Abandoned Firefox add-ons that break can be fixed but not uploaded to AMO

Firefox 55 and the coming Firefox 56 and 57 releases mark an important point in the history of the browser.

Mozilla plans to switch off the Firefox legacy add-on system in Firefox 57 for the bulk of the user base -- those on Stable and Beta versions -- and along with the change come changes to the browser that render some legacy add-ons incompatible already in Firefox 55 and newer.

This is problematic for a number of reasons. First, because legacy add-ons can still be installed and are listed as compatible when you visit the Mozilla AMO website. There is no indication that the add-on fails to work properly as it installs just fine.

Second, if fixes are possible to make the add-on compatible with Firefox 55 and 56 again, but not possible because the author of the add-on has abandoned it.

This is the case for the popular No Resource URI Leak and NoRedirect extension for Firefox for instance. NoRedirect was last updated in 2011, No Resource URI Leak in 2016.

firefox 55 broken legacy addons

Earthling, one of the core contributors to the Ghacks Firefox user.js file has fixed the issues in the add-ons. NoRedirect broke because it did not ship with the multiprocessCompatible flag, No Resource URI Leak because it used a related path to load content scripts.

The fixes were straightforward: add the missing flag to the NoRedirect add-on, and change the relative paths of No Resource URI Leak to absolute paths.

While the fixes are straightforward, there is no option for anyone but the original extension author to release the fix on AMO.

It was possible previously to upload a fork to Mozilla AMO to make it available to users who ran into broken add-on issues.

Read also:  Firefox 57: disable highlights on the New Tab Page

This is no longer possible as Mozilla blocks the uploading of legacy add-ons to AMO.

The blocking of new legacy add-ons removes one core fundamental open source principle from Mozilla AMO: the option to take the source, fork the add-on, and make it available again in a different version.

This applies solely to legacy add-ons, as WebExtensions are not limited in any way. The situation will improve once Firefox 57 gets released so that the bulk of users will have all legacy add-ons disabled automatically.

Nightly users, who may continue to run legacy add-ons will face the issue of broken add-ons however even if a fix would mean to change a single line of code only to make the add-on compatible.

Closing Words

While I can understand Mozilla's reasoning for blocking new legacy add-on uploads to Mozilla AMO, as it could lead to user irritation if a legacy add-on they just installed got disabled when Firefox 57 is launched, it is not the best option to in my opinion.

First, because the same thing can happen with older legacy add-ons that are still offered on Mozilla AMO. Second, because it would have been better if Mozilla would make exemptions for forks of existing add-ons at the very least that fix things.

Now You: What's your take on this?

 

Summary
Article Name
Abandoned Firefox add-ons that break can be fixed but not uploaded to AMO
Description
Abandoned legacy Firefox add-ons that broke in Firefox 55 or will break in Firefox 56 can be fixed most of the time, but they cannot be uploaded to Mozilla AMO.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement
Please share this article

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedinmail



Responses to Abandoned Firefox add-ons that break can be fixed but not uploaded to AMO

  1. Yuliya August 9, 2017 at 9:34 am #

    Abusing the signing/approval process.. this is moz://a we're talking about, right? Meh, I'm not surprised at all.

    • Appster August 9, 2017 at 10:07 am #

      Waterfox still supports unsigned add-ons, if you care about that.

      • www.com August 10, 2017 at 10:53 am #

        And why should Mozilla leave their AMO website open and accessible to the few Waterfox users out there?

        Unless Alex Kontos (or whoever is running it) plans to pay for his own legacy-based website to feature them. An expensive proposition for a one-man shop that has historically benefited from riding Mozilla's coat-tails in the past.

      • Anonymous August 10, 2017 at 8:02 pm #

        @www

        Come on, Mozilla is about sharing shit, it's good to have Waterfox and Whateverfox around :)

      • Appster August 10, 2017 at 8:04 pm #

        @www.com: You may not know, but at least the most prominent add-ons usually have an own website where the add-on gets hosted. Since add-on signing is optional in Waterfox those add-ons do not need to be signed. Furthermore all WebExtensions hosted on AMO compatible with Firefox 56 will run in Waterfox. Don't see the problem really. And Waterfox 56 ESR is going to be a temporary solution only, so all the panic is pointless really.

