In a sense, yes. At an undisclosed time, Firefox will begin showing "new" users sponsored tiles on the tabpage. source (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57618750-92/mozilla-to-sell-new-tab-page-ads-in-firefox/) One poster in the forum argues that Mozilla folks have to eat, too. But they already eat quite well from the money the receive from Google. But the problem for isn't that browser is monetized. This shows a decline in integrity on Mozilla's part.
Now why the quotes around "new?" In the developed world, there aren't too many people without internet. For example, as of Dec 2011, the internet penetration in the US was 78.3% of the population, which is actually less than most of the developed world. How many of the remaining 22.7% are young children or the elderly. The US does have more children as percentage of the population than say, the EU or Japan. I believe the internet penetration of emerging market economies such as Mexico ("officially" only only 29.4% as of Dec 10) is vastly under-reported, with the place being littered with crowded internet cafes and the continued growth of 3 and 4G wireless networks as well more deployment of cable and DSL internet. So again, what new users?
Not quite pleasant news.
However, the move was made public and not in secrecy. Besides, everybody can disable this 'feature' in "about:config"
.
Will the more relevant, dynamic content also be advertising? Or will a DnD also have a chance of appearing there?
I've never seen anything that doesn't sound paid for.
Besides, everybody can disable this 'feature' in "about:config"
The new users this supposedly is meant to help won't know such a thing exists.
Every time I install Opera on a "new" PC, I get such tiles of commercial sites on the default speed dial.
Opera ASA has never made any bones about being a for profit corporation, and such monetization is not unexpected in freeware of this type. Mozilla, on the other hand, is meant to be free of ads, spam, etc as well as being open source. Many users see a darker path ahead for Fx. Maybe not chromatically dark; Chrome is a shiny metal isn't it?
I've never seen anything that doesn't sound paid for.
Or much in the way of such "relevant" content that's actually relevant to me. Get curious about something one night and read some sites about it, get ads about it for months :p
ׂ
Firefox is doing the opposite with the whole "user experience" idea.
They've become self-deluded wankers.
The about:config page isn't exactly easy to browse or commented. Some valid options aren't even included on it.
You can find references (http://kb.mozillazine.org/About:config_entries) even so they aren't up to date. Same would apply to "opera:config".
Not to mention Chropera with its Konami Code. They would have better renamed it to "Tsunami Code" :D
The more market share Google will get with its browser the less revenue from Google searches for other browsers.
Without money, no serious competition to Google.
I'm not trying to defend Mozilla's move but it's a fact worth to be taken into consideration.
With Chropera, Opera ceased to be a competitor. What has left? Microsoft and Apple? :(
Yes, but Chrome's dominance is overstated.
http://www.favbrowser.com/january-2014-desktop-market-share-google-chrome-up-internet-explorer-firefox-safari-opera-down/#more-14582
Google Chrome is trying to reverse its downtrend and managed to at least slow it down, up from 16.22% to 16.28% (0.08 point increase).
Firefox on the other hand continues to lose more and more market share, last month it saw a 0.27 decrease, from 18.35% to 18.08%.
Behaviour like this will this will only cost Firefox more users. Time will tell if Australis will cost Fx users, but Chropera seems to have lost users every month since the abomination was rolled out.
Here's an opinion piece http://my.opera.com/LorenzoCelsi/blog/2014/02/14/even-worse-at-mozilla
Reading this makes me feel like puking:
http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-clarifies-defends-firefox-ad-position-7000026335/
In short, Mozilla needs money to develop FirefoxOS.
And here's a translation of some of the words in the announcement for those of us who don't speak the language.
http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/firefox-directory-tiles.html
Sometimes, things are so utterly simple. Honesty is the bread and butter of success, wherever you need interaction with users. Down the road, it's what makes the difference. Microsoft is learning this the hard way with their Faildows 8.X. Mozilla, you cannot afford to go down the same road as Redmond, you don't have the resources to sustain such a large fiasco. You might manage to be profitable for a while, but you will bleed loyalty dry, and you will eventually shove yourself into obscurity as another boring, visionless corporate wannabe. You know I'm right. I always am. Take heed.
http://softsolder.com/2014/05/20/firefox-accounts-total-fail/
So, the new Firefox Sync requires a Firefox Account that doesn’t do anything I need done and, in order to sync my 13.10 settings into the 14.04 box, I must have a new Firefox Account and make both Firefox installations less secure.
Silliness beyond FF Sync. At first I thought I had inadvertently installed some extension. But no, it's worse.
(https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/6/63/Hello_demo_image.png)
Neither something I'll ever use nor something I'm keen to be implemented in the browser.
Something that is meddling with Windows' firewall settings just like Unite in Opera Presto.
However there will be users who will use that feature, the same way Unite was something great for some.
The only 'good' thing is that you can disable those features.
Luckily there are lightweight alternatives to FF, such as Seamonkey. Even though Seamonkey releases updates to the rendering engine at the same pace as FF, it has otherwise a conservative updates policy, no fishy new features.
I don't understand why everybody cares so much about browsers. This browser this, that browser that...
All the internet is a trap, any browser included.
I don't understand why everybody cares so much about browsers. This browser this, that browser that...
All the internet is a trap, any browser included.
There's a difference whether you are in a mouse trap or a bear trap.
Firefox is dropping their extension model, apparently. Dedoimedo put it succinctly, in a way that I think applies to every post-3.6 version of Firefox.
Morons, if I wanted to use Chrome, I would.
Well, luckily we still have Otter and Vivaldi's starting to get fairly usable as well…
Well, luckily we still have Otter and Vivaldi's starting to get fairly usable as well…
"We" sounds to me like an exaggeration. Some of us, for sure.
As for "fairly usable",
any browser out there is fairly usable at some point. It only depends on the angle you are looking at it. ;)
For
my 'taste' neither Otter nor Vivaldi come close to Opera Presto or even Firefox at its actual stage.
The obvious reality that these are all just grasps at what Opera was notwithstanding — although to me in some ways Otter, Vivaldi, and Opera/Blink are superior to Firefox — Maxthon might also be worth a look if it's even half the browser MyIE2 was. Unfortunately it doesn't scale with DPI, at least on Linux.
although to me in some ways Otter, Vivaldi, and Opera/Blink are superior to Firefox
"To me in some ways"
I assume that not only for you but for many other people in many ways. :)
Don't get me wrong Frenzie. It's not my hobby to argue just for the sake of arguing.
All I want to make clear is that priorities and ways of using a browser can (and mostly does) differ from user to user.
Some handy features a browser might offer can be very important to you while less important to me and vice versa.
Theoretically at least, the more options and features a browser will offer, the better the chances to attract users with different priorities.
Theoretically because theory doesn't apply always to real life. Most used browser is (was?) Internet Explorer which probably will be (allready is?) surpassed by Chrome. The wide usage of these two browsers has little to nothing to do with options and features. Neither with users' priorities but rather with the lack of them.
However Opera Presto is a good example for attracting both of us despite of different priorities. :)
Speaking of priorities
Some of the vital and very basic features for me and probably of less or no importance to you (correct me please if I'm wrong):
- Access on the fly for toggling cookies
- Access on the fly for toggling scripting
- Access on the fly for toggling proxy
These are just the very basic ones.
AFAIK there are only 3 browsers offering these very basic features. Opera Presto, K-Meleon and Firefox (with the respective extensions).
Among these 3 browsers only 2 can
instantly stop scripts on a page: Opera Presto and K-Meleon.
Among these 3 browsers there is only 1 browser where you can set up different proxies for different tasks and switch between them: K-Meleon.
Since one picture tells more than thousand words: screenshot (http://i.imgur.com/cbW62dl.png)
The way I've customised K-Meleons GUI to fit
my needs. (no extensions involved, all buttons are optional you can remove them or add other ones for other tasks, almost no limits for customising the UI)
Granulated options for settings, rendering speed and resource usage might be some features which both of us are caring about.
