to do this.
That's actually there in Private Browsing (and I think you can enable it for regular browsing using about:config? But you'll have to search for that yourself), and Firefox Focus includes that by default as well I think.
I believe they're not including it for regular Firefox by default because they don't want to piss off the content industry as long as there aren't enough viable alternative business models.
I believe they're not including it for regular Firefox by default because they don't want to piss off the content industry as long as there aren't enough viable alternative business models.
It's already in Firefox Developer Edition.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer/
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer/
I have developer edition. I don't see it. Is it just like Safari's where you can get extensions that provide content blocking lists?
IIRC there's an option to enable tracking protection in normal browsing on desktop. It's enabled by default in private browsing. (I can't check right now though - it's possible it's just an about:config option too.)
Firefox iOS (on iOS 11+) definitively offers those options, on Android it's private browsing only by default and I don't think there's an option to enable it in normal browsing.
Firefox iOS (on iOS 11+) definitively offers those options, on Android it's private browsing only by default and I don't think there's an option to enable it in normal browsing.
In Firefox Developer edition on macOS there's no obvious way to add new blocklist sources in the UI. You can switch between two provided by Disconnect.me, and that's it.
Do you have version 57.0b3? It comes with two blocking lists.
I have 57.0b6. Looks like it's only enabled on Privacy mode like others have mentioned. Would LOVE to have this enabled on regular mode (even behind a flag). I'd totally switch to Firefox for most development if that worked.
Type `about:config` in the address bar.
Then type `privacy` in the search bar that appears.
Look for `privacy.trackingprotection.ui.enabled` and double click it.
I think that will turn it on everywhere.
Then type `privacy` in the search bar that appears.
Look for `privacy.trackingprotection.ui.enabled` and double click it.
I think that will turn it on everywhere.
NoScript is identified as a "legacy" extension. But it's the only one I use or care about. Hopefully it will be rewritten to work properly?
To me, NoScript is sine qua non. It's the primary differentiating factor between Firefox and other browsers.
To me, NoScript is sine qua non. It's the primary differentiating factor between Firefox and other browsers.
It's being migrated: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migrati...
There's also uMatrix as a replacement.
There's also uMatrix as a replacement.
uMatrix isn't a replacement for NoScript. uMatrix lets you do some javascript blocking, but has none of the other features of NoScript. Several of those features are not available from anything other than NoScript. Eg. I haven't seen any other content blocker implement anything like NoScript's surrogate scripts feature.
NoScript also isn't a superset of the capabilities of uMatrix. Both can do things the other can't.
NoScript's author works on the Mozilla Security Group. As a result, this particular extension was one that was strongly pushed. The author will be releasing a WebExtensions version in time for 57. He maintains the legacy version for the benefit of Tor Browser (based on 52ESR) so there is no chance for breakage before Tor Browser moves to 59ESR.
There is javascript.enabled key in about:config that _seems_ to be working as expected but setting it manually every time is a chore.
NoScript isn't about bluntly disabling JavaScript. It's a set of tools for managing what scripts can do and what scripts run.
I will badly miss vimperator. Yeah 56.0 works smoothly but without ability to use keyboard only that's hollow victory for me.
Typing this in vim after viewing hackers news in w3m shows how desperate I am.
Typing this in vim after viewing hackers news in w3m shows how desperate I am.
Try qutebrowser?
It's so niche i don't think they will bother.
I'm not sure what features of Vimperator you're using, but if it's only about being able to navigate through your keyboard only, try Vimium-FF: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimium-ff/?sr...
There are all sorts of issues with Vimium.
For instance, doesn't work on non-website pages, often have to cmd-w when x doesn't work completely defeating the extension to begin with. No d vs D to close prev/next tab, or p vs P. No temporary pass-thru, just whitelists.
Anyone who thinks Vimium is anywhere nearly as polished as Vimperator probably never used the latter much. Though not sure if it's to do with API limits vs general lack of polish.
But since Chrome never had a single solution as good as Pentadactyl/Vimperator, must be an API thing which means we're a bit screwed.
For instance, doesn't work on non-website pages, often have to cmd-w when x doesn't work completely defeating the extension to begin with. No d vs D to close prev/next tab, or p vs P. No temporary pass-thru, just whitelists.
Anyone who thinks Vimium is anywhere nearly as polished as Vimperator probably never used the latter much. Though not sure if it's to do with API limits vs general lack of polish.
But since Chrome never had a single solution as good as Pentadactyl/Vimperator, must be an API thing which means we're a bit screwed.
> Anyone who thinks Vimium is anywhere nearly as polished as Vimperator probably never used the latter much.
That's why I suggested it - apparently OP didn't use it that extensively :)
Note that even if Chrome didn't have an API, that doesn't mean Firefox will never get it. For example, Vimium had to reimplement its own address bar, but I believe they're working on API's that will let it manipulate Firefox's.
That's why I suggested it - apparently OP didn't use it that extensively :)
Note that even if Chrome didn't have an API, that doesn't mean Firefox will never get it. For example, Vimium had to reimplement its own address bar, but I believe they're working on API's that will let it manipulate Firefox's.
I will take a look, thanks. I am using basic set of open, tabnew, follow, bmark. Proper follow hint is very important.