        You are a bt of a hypocrite to be honest. In your comment below you were criticizing Pale Moon for completely forking off from Mozilla, and here you are criticizing Waterfox for being too close to Firefox? A bit confusing, don't you think? Or is this just meant (as always) to try and counter the point I make? Not that it would have worked...

      • Anonymous August 10, 2017 at 9:06 pm #

        Signing is a 1 minute process though, it's fully automated.

      • Jody Thornton August 11, 2017 at 3:22 am #

        Hi @Appster:

        I wanted to respond to some of your comments from a post below (and you did take some time to write them, so I wanted to give you an equally thought-out response to a few key points you made). But other comments buried your responses, so I'll respond here (if that's OK)

        [@Appster wrote: Competing with Google is not within ...[Mozilla's]... scope unfortunately, save David vs Goliath scenarios.]

        Oh I also believe that Mozilla will sink, but it's like Microsoft having tried taking on Apple and Google, albeit late to the game with Windows 8 and 10. Shareholders needed reassurance that Microsoft was able to play in that mobile space, and not be lost in desktop antiquity. They may have failed, but they needed to be seen as trying. Now I understand that Mozilla doesn't have public shareholders, but they must have financial stakeholders who deem the future of Firefox as important. I think it's crucial to these stakeholders that it at least appear that Mozilla is not just letting its userbase sail over to Chrome-land.

        [@Appster wrote: When it comes to the desktop ever being fully replaced, I don't think so. How many people do you know who use their smartphone as their main device?]

        Most actually. This is what I'm saying. We intermix ourselves with like minded tech consumers, so you and I see Windows as important or still important. But look around, most people are using phones for their information consumption. Many haven't bothered replacing their old XP boxes. Why? Because they shifted to Android or iOS

        [@Appster wrote: At least at work this simply is not possible. Is heavy office work possible on a smartphone? No. Can you edit pictures or videos at any (even semi-)professional degree there? No.]

        Actually many on the road workers and office folks are being assigned tablets - not a phone but still a mobile OS. And as for audio, video and images, don't be too smug. Capabilities in some of these apps are growing, and younger professionals are utilizing them in ways that we would never think to. Perhaps, they may achieve more productivity with apps, than we would with windowing applications, because they come at it with a different perspective. And this will only improve.

        [@Appster wrote: What are you going to do when your smartphone OS breaks down and there is no PC to restore it? How are you going to store large amounts of data on a smartphone (don't even get me started with the "cloud" - silly word for online storage by the way - the mobile data contracts are just not up to the task)? ]

        But you're judging these abilities at their most present levels. Cloud storage WILL become more reliable. There's just too much money riding on it, so restoring a mobile OS and apps/data, will be able to be performed over the cloud.

        [@Appster wrote: How are you going to make up for the tiny display that is not practicable in many cases (yep, even 6" is still tiny in my eyes)?]

        Use a tablet (har har har) - but seriously, a 7" tablet or even a larger one for that matter, teamed up with a bluetooth keyboard, makes for a nice make-shift notebook. There will be a point in time where this is good enough. I manipulated some spreadsheets and even a regular web-based forum on an iPad three years ago, using a bluetooth keyboard, and I was surprisingly content.

        [@Appster wrote: I don't know many people who do serious work on their smartphone. How many do you know, Jody?]

        As PCs die off more and more, less need will be required for serious work to maintain windowing operating systems and applications. It will become less necessary and more niche. Apps are becoming more and more capable, but moreover beneficial to vendors because telemetry allows better pinpointing of use and thus, helps target advertising. Companies can no longer make money selling one-time software packages and forever supporting it with updates. And users have come to feel that new releases of software are just a cash grab; to say nothing of subscriptions - is that even working out for Microsoft Office? Advertising is the key. So vendors will ENSURE that capabilities on mobile platforms improve.