I have always liked K-Meleon integration with the OS. To bad they don’t have a Mac OS and Linux version. Since Camino and Galeon are no longer active. :ko:
@d4rkn1ght
K-Meleon was itself sort of deadish too for a while. It's a miraculous resurrection we have now.
Speaking of priorities
Some of the vital and very basic features for me and probably of less or no importance to you (correct me please if I'm wrong):
- Access on the fly for toggling cookies
- Access on the fly for toggling scripting
- Access on the fly for toggling proxy
These are just the very basic ones.
AFAIK there are only 3 browsers offering these very basic features. Opera Presto, K-Meleon and Firefox (with the respective extensions).
Among these 3 browsers only 2 can instantly stop scripts on a page: Opera Presto and K-Meleon.
Among these 3 browsers there is only 1 browser where you can set up different proxies for different tasks and switch between them: K-Meleon.
Surely more browsers can do this, but they are obscure and it's obscure to configure them. For example, it should be possible to graft (most?) FF extensions to Seamonkey and to FF clones like Palemoon.
In Elinks it's possible to toggle cookies, scripting and proxy by means of lua extension, but lua is obscure and scripting in Elinks is incomplete. Qutebrowser, Conkeror and such are more complete.
It's a good overall rule of thumb: Make everything a toggle wherever possible.
Speaking of priorities
Some of the vital and very basic features for me and probably of less or no importance to you (correct me please if I'm wrong):
- Access on the fly for toggling cookies
- Access on the fly for toggling scripting
- Access on the fly for toggling proxy
These are just the very basic ones.
Well, my keyboard.ini says this:
- Shift + c for cookies
- j for UserJS, Shift + j for JS
- proxy… well, that's mostly true I suppose. It's too much of a hassle editing the damn thing all the time so I just don't bother. You'd need multiple proxies like in K-Meleon or FoxyProxy for it to have any use. In Opera this'd fit in with site preferences, except there you can only choose yes/no. Otter fixes this flaw by allowing you to set up proxy settings in site preferences, although I'm not sure about what to do if you want to switch to a different proxy for the same site.
My indicators are for Opera Link, Opera Turbo (it's a proxy, btw), images, CSS, UserCSS, Referrer, UserJS, JS, cookies, and fit to width.
However, it's also true that for the most part I prefer site preferences.
AFAIK there are only 3 browsers offering these very basic features. Opera Presto, K-Meleon and Firefox (with the respective extensions).
Ever try F12 in Otter? Works just like in Opera. As does site preferences. ;) But yes, the Windows-only browser K-Meleon is very good. I didn't know it had risen from the dead.
Anyway, from your short list Otter not only suffices, but actually surpasses Opera to fall more or less in line with K-Meleon and Firefox with FoxyProxy, while Vivaldi and Opera/Blink do not. And that's really more of an objective than a subjective fact, anyway. :P
Me, I think the idea of needing an extension like NoScript to switch off JS is a travesty.
Edit: oh, I see the F12 setting is inactive for some reason in Otter? Or perhaps you have to set up a proxy before you can use it. Worst case scenario part of it is a work in progress, eh? ;)
Well, my keyboard.ini says this:
- Shift + c for cookies
- j for UserJS, Shift + j for JS
That's fine and fits the needs of most users.
Nevertheless for some reason I prefer visible checkmarks/buttons showing me the state of these setting all the time.
Ever try F12 in Otter? Works just like in Opera.
I have my checkmarks/buttons on Opera's addressbar. I assume Otter doesn't have them. :P
Anyway, from your short list Otter not only suffices, but actually surpasses Opera to fall more or less in line with K-Meleon and Firefox with FoxyProxy, while Vivaldi and Opera/Blink do not. And that's really more of an objective than a subjective fact, anyway. :P
The list would be longer if I'd add all the Fx-forks since I assume that most extensions would work with them too.
I made an exception with K-Meleon because even so it is based on FxESR it is the only one offering more features out of the box than Fx itself.
Nice to hear good things about Otter. :) The more choices one has, the better.
Me, I think the idea of needing an extension like NoScript to switch off JS is a travesty.
Indeed it is. However NoScript is not mandatory for that. In fact I don't use NoScript. There is also a very simple extention ( makes a shortcut to the pref and generates a button) for toggling JS.
That's fine and fits the needs of most users.
Nevertheless for some reason I prefer visible checkmarks/buttons showing me the state of these setting all the time.
That's what I was saying:
My indicators are for Opera Link, Opera Turbo (it's a proxy, btw), images, CSS, UserCSS, Referrer, UserJS, JS, cookies, and fit to width.
It looks like this:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=182.0;attach=203;image)
On rare occasions I even use them for toggling things with the mouse, but their main purpose is indicating.
I assume Otter doesn't have them. :P
An assumption that keeps being proved wrong. :devil: Better to actually try the program so you can comment on how what is actually there isn't quite to your liking. :P For instance, the toggles exist but don't have a toggle icon, so I can't set it up quite the way I have it in Opera just yet. In a way Otter is like the early Opera 7 betas, but with some Opera 8.x features like site preferences thrown in for good measure. For me, Otter is lightyears ahead of Vivaldi, except Vivaldi has some in-your-face features like addressbar suggestions.
Indeed it is. However NoScript is not mandatory for that. In fact I don't use NoScript. There is also a very simple extention ( makes a shortcut to the pref and generates a button) for toggling JS.
I thought they yanked out that setting last year or so? In any case, NoScript or something similar is necessary if you want simple site preferences/whitelists. And besides, an extension for a basic built-in toggle like that is still preposterous. :yes:
That's what I was saying:
My indicators are for Opera Link, Opera Turbo (it's a proxy, btw), images, CSS, UserCSS, Referrer, UserJS, JS, cookies, and fit to width.
It looks like this:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=182.0;attach=203;image)
On rare occasions I even use them for toggling things with the mouse, but their main purpose is indicating.
Sorry, somehow I managed to overlook it.
Looking at your image - don't you ever mix those checkmarks up? :devil:
Better to actually try the program so you can comment on how what is actually there isn't quite to your liking. :P For instance, the toggles exist but don't have a toggle icon, so I can't set it up quite the way I have it in Opera just yet.
As far as I can see the toggles have 2 states - pressed and depressed, meaning on and off.
BTW, I did test Otter now.(v0.9.0.7) :)
It would need many hours, maybe days for a more thoroughly test.
Since I tested only for aprox 2 hours my findings should be taken with a pinch of salt. ;)
What I missed from the very beginning was a more granulated configuration option. (something Fx offers in its about:config)
The possibility to put toggling buttons which indicates the state of the pref is great!
Unfortunately "Enable JavaScript" and "Enable Proxy" buttons didn't work for me. I couldn't find an "Enable Cookies" button.
I didn't test other available buttons. All my testings were done with "Private Mode" enabled but this shouldn't have any impact. Nevertheless apparently it had an impact. Namely, I had no access (greyed out) to enable cookies, proxy and referrer in "Quick Preferences" [F12]. If this is by design then it's stupid.
Private mode doesn't mean that you can't allow cookies but that they get not written to the disk.
After the third freeze of the scrollbar (I had to restart Otter) I gave up testing.
All in one, it looks really promising but IMHO it's still in a very early stage.
I thought they yanked out that setting last year or so?
Well, I use as third browser the ESR branch which actually is v38.2.1 and the pref is still there in about:config.
What I missed from the very beginning was a more granulated configuration option. (something Fx offers in its about:config)
Try about:config in the address field. There's also All settings button in the Preferences dialog.
The possibility to put toggling buttons which indicates the state of the pref is great!