Also the ability to redefine keys since I use colemak.
I was briefly trying chrome and cVim did seem promising but I prefer firefox.
Edit: I had to try it immediately and it looks very promising, thanks. Covers all the basic stuff I need.
Also the ability to redefine keys since I use colemak.
I was briefly trying chrome and cVim did seem promising but I prefer firefox.
Edit: I had to try it immediately and it looks very promising, thanks. Covers all the basic stuff I need.
>Proper follow hint is very important.
Depending on what you mean by this, be sure to check the advanced settings for vimium-ff. It will let you choose which characters to use for the hints, or there's a buried option to use the link text instead.
Depending on what you mean by this, be sure to check the advanced settings for vimium-ff. It will let you choose which characters to use for the hints, or there's a buried option to use the link text instead.
There are various proposals for keyboard shortcut APIs to support extensions like Vimperator. Here's one:
https://github.com/Koushien/keyboard-shortcut-api
It's too late for it (or something like it) to be in Firefox 57, but it seems likely a future Firefox will have this capability.
https://github.com/Koushien/keyboard-shortcut-api
It's too late for it (or something like it) to be in Firefox 57, but it seems likely a future Firefox will have this capability.
I need to be able to use Tab Groups, so I won't be going to 57+.
In case anyone listening, plz no quantum till replacement for: tab groups, hiding horizontal tab bar when using tree style/tab center, and hiding window title bar under MATE, that as far as I can tell is only possible with hide caption title bar plus addon.
Pretty sure all being worked on and excited for >>speed>> but I'm scarred this transition gonna be really annoying.
Pretty sure all being worked on and excited for >>speed>> but I'm scarred this transition gonna be really annoying.
Tree Style Tabs have become amazingly slow, this upgrade is a downgrade for me :/
My big concern is add-ons.
The whole reason I use Firefox is the availability of add-ons such as NoScript and Cookie Culler. I'm guessing NoScript will work with Quantum, but Cookie Culler hasn't been updated since last year.
Roomy Bookmarks is also a major quality-of-life factor; it allows me to have a well-stocked bookmarks bar. And it definitely won't work with Quantum. That alone will give me strong pause about updating.
The whole reason I use Firefox is the availability of add-ons such as NoScript and Cookie Culler. I'm guessing NoScript will work with Quantum, but Cookie Culler hasn't been updated since last year.
Roomy Bookmarks is also a major quality-of-life factor; it allows me to have a well-stocked bookmarks bar. And it definitely won't work with Quantum. That alone will give me strong pause about updating.
> cookie culler
What about cookie autodelete?
What about cookie autodelete?
>In most cases, the upgrade to Firefox Quantum will be painless. Most popular add-ons will update to the new APIs before the release of Firefox Quantum, and Firefox will suggest replacements inside about:addons for those that don’t.
Suggestion WebExtension replacements is brilliant. There's already multiple crowd-sourced lists on Reddit's r/Firefox basically for this purpose.
Suggestion WebExtension replacements is brilliant. There's already multiple crowd-sourced lists on Reddit's r/Firefox basically for this purpose.
Since there are so many of us who decided to stick with Firefox 56... wouldn't it be nice if Mozilla declared 56 as ESR release, so that when the time comes we were not forced to downgrade to the much slower FF 52? Also, I've seen it mentioned that you can't even downgrade without losing all your settings.
I wish they would finally fix the annoying pinch-to-zoom which doesn't work properly like in Safari and Chrome...
(If you zoom on a site with text and images in Firefox the page layout gets messed up which makes it impossible to read...)
(If you zoom on a site with text and images in Firefox the page layout gets messed up which makes it impossible to read...)
Best i can tell, they have basically hooked that up to the text scaling rather than anything like what you find on phones.
The Quantum performance is amazing.
But I cant get my nightly to remember my logins.
But I cant get my nightly to remember my logins.
> But I cant get my nightly to remember my logins.
Do you mean 'restore previous session'? It was moved from the start page to library and now to the hamburger menu. :/
Do you mean 'restore previous session'? It was moved from the start page to library and now to the hamburger menu. :/
I don't know really.
I found a config option that said something like "delete cookies when firefox is closed" I changed this to "No", but somehow it didn't stay.
I found a config option that said something like "delete cookies when firefox is closed" I changed this to "No", but somehow it didn't stay.
> The Quantum performance is amazing.
Agreed! I am astonished, and I switched back to FF after many, many years.
> But I cant get my nightly to remember my logins.
Quantum is in beta now, did you try that?
Agreed! I am astonished, and I switched back to FF after many, many years.
> But I cant get my nightly to remember my logins.
Quantum is in beta now, did you try that?
Isnt it part of FF nightly?
No, it has been in Beta for a week or so.
Edit: and clearly it remains in nightly.
Edit: and clearly it remains in nightly.
Of course it's in nightly.
I'm also might not upgrade to quantum because I will lose my status bar (status 4 evar addon). I don't understand how people browse the web but can't see where links are taking them. Showing me where the link points when I hover the mouse over it is something so fundamental to browsing I just can't figure out why it was ever removed. I think by default it eventually shows up in a tiny popup but it doesn't show the full link and the delay is infuriating.