        [@Appster wrote: Another trend I've notices is that people are content with less quality than they were content with in the past. Some examples?]

        I already gave you one in another Ghancks thread. I saind that there were UI and functional things in software that I used to fussy about, but I no longer am.

        Cheers My Friend
        :)

      • www.com August 11, 2017 at 3:50 am #

        >Come on, Mozilla is about sharing shit, it's good to have Waterfox and Whateverfox around :)

        @Anonymous, why should they spend thousands of dollars every year web-hosting accessories for Waterfox or Whateverfox? You're not using their browser. Where do they benefit?

        Money doesn't grow on trees. Get real.

        @Appster, I'm fully aware many add-ons have their own websites, but why should the developers of those add-ons keep developing them or updating them when their user base is shrinking? When Pale Moon/Waterfox have only 1/100th of the user base Firefox has? If that...

        >Furthermore all WebExtensions hosted on AMO compatible with Firefox 56 will run in Waterfox.

        All? lol...

        The only way Waterfox will survive is to change right with Firefox. And then, what would be the point to using it? To show how hip & cool I am because I stuck it to the (Mozilla) man? To show everybody how 'independent' I am? Wow, golly, gee...

        Puh-leeease...

        >You are a bt of a hypocrite to be honest. In your comment below you were criticizing Pale Moon for completely forking off from Mozilla, and here you are criticizing Waterfox for being too close to Firefox?

        They both wind up being the same issue in the end. It was all a matter of how they were going to ride Mozilla's coat tails for so long. Well that gravy train is over, pal. OVER.

      • Appster August 11, 2017 at 10:41 am #

        @www.com:

        > (...) but why should the developers of those add-ons keep developing them or updating them when their user base is shrinking?

        1) Firefox's user base is shrinking, too. 2) Most of the add-ons were not coded for profit anyway. That is, most add-ons were never profitable in the first place, but hobby projects coded because it was fun to the authors. 3) You don't have a clue whether Waterfox and/or Pale Moon will grow post-Firefox 57. You are constantly accusing me of supposedly assuming things that could very well happen in the future, but here you yourself draw on assumptions. More hypocrisy on your part...

        > All? lol...

        Yeah, why not? Waterfox and Firefox are basically twins. 99% of add-ons that run in Firefox do run in Waterfox as of now.

        > The only way Waterfox will survive is to change right with Firefox.

        Going by that logic projects like LibreOffice or Linux Mint wouldn't exist. Their parental projects moved (or rather not moved at all in case of OpenOffice) in another direction, but they did not. That's what we call full forks. By the way, Alex doesn't even need to change direction so much (see below).

        > And then, what would be the point to using it?

        Most people are using Waterfox because it is still capable of running unsigned extensions and NPAPI plug-ins I suppose. And those reasons will remain, like... forever. If I develop a WebExtension I wouldn't like to sign it all the time for every little code change I do to it. And the Firefox base will continue to support NPAPI plug-ins as long as it supports Flash. If it supports Flash as an NPAPI plug-in it also supports other NPAPI plug-ins. Mozilla just doesn't allow the others by default. Oh, you didn't know that? Why am I not surprised?

        > To show how hip & cool I am because I stuck it to the (Mozilla) man? To show everybody how 'independent' I am? Wow, golly, gee... Puh-leeease...

        Given the explanation I gave you above everyone should now see you for the troll you are.

        > They both wind up being the same issue in the end. It was all a matter of how they were going to ride Mozilla's coat tails for so long. Well that gravy train is over, pal. OVER.