Unfortunately "Enable JavaScript" and "Enable Proxy" buttons didn't work for me. I couldn't find an "Enable Cookies" button.
Here's the list of all available actions (and more to come) https://github.com/OtterBrowser/otter-browser/blob/master/src/core/ActionsManager.h
The idea with the actions is (or should be, and thus far has been, as far as I have tested) that you can take any of them and trigger them by a keyboard shortcut, button, or menu item, putting them into INI and JSON files.
CookiesAction, CookiesPolicyAction, and ThirdPartyCookiesPolicyAction are there. I don't know what they are supposed to do, but if the principle applies, they should be usable in INI and JSON files, to make them into buttons, among other things..
Many of these actions have hardcoded icons to them, i.e. if you use it as a toolbar button, you'll automagically see an icon. Often though there's no icon and there's no mechanism (yet?) to configure icons to the actions. In those case you'll only see the text.
Cookies have been an issue in my usage of Otter. In normal mode, setting cookies off by default causes severe issues in my experience. In private mode, there's no toggling, there's just deletion of traces when you close the tab/window.
So, to make Otter usable for now I permit all cookies and I use it exclusively for websites where I indeed need all cookies permitted. For other websites, I use other browsers or Private window in Otter.
Try about:config in the address field. There's also All settings button in the Preferences dialog.
That was among the first things I've done after launching Otter. Those prefs are meager compared to what Mozilla offers.
The absence of some prefs (some are privacy related) doesn't mean that Otter doesn't support those features. You just can't turn them off.
However, maybe the prefs will be added in the future.
My second test with beta7 on Windows didn't differ much from the previous test.
Only notable difference, Otter couldn't start this time after I've unpacked the .zip package. It displayed two error messages about two missing DLLs. After copying the missing DLLs from Firefox into Otter's folder, i could proudly launch Otter.
This time I didn't test in private mode. However, the results were almost the same. Only almost, because the scrollbar didn't froze this time.
No way to toggle JS through [F12]. You can toggle the checkmark but not the pref. :D Cookies, Referrer and Proxy are greyed out.
The respective buttons you can place on the tab bar are nice but also none functional.
No way to use a proxy. The settings will vanish as soon as you exit the config window.
I couldn't find a way to disable prefetch. For some people it might be useful but for me it's just nerving.
There are other obscure settings as well (like server-side storage) I'd like to disable but I'm missing the entries in "about:config" .
Well, the browser is in an early beta stage, therefore some shortcomings as the above are usual.
However to affirm that Otter at its actual stage surpasses Opera to fall more or less in line with K-Meleon and Firefox with FoxyProxy is a bit of a strech, to say the least. ;) Maybe it does already on Linux (even so I have my doubts) but on Windows it'll need a long time. :)
However to affirm that Otter at its actual stage surpasses Opera to fall more or less in line with K-Meleon and Firefox with FoxyProxy is a bit of a strech, to say the least. ;)
Apparently it's only planned (https://github.com/OtterBrowser/otter-browser/issues/785) and not yet implemented, my bad. When did K-Meleon gain the ability to set more than one proxy server, btw? I don't recall it being able to set more than one when it died in '08/'09-ish.
Also, I was wondering if it wouldn't be preferable to use Privoxy (http://www.privoxy.org/) or similar? (NB I didn't check if this particular program allows for per-server proxy settings, but it says it "can be chained with other proxies.") That way you'd have the same proxy settings for all browsers regardless of their own support. Actually I should look into using a program like this again. I much enjoyed Proxomitron back in the days before UserJS came on the scene.
I guess in my daily browsing I primarily value bookmarks (with nicknames and F2/Shift+F2 quick access!) and quick back/forward (e.g. with flip back/forward). I know, that's a
very low standard, but it hasn't been met by Opera/Blink yet.
Apparently it's only planned (https://github.com/OtterBrowser/otter-browser/issues/785) and not yet implemented, my bad.
It's not only about proxies. You can't toggle yet neither JS nor cookies even through [F12]
When did K-Meleon gain the ability to set more than one proxy server, btw? I don't recall it being able to set more than one when it died in '08/'09-ish.
It already had the ability before it died. You can download the old version and ckeck out.
What you couldn't do before, was to switch between proxies from the GUI without an extention (macro-file).
Now you don't need that extra macro-file anymore.
Also, I was wondering if it wouldn't be preferable to use Privoxy (http://www.privoxy.org/) or similar? (NB I didn't check if this particular program allows for per-server proxy settings, but it says it "can be chained with other proxies.") That way you'd have the same proxy settings for all browsers regardless of their own support.
Looks to me like scratching your had with your foot. :)
Actually I should look into using a program like this again. I much enjoyed Proxomitron back in the days before UserJS came on the scene.
I'm still using Proxomitron. Chaining proxies with Proxomitron is easy. Even switching the chained proxies is easy.
What you can't do, is to assign which protocol(s) (HTTP, HTTPS) the chainged proxy should use. Besides, Proxomitron has no support for SOCKS. You'd need another software to socksify Proxomitron first. I did use this method but hey, this was ages ago and I'm glad I don't have to now. :D As for Otter as it is for now I couldn't even use a local HTTP-proxy filter (Proxomitron) with it. ;)
As for User.JS, it was for me a bitch in Opera/Presto. You had to turn on scripting globally, so that your damned scripts could work.
I guess in my daily browsing I primarily value bookmarks (with nicknames and F2/Shift+F2 quick access!) and quick back/forward (e.g. with flip back/forward). I know, that's a very low standard, but it hasn't been met by Opera/Blink yet.
You are lucky. You could use almost any browser to fulfil you needs. :P
It's not only about proxies. You can't toggle yet neither JS nor cookies even through [F12]
I can. This is the private tab issue you were talking about?
Looks to me like scratching your had with your foot.
You say that as if agility were a bad thing. *grins*
I'm still using Proxomitron. Chaining proxies with Proxomitron is easy. Even switching the chained proxies is easy.
So… you're scratching your head with your foot already. :P
As for User.JS, it was for me a bitch in Opera/Presto. You had to turn on scripting globally, so that your damned scripts could work.
I know, very annoying.
You are lucky. You could use almost any browser to fulfil you needs. :P
My needs are a tiny bit bigger than that, of course, but those are some concerns that make Vivaldi an excellent tertiary-ish browser for checking things out in Blink. Rather my point is that only three browsers actually meet my needs for what I consider more or less usable bookmarks: Opera/Presto, Otter, and Vivaldi.
Also rather important is the ability to quickly switch styles (poorly implemented in Vivaldi atm, coming to Otter in the not too far future) and JS, and of course the windows panel. But really the takeaway is that no matter how much I lower my expectations, Firefox still annoys the @#$@#$ out of me even with extensions (and since version 4 increasingly more so by default) and Vivaldi seems to be the only vaguely usable Chrome-clone out there.
It's not only about proxies. You can't toggle yet neither JS nor cookies even through [F12]
I can. This is the private tab issue you were talking about?
Not a private tab issue. It's the same without private tab, as mantioned in my earlier post: "No way to toggle JS through [F12]. You can toggle the checkmark but not the pref. Cookies, Referrer and Proxy are greyed out."
Maybe a Windows only issue.
So… you're scratching your head with your foot already. :P
Not exactly. Neither do I need to change proxies in Proxomitron nor do I have to proxify it anymore.
While Proxomitron comes still handy its importance decreased nowadays because of the many sites using (partially) HTTPS.
Filtering HTTPS with Proxomitron is a PITA. That's the reason why I also misuse Windows' hosts file for blocking offenders.
I could of course enter those offenders into Proxomitron as well (blocking hosts or domains works fine) but I'm too lazy to babysit Proxomitron. So if I use a SOCKS proxy, I simply disable Proxomitron by switching proxies.
Rather my point is that only three browsers actually meet my needs for what I consider more or less usable bookmarks: Opera/Presto, Otter, and Vivaldi.
Also rather important is the ability to quickly switch styles (poorly implemented in Vivaldi atm, coming to Otter in the not too far future) and JS, and of course the windows panel. But really the takeaway is that no matter how much I lower my expectations, Firefox still annoys the @#$@#$ out of me even with extensions (and since version 4 increasingly more so by default) and Vivaldi seems to be the only vaguely usable Chrome-clone out there.
I see.
As for me also, only three browsers come close to my expectations.
1. K-Meleon.
cons:
- There is only one pro programmer behind the project. If he doesn't has enough spare time the project will die as it did before.
- It's a Windows only browser, it needs Wine to run on Linux.
2. Opera/Presto
cons:
- It is discontinued.
3. Firefox
cons:
I don't like the path Firefox is going. My user.js is growing with each new version. ;)
One of my (7) extensions is only for modifying its googlish-dumb GUI.
------
Since Google entered the browser market, the latter really got fu**ed up.
Besides, the path HTML5 is going is dictated by a few big profit oriented corporations...
I was wrong about toggling JavaScript!
Toggling JS through [F12] is working fine.
I falsly assumed that the toggle is implemented like it is in Opera/Presto and Firefox.
I see now that the toggle for JS works differently in Otter. To make a long story short, just a short test with Opera/Presto vs Otter.
Opera/Presto: Set JS to "false" in "Preferences". "Quick Preferences"[F12] enable JS and close the browser. Restart Opera and you'll see that JS is enabled.
Otter: Set JS to "false" in "Preferences". "Quick Preferences"[F12] enable JS and close the browser. Restart Otter and you'll see that JS is disabled.
---
Unfortunately the freezing of the scrollbar still occurs.
Opera/Presto: Set JS to "false" in "Preferences". "Quick Preferences"[F12] enable JS and close the browser. Restart Opera and you'll see that JS is enabled.
Otter: Set JS to "false" in "Preferences". "Quick Preferences"[F12] enable JS and close the browser. Restart Otter and you'll see that JS is disabled.
I think that Opera's behavior probably makes more sense. My method of testing JS is actually testing something that uses JS, so I hadn't noticed that particular behavior. :P
While Proxomitron comes still handy its importance decreased nowadays because of the many sites using (partially) HTTPS.
Ah, I didn't realize that was an issue.
2. Opera/Presto
cons:
- It is discontinued.
Well, sure. My main daily drivers are actually Opera/Presto and Iceweasel 38 with a couple of the obligatory extensions (TabMixPlus, GreaseMonkey, Stylish, something for "rocker gestures"). I use Opera less and less not because it's incompatible with the web per se, but its JS engine's performance can't seem to keep up anymore.
I think that Opera's behavior probably makes more sense.
It's more intuitive at least. Mainly, because I got used to it.
As for sense, the way Otter does it, has also its own logic. Namely, you have a pref you are using most of the time. However there are occasions where you have to change that pref. That's what the toggle is supposed to be for. Once you restart your browser, your pref will automatically revert to what you use most of the time. Well, at least, that's the way I see it.
Maybe the toggle for cookies is supposed to work the same. I can't test because it's greyed out in my Quick Prefs[F12]. Does it work on Linux?
Does it work on Linux?
There should be little to no difference between Otter on various platforms. It seems to be grayed out and the Preferences > Privacy option is behaving a little oddly. I disabled it, and can't seem to properly enable it again. It's possible that this is caused by an old profile in my case.
Opera/Presto: Set JS to "false" in "Preferences". "Quick Preferences"[F12] enable JS and close the browser. Restart Opera and you'll see that JS is enabled.
Otter: Set JS to "false" in "Preferences". "Quick Preferences"[F12] enable JS and close the browser. Restart Otter and you'll see that JS is disabled.
---
Unfortunately the freezing of the scrollbar still occurs.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=182.36;msg=45669)
This man always follows the manuals. Germans always do. Very methodical.
For some reason on both Linuxmint and Netrunner, Firefox likes to lose the extensions that I put in the toolbar. It's trivial to reset Fx and get them to come back, but very annoying :p
Is this the right topic for Firefox-related stuff? :P
In any case, here's an interview about the woes of Firefox 57.
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migration-to-webextensions-apis/
I mean, when NoScript can't fully switch to WebExtensions until 57 then there's no such thing as a migration period, is there…
And besides, the only reason NoScript is work is because they're actively working with the guy. To put it another way: NoScript might work, but there'll be no such thing as the next NoScript.
Not my problem anymore when I basically ditched FF at this point (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=358.0). At work I still use it though and a new inbuilt dark theme kind of thing looks nice. Otherwise I use and strongly prefer Palemoon. I guess XUL addons will continue to work with Palemoon. The most elaborate ones I use: Tile Tabs and Omnibar.
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migration-to-webextensions-apis/
I mean, when NoScript can't fully switch to WebExtensions until 57 then there's no such thing as a migration period, is there…
There is also the ESR branch of Firefox, so it doesn't need to fully switch to WebExtensions until 57.
BTW,
I've never used NoScript and don't intend to do so.
Information Trust Initiative (MITI) (https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/08/08/mozilla-information-trust-initiative-building-movement-fight-misinformation-online/)—a comprehensive effort to keep the Internet credible and healthy. Mozilla is developing products, research, and communities to battle information pollution and so-called ‘fake news’ online.
A disguised attempt to kill alternative media?
Who'll decide what's true or false?
Will we get in addition to NATO a transatlantic secretary of the truth and will be Mozilla the official partner of the thruth administration?
There is also the ESR branch of Firefox, so it doesn't need to fully switch to WebExtensions until 57.
Hey, I
am on Firefox 52 ESR as my main Firefox. :P
I've never used NoScript and don't intend to do so.
NoScript is perfectly fine. NoScript is one of the top 10 Firefox extensions. But is anyone from users to authors going to enjoy this nonsense? I think it'll just cause more run-off to Chrome. I don't understand why one would possibly go
to Chrome given that trying to be more like Chrome is the entire problem, but if you are going to use Chrome you might as well go with the best version of it. (Which is actually Opera or Yandex, certainly not Chrome itself, but that aside.)
ESR is not a solution. It's a mere delay or postponement. Even Palemoon could be just a postponement. Right now I updated to Palemoon 27.5 and Black Theme for YT broke. Not sure what else might be broken. Downgrading for now.
Hey, I am on Firefox 52 ESR as my main Firefox. :P
Same here (ESR 52.4.0). :)
NoScript is perfectly fine.
It wasn't always.
Maone misused in the past the trust of millions of users by serving ads through his NoScript, circumventing ABP.
Whatever, toggling scripting on/off fits my needs and I don't need NoScript therefore.
ESR is not a solution.
If you are eager to have the latest bells and whistles and the latest (security) flaws as well then it's definitive not the solution. :)
Right now I updated to Palemoon 27.5 ...
PaaleMoon is a fork of a fork but each to his own. :)
FossaMail/Pale Moon uses the Goanna rendering engine, a old frozen fork of the Gecko rendering engine used by Thunderbird/Firefox/SeaMonkey. Thunderbird (as of January 28, 2016) is currently at version 38.5.1 while Goanna is using the equivalent of Thunderbird 24 so it is behind over 100 security fixes according to Security Advisories for Thunderbird (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/thunderbird/).
It wasn't always.
I meant fine as far as Firefox APIs go. But if they add APIs specifically tailored to the currently most popular extensions they'll lose a lot of innovation potential and developer goodwill.
But if they add APIs specifically tailored to the currently most popular extensions they'll lose a lot of innovation potential and developer goodwill.
If they don't, their userbase might shrink, something that could prove even more painful...