        Mozilla itself allows legacy add-ons to be run in their Nightly builds. Why? Because XUL will play an important role in Firefox for years to come, Mozilla just doesn't officially support the add-ons anymore. There would be some changes to the add-ons required, but in theory they should still run. There actually is a pref in about:config which allows those legacy add-ons to run. Most people just won't know how to flip that pref, and it would be too tiresome for add-on devs to explain how to do it for everyone out there. But if there is a browser like Waterfox having this pref flipped by default then well... the add-ons might survive if they support the project. Alex can continue to use Firefox as a base for a long, long time... If XUL is ever removed (read: if anyone bothers to remove it at this point given Firefox's low market share) that will stop, but this day is far away. Oh, you didn't know those details? Again, no surprise.

        Seriously, you should inform yourself about the technical details of what is going on now before entering an argument with me. Otherwise embarrassments like this will continue.

      • www.com August 15, 2017 at 9:35 am #

        >1) Firefox's user base is shrinking, too.

        That's right. And? Firefox's userbase is bigger than 20 Waterfox and Pale Moon clones put together. They also have money to keep going. Not relying on the survival of a one-man hack shop that could disappear at any time.

        >That is, most add-ons were never profitable in the first place, but hobby projects coded because it was fun to the authors.

        Yeah, and now that 'fun' has run out. Not that I blame them for creating and abandoning them in the first place. The blame lies on people like you who have slavishly relied on those add-ons as a matter of life or death. Did you really think they would be around indefinitely?

        Things change. Get over it.

        >You don't have a clue whether Waterfox and/or Pale Moon will grow post-Firefox 57.

        I know that one mans shops survive by their fingernails. Look at Fossa Mail. Great email program, now no more. Oh well.

        I don't rely on situations like that and maybe neither should you. I prefer not to gamble on odds like that.

        >You are constantly accusing me of supposedly assuming things that could very well happen in the future, but here you yourself draw on assumptions. More hypocrisy on your part...

        The end is near....! The end is near....! - @Appster hysterics (2017)

        >Yeah, why not? Waterfox and Firefox are basically twins. 99% of add-ons that run in Firefox do run in Waterfox as of now.

        And once again, in order for Waterfox to survive, they will have to move to a WebExtension model anyway. If that's the case then there's no point to using Waterfox, unless you want to prove to the world how 'hip' and 'cool' and 'independent' you are.

        Just pump your fist up in the air and show them how defiant you are, relying on a one-man shop that lives and ends with it's developer. Kinda stupid.

        >Going by that logic projects like LibreOffice or Linux Mint wouldn't exist.

        No because you've missed the point entirely. Firefox is free. MS Office costs money and those alternatives save people money. Apples vs. Oranges.

        >Most people are using Waterfox because it is still capable of running unsigned extensions and NPAPI plug-ins I suppose. And those reasons will remain, like... forever.

        Nothing lasts forever, Appster. That's your entire problem.

        As far as NPAPI plug-ins are concerned, they are nothing but security holes being dug even further. That's why Flash is being phased out. It's a dying web standard just like Pale Moon's code base is.

        >Given the explanation I gave you above everyone should now see you for the troll you are.

        Nope, I'm just describing your the mentality behind your stance. Just stick it to the man, dude. How cool How hip. Can you dig it?

        >Because XUL will play an important role in Firefox for years to come, Mozilla just doesn't officially support the add-ons anymore.

        Those XUL add-ons are leaving us, Appster. That's what's being talked about here and you need to get over it. Seriously, man.

        >the add-ons might survive if they support the project. Alex can continue to use Firefox as a base for a long, long time...

        He can't have his cake and eat it too. XUL add-ons will break the browser over a period of time after FF59 is introduced. Why do you think Mozilla is moving away from them in the first place? DOH

        Cluebat? Cluebat?

        >If XUL is ever removed (read: if anyone bothers to remove it at this point given Firefox's low market share) that will stop, but this day is far away.

        And do you have a fresh crystal ball on that perspective?

        >Oh, you didn't know those details? Again, no surprise.

        What details. Unless you happen to be a sock puppet of Alex or Moonchild's

      • Appster August 17, 2017 at 9:00 am #

        @www.com: Always a smug response coming from you. You are a clever guy, aren't you? Always looking into the future and seeing the great things that lie ahead of us. A true visionary, who despises those neanderthals still stuck in the past.