They have already lost many users when they moved to that roundish style. That wasn't innovation but plain stupidity.
It would have been even more users ditching Firefox because of that if it weren't the ClassicThemeRestorer extention. It looks like there is no way to rewrite this legacy extension and make a WebExtention out of it, since WebExtensions can't meddle with the GUI.
IMO, Mozilla would be well advised to reintroduce the classic squarish style where you can detach the navigation-arrows.
If they don't, their userbase might shrink, something that could prove even more painful...
Eh? But their userbase
will shrink. Like you said, something like ClassicThemeRestorer will not work.
Now is the high time for someone to fork The Real Firefox :D just like there was some "Real" thing that came out after Willy Nilly Milli Vanilli went bust.
For me, Firefox was fairly serviceable since v.0.7, still called Firebird at that time, but Opera was always better. These days I keep Seamonkey around for sentimental reasons and Palemoon for great choices made in the interface and sensible conservative policies.
One thing that sets Mozilla-ites apart from other browsers is the ability to impose your desktop theme on the internet. You don't need FF for that, any fork or skin or version will do. Not sure if this is achievable with any other rendering engine.
If they don't, their userbase might shrink, something that could prove even more painful...
Eh? But their userbase will shrink. Like you said, something like ClassicThemeRestorer will not work.
I meant that it will shrink extra because of popular extensions that won't work anymore.
If they would reintroduce the old classic theme, ClassicThemeRestorer would become needless.
For me, Firefox was fairly serviceable since v.0.7, still called Firebird at that time, but Opera was always better. These days I keep Seamonkey around for sentimental reasons and Palemoon for great choices made in the interface and sensible conservative policies.
I never much liked Phoenix (nicknamed "whoops Phoenix was trademarked so let's switched to also trademarked Firebird") but from version 3 or so I thought it was serviceable. By 3.2, 3.5 or 3.6 it was almost good. Then Firefox 4 struck.
(nicknamed "whoops Phoenix was trademarked so let's switched to also trademarked Firebird")
Yes, and Firebird turned out also whoops trademarked, even though they knew it already at the time when they were switching the name from Phoenix. Heck, they knew both Phoenix and Firebird were trademarked already when they were *naming* Phoenix, they just thought they can explain themselves around it.
...but from version 3 or so I thought it was serviceable. By 3.2, 3.5 or 3.6 it was almost good. Then Firefox 4 struck.
The final nail to the coffin came when Ben Goodger (the lead developer of FF) went from Mozilla to design Google Chrome. Look at the first two pics here.
(https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/images/big/20.jpg)
So, the official story goes that at first Ben didn't like an overloaded location bar (address field), but then "...they went on and made it something really compelling." Funny how it never says who "they" are who compel the developers to make the choices, but evidently "they" behind the scenes decide everything. In the same vein, as the lead developer of FF switched ships, the fate of FF was sealed and all complaints are a pointless struggle against force majeure.
(https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/images/big/18.jpg)
The final nail to the coffin came when Ben Goodger (the lead developer of FF) went from Mozilla to design Google Chrome. Look at the first two pics here.
And yet cnn.com is still @#$@#$@#$ annoying if you want to go to cnnn.com. There's an obvious solution: nicknames.
Google always thinks they can automate things. They can't. I used to be able to tell Google in which language I was going to speak to it on my phone. It was surprisingly useful. Now I've had to disable French and German and even Dutch/English autodetection barely works at all. Anyway, breaking things is expected of Google. It's Microsoft that has been annoyingly more and more Google-like post-Ballmer. (Yeah, who'd have thought I'd one day miss the Ballmer days.)
That second comic makes no sense whatsoever. I suppose he means that "normally" (for some value of normal) separate windows would be separate processes and therefore it'd be harder to drag tabs around between them. But they still had to work around that! Unless all the windows are the same process and all the tabs separate processes? Regardless, they still had to deal with it in some way. He's just indicating there's a problem and they came up with one possible solution to the problem, and somehow that ties into the UI? Wtf?
Also, it's sad/funny how these comics can be summarized as "we looked at Opera, copied much of it and somehow made it worse in the process."
Also, it's sad/funny how these comics can be summarized as "we looked at Opera, copied much of it and somehow made it worse in the process."
When Chrome 1 appeared, I reviewed it. To me it was clear what was good and what was bad about it. The good: They took Opera's interface and made it simple and common-sense out of the box, with more features gradually to be discovered by user interaction over time. Opera's worst problem was to push too much on the user upon the first launch. The bad with Chrome: They removed all configurability.
The title of my review: Dumbusers have a new default browser.
I suppose he means that "normally" (for some value of normal) separate windows would be separate processes and therefore it'd be harder to drag tabs around between them. But they still had to work around that! Unless all the windows are the same process and all the tabs separate processes? Regardless, they still had to deal with it in some way. He's just indicating there's a problem and they came up with one possible solution to the problem, and somehow that ties into the UI? Wtf?
I suspect that the multi-process architecture tied into the UI, in their minds, the following way. First, they think that the process-per-tab idea is totally awesome. The idea is that a hung-up tab can be killed without affecting the rest of the app. To emphasise the idea for users, they come up with the visually separated tabs in the UI and bypassing DE decorations.
All that would be justified if it were so amazingly revolutionising and mind-blowingly innovative that without those GUI cues the multi-process behaviour would be unintuitive for users. Wrong on all counts. What could be more obvious that I
can kill a hung-up tab and it in fact gets killed without crashing the rest of the app? Once the first noob excitement has passed, the GUI just stands out like a sore thumb in the DE.
First, they think that the process-per-tab idea is totally awesome. The idea is that a hung-up tab can be killed without affecting the rest of the app.
There's something to that, but when I tried Chrome tabs were literally crashing left and right. It felt more like the whole thing was so unstable that it was a necessity than some kind of neat addition.
Somewhat less cynically, it does have security advantages to sandbox off tabs more properly both from your system and each other.
Somewhat less cynically, it does have security advantages to sandbox off tabs more properly both from your system and each other.
Yes, it is, but the only effect on the user side is that the *whole* app is less likely to crash. The multi-process architecture seemed to me from the beginning mostly an excuse to make it less stable and more resource hungry.
And the DE titlebars are important to me. Was the option to apply the DE titlebars there from the beginning or was it introduced later? I don't know, because I could not find almost any important options that I tried to look for. Certainly the option to turn off the nagbar to translate webpages was not there from the beginning.
I don't understand what is there in Chrome that makes people use it. It landed in people's computers at first as sneakware, secretly embedded in the installers of other apps. Why wasn't there more noise about this "business practice"? Why didn't people pay attention to untick it? Are people incapable of uninstalling things? Dumbusers all of them.
If there's something in Chrome that you insanely like, is it indeed something not available in Chromium? And what is it about Chrome/-ium that FF must emulate it? I don't see any sensible reason. The only thing that explains the way things have gone is that Ben Goodger changed ships.
Somewhat less cynically, it does have security advantages to sandbox off tabs more properly both from your system and each other.
Hmm, the Java sandbox doesn't automatically makes Java secure.
There's much hype about how secure Chrome is because of its sandboxed tabs.
If there is a critical security flaw in Chrome (and there have been many in the past) the sandbox won't stop remote code execution.
As for the fact that a crashing tab won't affect other tabs - no tab should crash in the first place, period.
If a tab crashes there is a bug that has to be fixed. A multi-process architecture won't fix the problem by magic.
I think you may have misconstrued my remark about sandboxing tabs from each other. I wasn't talking about crashes. Preventing those is merely a nice benefit (or in early Chrome, a necessity :lol: ). I was referring to something like one tab reading another's cookies or other personal information.
Nothing's magic. Of course tabs are supposed to be sandboxed from either other anyway, but making them separate threads makes it easier to do so because that way the OS already automatically takes care of a fair amount of sandboxing for you.
I think you may have misconstrued my remark about sandboxing tabs from each other. I wasn't talking about crashes. Preventing those is merely a nice benefit (or in early Chrome, a necessity :lol: ). I was referring to something like one tab reading another's cookies or other personal information.
Yes, I must have misconstrued, because "sandboxing" always sounds to me like kids fooling around, but presumably it's something different.
Talking about the new add-ons crisis - the Tile Tabs extension (in Palemoon) just informed me that it will not work in FF 57 (does this mean a version of Palemoon too?). There's another version of the add-on that has implemented the new APIs and it is available under a slightly different name: Tile Tabs WE. Since it's a different name, I'd say it's a fork. The authors had to fork their own work. You either fork or die.
This basically means tons of legacied and abandoned add-ons and yet another generation of wasted volunteer work. All in the name of a browser made to squeeze more cycles out of your CPU.
I was referring to something like one tab reading another's cookies or other personal information.
It's nothing wrong with shared cookies among tabs. Sometimes it's a desired feature.
Starting each tab in its own process is waste of resources and serves primarily the chip-industry.
If one wants to isolate cookies so they don't run in the same session, that's what separate windows should be for.
Unfortunately, Gecko won't isolate cookies even among windows. AFAIK there are Firefox extensions for multiple cookie sessions.
Didn't test any of them. In case, I just start another instance of Firefox or fire another browser.
Yes, I must have misconstrued, because "sandboxing" always sounds to me like kids fooling around, but presumably it's something different.
You might want your kids (websites and such) to stay in and around their sandbox.
It's nothing wrong with shared cookies among tabs.
Perhaps it's my fault but why are you interpreting every example so… extremely? :P The site evilsnooper.com shouldn't be able to just get all the info from what I'm doing at privatebanking.com. The specific technology involved isn't terribly relevant to the point.
If one wants to isolate cookies so they don't run in the same session, that's what separate windows should be for.
Unfortunately, Gecko won't isolate cookies even among windows. AFAIK there are Firefox extensions for multiple cookie sessions.
I fail to see why windows and tabs should behave any differently though. :)
The site evilsnooper.com shouldn't be able to just get all the info from what I'm doing at privatebanking.com. The specific technology involved isn't terribly relevant to the point.
If cookies run in the same session, this doesn't mean that evilsnooper.com gets neither your credentials nor other info from what you are doing at privatebanking.com. If this would be the case there wouldn't be online-banking and -purchasing anymore.
On the other hand if browsers and the web are designed to give away as much as possible personal info about the user then no technology can help. This is what I notice lately (since Google is the top tier in the industry).
(A harmless example - if your browser grants access to your clipboard any remote server can snoop there. It won't help even if you visit different sites with different browsers. :) )
I fail to see why windows and tabs should behave any differently though. :)
Then we don't need them both anymore, either tabs or windows. :P
This example might affect me (not sure) https://grep.be/blog//en/computer/code/Patching_Firefox/
At work, I help maintain a smartcard middleware that is provided to Belgian citizens who want to use their electronic ID card to, e.g., log on to government websites.
There's similar software for Estonian ID cards too. I have thus far managed to avoid using my ID card for online authentication. Entirely.
I read the headline, "Add Progressive Web Apps to your Home screen in Firefox for Android" and I thought: finally! Opera experimented with that back in 2010 already and also integrated it nicely into Opera/Blink before the exodus to Mozilla and Vivaldi.
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/10/progressive-web-apps-firefox-android/
Then I noticed who wrote it: Andreas Bovens. Like I said, exodus. :)
You can see an archive of the related stuff here: https://dev.opera.com/authors/andreas-bovens/
What's the big deal? The only thing I was able to extract from the manifesto-speak was that you can add bookmarks to your home screen. How's that a new thing? It was there in Windows 95, wasn't it?
He talks about bus schedules. In every (meaningful) browser I set up, desktop or Android, I add keyworded bookmarks to six train routes I constantly use, so the current schedule for each route is available AFAP. What's there in PWA that they can be considered a thing?
And recently, a month ago or so, I made another attempt with FF for Android. Hickupy browsing experience. Uninstalled the same day, just like many years ago during the previous trial.
What's the big deal? The only thing I was able to extract from the manifesto-speak was that you can add bookmarks to your home screen. How's that a new thing? It was there in Windows 95, wasn't it?
It's news because Android. Duh. :P
But more seriously, this is about being able to use webpages as apps. Google doesn't seem to realize it very well, but the big advantage of apps over websites is offline. See, e.g., this little write-up by Andreas Bovens from 2009 https://dev.opera.com/blog/gears-enabled-opera-mobile-9-5-preview/
I can see bus schedules (that in the vid or something? I was mainly remarking about Opera person going to Mozilla :P) being something you'd store offline for easy retrieval. And when you do it on a webpage that works for everyone on every system. Not like writing multiple "native" apps for every system.
Traditionally we could just have this kind of stuff in "offline mode". Oh well.
As a user I always thought Android was nothing special, but mostly usable. Having looked at it from the developer side a bit recently it's the most hostile system I've ever had the displeasure of interacting with.
Do you have a specific list of grievances spelled out somewhere? On your blog?
I can see bus schedules [...] being something you'd store offline for easy retrieval.
No. The rails are in active development, so I need the latest updates and changes of the schedule. If the traffic were regular, I would be able to learn the schedule by heart.
For offline use I have PDF files and a game of chess. I still don't see a use case for Progressive Whatever Apps.
Do you have a specific list of grievances spelled out somewhere? On your blog?
No, nor am I quite sufficiently expert enough to feel confident to write that. A good start can be found here:
In a POSIXer's view, Android system is CRIPPLED: thus the porting of existing
libraries onto it is TOUGH. Please have this in mind.
The basic obstacles in porting:
1.Android does not have or offers less/no access in its
trimmed bionic C lib :
1>No SYS V shm.h/sem.h
2>Not standard pwd.h and getpwuid_r(),etc. methods
3>No locale.h
4>Not standard IP/IPV6 headers/support such as arpa/*.h ones
5>Not standard pthread.
6>No iconv funcs.
7>No intl/gettext funcs
8>No i18n support and wchar_t.
I think "CRIPPLED" is much too nice. The right word is
LOBOTOMIZED.
Another thing is that Android doesn't do versioned library names. Which is stupid, because when you're loading library version 1.2 you have at least a reasonable chance of it working.
Anyway, I toyed with the idea of naming the libraries libfuckandroidlibraryname.so (because that would make it unique) but I figured it was more mature to make it act like normal versioned libraries instead: https://github.com/koreader/koreader-base/pull/521
It's also much less complicated for cross-architecture stuff.
My current annoyance is that Android regular devices don't ship a couple of simple utilities like strace by default. Why would they? Most people would never use it, bla bla bla. Well, the same applies to something like Facebook which takes up ungodly amounts of space.
(Of course the main reason I want an strace in the first place is that the Android Bionic linker sucks so I have no idea what that stupid thing is trying to do.)
Firefox says they're fast again. Including Chrome-style cartoons.
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/11/entering-the-quantum-era-how-firefox-got-fast-again-and-where-its-going-to-get-faster/
And the text praises Chrome as the shining light that shows them the way to the bright future. Awesome.
The recent update of Seamonkey includes the following notification,
Automatic upgrades from previous versions are, for most configurations, disabled for this release. Please download the full installer from the downloads section and install SeaMonkey 2.49.1 manually over the previous version.
The Mozilla backend code SeaMonkey is based on, now usually incorporates breaking changes in every release. This is especially true for the Mozilla Gecko add-ons code and the JavaScript interpreter. Consequently, some older extensions may no longer function properly.