        But in reality, you are just a very naive guy thinking that abandoning a system with more possibilities in favor of a system that allows close to no access to the browser core is a stupendous idea. Your definition of future is not at all that of an evolution towards something better, but rather that of "Time goes by...", which is pretty sad and way too simple at the same time. I'll illustrate that a bit for you:

        Appster: "A war has started! All our houses we used to live in are now destroyed!"
        ...www.com: "Get over it, pal! No peace lasts forever!"

        Appster: "Why are they cutting down those woods? They used to make our surroundings prettier and made for better air!"
        ...www.com: "Who needs better air in the future? I call that progress!"

        Appster: "Today everybody is under total surveillance! In the past we used to have some privacy..."
        ...www.com: "Privacy? That's as old as Stone Henge! Let's get rid of this old shit!"

        Granted, those examples are a bit far-fetched, but in general this is how your brain works as far as I know. What you lack is called "principles". Some things are not negotiable. In my case, that's full access to the browser core, for the sake of customization and privacy.

        That's not anti-modern (as you like to portray it), at all. If Mozilla came up with a (more modern) system that is able to totally replace XUL and enables extremely powerful add-ons, I would be satisfied and wouldn't say anything about it. But alas, that's not what they came up with. They came up with a system Chrome has been using for years, because they believe this will be "good enough" for their users, leaving power users out in the cold in the process. That's what I call a full-scale betrayal of the people who fucking made them what they are, by spreading the word. Who would know of Firefox today if those early users hadn't told anybody? Their CEOs wouldn't receive multi-million dollar endowments, their headquarter would be a little hut in the middle of nowhere.

        Seriously, you can't discuss this betrayal away. I really don't get the point of your Pro-Mozilla trolling under everything I write. Mozilla abandoned users like me, and nothing you could write can change this. Nothing you could possibly write will make me less angry about it. And whether I am angry or happy is not your business, really. You are just an annoying guy trying to silence and/or convince me, in favor of Mozilla. Not going to work. I am not going to recommend an organization that doesn't value its users. Never ever. And I will stand up against people like you, who naively try to force people into a Chrome extension monopoly, to the disadvantage of everyone out there. Monoploies are not good for consumers.

        I find people like you, who are unable to accept individuality and the fact that people like to customize, repulsive. What do you gain from forcing everyone into Chrome-like uniformity? You want to portray me as a fanatic stuck in the past, while at the same time fanatically trying to convince me of an inferior system. The fact that this inferior system will eventually and inevitably be introduced doesn't make your stance any better. Only thing it does is making you look like an idiot, even if you think you come across as future-oriented.

        And this:

        > No because you've missed the point entirely. Firefox is free. MS Office costs money and those alternatives save people money. Apples vs. Oranges.

        Total bullshit, Ubuntu and OpenOffice (the parental projects) are free to use as well. It's not just about commercial vs free to use, it's about the usability aspect.

        As for Waterfox and Pale Moon dying eventually: Maybe. At least I am giving them a real chance as opposed to ignorants like you. All things started small. Enough said.

        Just stick it to the man, dude. How cool How hip. Can you dig it?

        PS: Are you working for Mozilla or are you trolling for free?

      • www.com August 20, 2017 at 3:22 am #

        >@www.com: Always a smug response coming from you. You are a clever guy, aren't you?

        Well I am cleaver, @Appster. Much more cleaver than you are. That goes without saying.

        >Always looking into the future and seeing the great things that lie ahead of us. A true visionary, who despises those neanderthals still stuck in the past.

        It’s a tough job but somebody has to do it. Especially for the likes of you.

        >But in reality, you are just a very naive guy thinking that abandoning a system with more possibilities in favor of a system that allows close to no access to the browser core is a stupendous idea.

        But in reality, change is going to occur whether you or I like it or not. I don’t particularly like Windows 10 either, but I don’t spend my life bashing it all the time on ghacks like you would. It’s much more satisfying bashing luddites and Neanderthals who haven’t even tried out a particular piece of software that hasn’t even been released yet.