For SeaMonkey 2.49.1, the following extensions are removed and are not included in the distribution (due to repack issues).
No comment.
And the text praises Chrome as the shining light that shows them the way to the bright future. Awesome.
No news there of course. It's almost refreshing to see them saying it so directly.
Firefox 57 may be slightly faster than Chrome now, but beating Chrome by becoming Chrome helps no one. Vimperator is another victim.
Firefox 57 will change its add-on ecosystem to be exclusively based on WebExtensions. While this offers (some) compatibility with extensions written for Chrome and Microsoft Edge, it removes the possibility to do many advanced stuff which Vimperator does. Additionally, it would require a full rewrite of Vimperator, which nobody has volunteered for. Therefore we will stop supporting any Firefox version later than Firefox 56. Head over to our GitHub page for a list of alternatives or a detailed discussion.
If you want to have famous last words, you can take a survey here to inspire future add-on authors what you actually liked about Vimperator.
Of course there are alternatives like https://github.com/akhodakivskiy/VimFx but… oh wait, Fx 57. Never mind then.
Take your pick here: https://github.com/vimperator/vimperator-labs#end-of-life-and-alternatives
Take your pick here: https://github.com/vimperator/vimperator-labs#end-of-life-and-alternatives
They don't seem to mention Conkeror, a very sympathetic nice little browser that used to be the default in Crunchbang Linux. Conkeror homepage shows some minimal maintenance going on http://conkeror.org/RecentChanges
Out of curiosity I've tested the speed-beast called Quantum.
I did test only on sites I visit regularly and couldn't notice differences compared to Firefox ESR 52.
I can't pretend that my test was accurate since I don't have script-heavy sites among my bookmarks and I have no subscription for Fedbook or Twatter. Also my hardware (an Intel quadcore i-5 and 8GB of RAM) might be outdated for such a beast.
What I did notice, were multiple instances of firefox.exe and if you are not attentive enough during configuration, some processes (telemetry) that keep running even after you exit the beast.
As for Chromme I wonder when the next generation of processors will come out so Chrome can take advantage of new features, offering more service and joy to its customers.
How about processors able to scan the person sitting in front of the screen. So the browser can send feedback home about what you eat last night, or the date of your last intercourse. Imagine the joy of getting exclusive tailored offers of your favorite foodstuff or ultimative tailored offers to improve your sex life. :)
As for Chromme I wonder when the next generation of processors will come out so Chrome can take advantage of new features, offering more service and joy to its customers.
How about processors able to scan the person sitting in front of the screen. So the browser can send feedback home about what you eat last night, or the date of your last intercourse. Imagine the joy of getting exclusive tailored offers of your favorite foodstuff or ultimative tailored offers to improve your sex life. :)
I think that's called "Google Assistant". Available on your Google Services-enabled Android device. :P
I think that's called "Google Assistant". Available on your Google Services-enabled Android device. :P
Even with "Google Assistant", location services disabled and without any carrier SIM inserted, you can be (and
you are) tracked by Google step by step.
Google collects Android users’ locations even when location services are disabled (https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locations-even-when-location-services-are-disabled/)
So far about Google, the innovative shining light of our digital future...
Even with "Google Assistant", location services disabled and without any carrier SIM inserted, you can be (and you are) tracked by Google step by step.
This is not something that arrived with Google. Where I live, it used to be common knowledge (belief, assumption) that whenever your mobile phone is switched on (regardless whether a SIM is inserted or not), it looks for a mobile network and connects to it (this is how emergency phone calls are always possible) and this can be tracked. And the phones are individually identifiable (IMEI). If you want to be not tracked, remove the battery from the device. Everybody knew this some 20 years ago. I don't expect anything different now. The tracking has progressed meanwhile, the method to avoid it is the same.
What do you think the option to disable "location services" is good for?
What do you think the option to disable "location services" is good for?
The disabling is good if you want Google Maps to nag you to enable it. Enabling it makes sense if you like to see in real where you are (and whoever is eavesdropping your net traffic can see the same).
Google's location services is a purely intra-Android thing. Someone with sufficient access privileges can locate you by triangulation regardless of the whole Android thing.
The disabling is good if you want Google Maps to nag you to enable it.
Well, to diss somebody is not Google's invention, so far you were even right.
Someone with sufficient access privileges can locate you by triangulation regardless of the whole Android thing.
Tracking you step by step, every building or shop you enter? Good luck!
Indeed, triangulation is always available. Its typical precision is a 50 m radius, but I have on occasion seen my phone accurately triangulate my location within 10 m. Google's location services add nearby wifi networks to the triangulation mix, which can significantly up the accuracy even without GPS, or for that matter retain GPS-like accuracy in urban environments where GPS positioning is obstructed by buildings. And even without triangulation the fact that you're connected to celltower X usually means that you're within no more than about 37 km of said celltower. In a city seldom more than about 2.5 km.
Tracking you step by step, every building or shop you enter? Good luck!
All you need for that is wifi/bluetooth leaking. :P
@krake
You probably have heard about fake location apps. Instead of enabling your location, you can enable one of those. This gets rid of Google Maps nagging. Not sure those apps truly do what you want, but you want weird things anyway.
Dedoimedo on unfinished NoScript in Fx 57.
https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/firefox-noscript-10-guide-1.html
Noscript 10 was probably rushed too early, in order to meet the Firefox Quantum release schedule. It does not feel like a complete product, and it highlights the mess that the WebExtensions idea really is. I am confident that Noscript will evolve and change and improve, and that it will match the old behavior, in function if not the look.
Isn't it easier for the producers of major extensions (such as Vimperator and NoScript) either to move to a more stable fork, such as Palemoon, or make their own fork? Why try to keep up with Mozilla's useless breaking behaviour?
It should be possible to separate the rendering engine from the interface and maintain a forked interface, shouldn't it? Palemoon more or less does it, and it was originally the idea behind Conkeror also, if I have understood right.
Speaking of extensions in Firefox 57
Firefox users can see which extensions have been disabled by pressing Ctrl-Shift-A to display the Add-ons page, then selecting Legacy Extensions. You can re-enable them by going to about:config, searching for extensions.legacy.enabled and changing the binary value to true. However, this also disables the multi-process feature. source (http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-tweak-the-new-firefox-57-quantum-browser-to-suit-your-preferences/)
I didn't test myself but I assume that the above is true. However I'll continue to use the v52 ESR branch which will be unaffected till March 2018. Crucially for me will be the option to add search engines and the option to customize Google's search string. Without those options I'll have to ditch Firefox.
You can re-enable [Legacy Extensions] by going to about:config, searching for extensions.legacy.enabled and changing the binary value to true. However, this also disables the multi-process feature.
Why not keep FF as the single-process browser we used to love and create another for those who want the multi-process thingie?
I liked Mozilla 10+ years ago. The policies were completely different. They mainly developed the Mozilla Suite, but when they got other ideas, such as stand-alone browser or stand-alone mailer, they branched it off. This is how FF was born. And there were also Camino as Mac-alone and Epiphany as Gnome-alone and more. And all along Mozilla Suite stayed around too. Those were good times.
Without those options I'll have to ditch Firefox.
I've been using Palemoon quite long now and even there I got a warning from TileTabs that it may stop working due to the extensions system update on FF. Not sure if extensions will actually break on Palemoon, but that warning didn't look good.
Why not keep FF as the single-process browser we used to love and create another for those who want the multi-process thingie?
I want it. The way Firefox does it is nothing like what Chromium does. :)
Why not keep FF as the single-process browser we used to love and create another for those who want the multi-process thingie?
I want it. The way Firefox does it is nothing like what Chromium does. :)
And the single-process FF is Palemoon. The sad thing is that they are separate organisations now doing these different projects.
I've been using Palemoon quite long now and even there I got a warning from TileTabs that it may stop working due to the extensions system update on FF.
That looks rather like an alibi-excuse to me.
AFAIK Palemoon uses different engines and besides, they told that they'll keep the old extensions system.
So how can the new Firefox affect Palemoon's extensions system?
There might be other reasons I could think of.
One of those reasons coming to my mind:
Is a browser with 0.05% market share attractive enough to maintain and develop my extensions for it?
Most extension writers seek for recognition and some reward. How good are the chances for it with a 0.05% browser?
It seems that the ZDNet article (http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-tweak-the-new-firefox-57-quantum-browser-to-suit-your-preferences/) I mentioned above is bogus or misleading at best.
That about:config setting is supported in Nightly, Dev, and is supposed to be supported in unbranded builds (though recently it wasn't). It is not supported in either Beta or Release. Since Mozilla developers have been pulling legacy code out of Firefox, even if supported it would break many legacy extensions.
Was Vivaldi the first to do this kind of thing?
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/01/a-rule-based-framework-to-create-dynamic-themes/
Firefox to feature sponsored content as of next week
Now it turns out the organisation has already squeezed in a few sponsored links on the “Firefox New Tab” and has added the functionality to Firefox nightly builds and Beta releases.
Pocket-powered sponsored links will now “… go fully live in May to Firefox users in the US with the Firefox 60 release.”
That’s due on May 9th, 2018.
I think only in the US initially.
In what sense?
A: When the user's location is outside the US, the downloaded version of FF comes with no ad-sponsoring.
B: Everybody all over the world will get the same version of FF, but ad-sponsoring will work only within US, because that's where Mozilla is headquartered and they will restrict their business to their own legitimate home market.
C: The ad-sponsoring will work the same for every user all over the world, but Mozilla can only get paid for ad traffic within US.
A would be a most transparent lie. The rest are of little consolation from the user point of view.
That'd be B.
More specifically, you earlier said "initially" B. So in a little while it will be C or worse. Not much consolation either way.
It's strange that, when discussing about Firefox, no one says a word about the deep web.
More specifically, you earlier said "initially" B. So in a little while it will be C or worse. Not much consolation either way.
I doubt it'd ever be C as you phrased it. "Let's annoy users with ads
without us getting paid for it!" ;)
It's strange that, when discussing about Firefox, no one says a word about the deep web.
Does that have much to do with Firefox?
More specifically, you earlier said "initially" B. So in a little while it will be C or worse. Not much consolation either way.
I doubt it'd ever be C as you phrased it. "Let's annoy users with ads without us getting paid for it!" ;)
FF has been doing it for about a decade now, proactively chasing users away, so that would not be anything new.
The company behind FF could get paid a flat rate for having ad-sponsoring in the browser, it could (additionally) get paid a click-through bonus, and they could accept money from advertisers from several particular countries, but I don't think that any combination of all these factors in whatever proportions would change the ad algorithm in the browser at all. From the app developer's point of view, it is likeliest to implement something that requires no special effort. As far as I know, ad-sponsoring only involves some algorithms that automatically connect to some places to draw links and images from there. That's it.
If it takes extra effort to make the algorithm operative in gradually more and more countries, I don't see, from the developer's point of view, much point with the whole ad-sponsoring scheme - it requires contant man-work to tinker, instead of providing a lazy stream of income. Therefore I think the implementation would be the opposite way: Make the algorithm operate exactly the same in every country, no matter if ad-sponsoring in some particular country provides extra revenue or not.
When the developer already went over the threshold of accepting ad-sponsored revenue, from there on the only thing that matters is maintaining the algorithm with the least effort. The developer would not move a finger to make extra moves in the name of some obscure foreign countries. And for Americans, all foreign countries are obscure, except maybe Canada, China, and Europe (that Europe is a country in their mind speaks for itself).
Consider Opera's ad-sponsored versions, for example (up to 8.5, IIRC). When you install such a version right now, would the ads light up or not? I guess they would. Yet the contracts on this ad-sponsoring have expired, have they not? (That's why they stopped with the ad-sponsoring, duh) So there, the company is not getting paid, yet the algorithm in the browser has a life of its own.
Consider Opera's ad-sponsored versions, for example (up to 8.5, IIRC). When you install such a version right now, would the ads light up or not? I guess they would.
I'm sure they could. Less sure they would. I'll try it later. :p
you use pale moon browser?
you use pale moon browser?
I noticed there is an Android version. I have not tried the Android version, because FF for Android is quite unsuitable for handheld usage in most aspects and I do not think Pale Moon makers did it much better. Well, as said, I have not tried...
Firefox has implemented "scroll anchoring", apparently following Chromium. It's a feature I've anticipated for about two decades.
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/03/scroll-anchoring-in-firefox-66/
Have you ever had this experience before?
You were reading headlines, but then an ad loads and moves what you were reading off the screen.
[...]
You rotate your phone, but now you can’t find the paragraph that you were just reading.
Admittedly, both would be real problems insofar as true, but I think they should be solved differently. As to ads, they should not even exist. Or if you think they should, understand that they exist, let them load, and then find the stuff you wanted between the ads.
As to losing the reading-spot after rotating the phone, the browser should solve it by taking note of the HTML elements currently in the visible area and retain them when the phone is rotated. I thought browsers on handheld devices already do that, because I have not even noticed this particular problem. (Of course, I do not use FF or any of its spinoffs or forks on handhelds.)
They're the ones who quite incorrectly phrase it as being about ads, while in reality it's about anything that might cause position shifts: loading images in general, zooming in or out, resizing your window, and so forth.
It's been well-known for more than 15 years how to do ads without position shifts: just predefine the area they take up. (The same applies to any image of course, but those just aren't nearly that slow to load.)
I notice(d) position shifts plenty when rotating in Chromia, but they've implemented similar methods recently (i.e., the same spec so that browsers can behave in an expected manner). I don't use Firefox or derivatives on mobile because it's too slow.
Anyway, it has become significantly less relevant now that everyone seems to have at least a 6 Mbit connection, but I guess some Google/Mozilla people finally noticed this problem when they were in an area with bad cell reception or something. I'd say this would've been significantly more welcome as recently as 10 years ago than it is today. As we say in Dutch, now it's mustard after the meal.
On handhelds, I have been wondering about the distinction of zooming and magnifying for about a decade. When you zoom in, all handheld browsers enlarge the font/page, but particularly in "desktop mode" they don't reflow the enlarged text/page. I wish desktop browsers had the same capacity to distinguish zooming and magnifying, because sometimes I want to just enlarge the text, which is when reflow is welcome, but sometimes I want to examine a page design element closer, which is when reflow is undesirable.
For the best force-reflowing of webpages for legibility, my number one choice is w3m under Termux (or under Xterm on desktop). For the "desktop mode" on handhelds, the system default is usually good enough. Well, Samsung browser is, and it has a decent configurable reading mode too.
Hm, surely there must be an extension for that kind of thing? You can actually also do it quite easily in any browser since about the time of Opera 10.5 with userstyles.
On the html or body element, use a style like this:
transform: scale(1.5);
transform-origin: 0 0;
(Except up to Opera 12 or 12.1, that's -o-transform, and similarly -moz-transform as well as -webkit-transform.)
The scale argument is self-evident, while the transform-origin is because otherwise it hides the top & left parts of the page when scaling.
If it's so simple to do, I wonder why there is no extension for it. Soon after smartphones took off, it became a standard feature in smartphone browsers, but it should have been there already on the desktop earlier, push a button or tick a box and zoom in a different way.
Internet Explorer 8 zooms like that. It's kind of annoying. :)
There seems to have been an extension for Firefox 3.
Firefox announces they're going for faster releases.
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/09/moving-firefox-to-a-faster-4-week-release-cycle/