        >Your definition of future is not at all that of an evolution towards something better, but rather that of "Time goes by...", which is pretty sad and way too simple at the same time.

        Well it’s called “acceptance”, @Appster. A concept you have great difficulty comprehending. I’m here to help you out with that. You should be thanking me for it.

        >What you lack is called "principles".

        I do have principles, especially against bashing something that you only know on hearsay. I’ll bet you haven’t even used any of the test builds yet, and if you say you have, I wouldn’t believe you.

        >Some things are not negotiable. In my case, that's full access to the browser core, for the sake of customization and privacy.

        It’s not your browser to have that kind of access to. But please switch to an alternative browser that will wind up restricting you even more.

        >That's not anti-modern (as you like to portray it), at all. If Mozilla came up with a (more modern) system that is able to totally replace XUL and enables extremely powerful add-ons, I would be satisfied and wouldn't say anything about it.

        That may happen as time goes on. Unless you have a crystal ball that says otherwise.

        >But alas, that's not what they came up with. They came up with a system Chrome has been using for years, because they believe this will be "good enough" for their users, leaving power users out in the cold in the process.

        Well there’s always those one-man shops you’ve been touting. Maybe you can take over if the developer dies or quits. After all, you don’t want those 100 other users being held up by their fingernails, now do you?

        >That's what I call a full-scale betrayal of the people who fucking made them what they are, by spreading the word. Who would know of Firefox today if those early users hadn't told anybody? Their CEOs wouldn't receive multi-million dollar endowments, their headquarter would be a little hut in the middle of nowhere.

        Whaaaa….whaaaa…..whaaaaa…..

        >Seriously, you can't discuss this betrayal away. I really don't get the point of your Pro-Mozilla trolling under everything I write.

        Seriously, yes I can. I really don't get the point of your Anti-Mozilla trolling under everything I write.

        >Mozilla abandoned users like me, and nothing you could write can change this. Nothing you could possibly write will make me less angry about it. And whether I am angry or happy is not your business, really.

        Then don’t come on here and whine about it. This isn’t exclusively a forum for Mozilla whiners, ya know.

        >You are just an annoying guy trying to silence and/or convince me, in favor of Mozilla. Not going to work. I am not going to recommend an organization that doesn't value its users. Never ever. And I will stand up against people like you, who naively try to force people into a Chrome extension monopoly, to the disadvantage of everyone out there. Monoploies are not good for consumers.

        Unlike Chrome, Firefox isn’t a monopoly so you don’t even know what a monopoly is. And no, I don’t use Chrome either, but I don’t trump up and down ghacks loudly beating my chest and letting people know that. My boycott consists of not using their browser and that’s sufficient for me.

        >I find people like you, who are unable to accept individuality and the fact that people like to customize, repulsive.

        And I find obsessive whiners like you to be utterly fascinating. The fact that a browser is treated like some kind of sacred object not to be messed with is pretty disturbing. Maybe you should seek help for that. Hmmm?

        >What do you gain from forcing everyone into Chrome-like uniformity?

        You don’t know what it’s going to be like because you haven’t tried it yet. It hasn’t even been released and the sky is falling, already. I don’t know who’s more arrogant, you or Moonchild.

        >You want to portray me as a fanatic stuck in the past, while at the same time fanatically trying to convince me of an inferior system. The fact that this inferior system will eventually and inevitably be introduced doesn't make your stance any better. Only thing it does is making you look like an idiot, even if you think you come across as future-oriented.

        No, I’m NOT trying to convince you of anything. I’m just letting others who are reading this know that there’s another side to the story besides you and your incessant whining & complaining

        >Total bullshit, Ubuntu and OpenOffice (the parental projects) are free to use as well. It's not just about commercial vs free to use, it's about the usability aspect.

        For most people, it is about cost. They don’t want to have to pay for something they don’t have to. If OpenOffice was as usable as you say, then everybody would be using it and MS Office would fade off into oblivion.

        You should really should go for better red herrings than that. You really should.

        >As for Waterfox and Pale Moon dying eventually: Maybe. At least I am giving them a real chance as opposed to ignorants like you. All things started small. Enough said.

        I have used Pale Moon and I find it totally lacking. Nuff said on that. Waterfox the one-man shop relying heavily on whether the developer quits or dies isn’t something I wish to heavily rely on either. Then I might wind up like you, bemoaning and whining over why it isn’t around anymore. No thanks.

        So just stick it to the man, dude. How cool. How hip. Can you dig it?

        >PS: Are you working for Mozilla or are you trolling for free?

        I wished they paid me. Know somebody who can open the door? - lol…

      • Appster August 23, 2017 at 5:23 pm #

        @www.com:

        > Well I am cleaver, @Appster. Much more cleaver than you are. That goes without saying.

        Hybris paired with ignorance. Didn't bother to read the rest. I assume it was the usual "I (think I) know better than you!", "You (I believe) don't know what you are talking about!" and "Mozilla is great, great, GREAT!". Why should I comment on this stuff? You are not even talking about facts anymore, just trying to argue ad hominem. Really no need to further comment on this, people will have made up their mind about you at this point.

      • www.com August 24, 2017 at 3:55 am #

        @Appster.
        >Hybris paired with ignorance.

        Hubris is the more proper word.

        >Didn't bother to read the rest.

        Of course not. You know I’m right.

        >I assume it was the usual "I (think I) know better than you!", (snip…snip…)

        Don’t assume anything.

        >You are not even talking about facts anymore, just trying to argue ad hominem.

        Nope, I’m just letting people know Mozilla still has a future with or without you. Especially from someone who hasn’t even tried the new browser version yet. The test builds will tell you where it’s going.

        >Really no need to further comment on this, people will have made up their mind about you at this point.

        They’ll know I’m not an incessant whiner who does nothing but complain all the time. Either learn to put up or shut up. One of the two.

      • Appster August 24, 2017 at 11:44 am #

        @www.com:

        > Hubris is the more proper word.

        Hubris is derived from "hybris". Read it up.

        > Of course not. You know I’m right.

        I know you're dumb. Not exactly the same.

        > Don’t assume anything.

        What goes around comes around. Surprised?

        > Nope, I’m just letting people know Mozilla still has a future

        :D :D :D Yep, this downwards spiral is going to end soon. LMAO.

        > with or without you.

        Probably 'without'.

        > Especially from someone who hasn’t even tried the new browser version yet.

        How do you know? Silly assumptions are your strength.

        > The test builds will tell you where it’s going.

        I've tested the test builds. Not a fan.

        > They’ll know I’m not an incessant whiner who does nothing but complain all the time. Either learn to put up or shut up. One of the two.

        You are not a whiner. Every critic is a whiner in your eyes. You are not criticizing anything, but advertising stuff. That's the entire issue with you. You are a shill.

      • www.com August 25, 2017 at 4:03 am #

        >Hubris is derived from "hybris". Read it up.

        Hybris is for limp wrists. Read it up.

        >I know you're dumb. Not exactly the same.

        Jealousy is not a virtue, Crapster. Didn't your mommy teach you that?

        >:D :D :D Yep, this downwards spiral is going to end soon. LMAO.

        So have you reached the bottom yet? LMAO

        >How do you know? Silly assumptions are your strength.

        I know. It doesn’t take rocket science to see that.

        >I've tested the test builds. Not a fan.

        Then move on.

        >You are not a whiner. Every critic is a whiner in your eyes. You are not criticizing anything, but advertising stuff. That's the entire issue with you. You are a shill.

        Keep whining, bro. You deserve to be fucked with here. -lol

      • Appster August 25, 2017 at 9:29 am #

        @wwwanker:

        > Hybris is for limp wrists. Read it up.

        You're dumb and it shows.

        > Jealousy is not a virtue, Crapster. Didn't your mommy teach you that?

        Yep, totally envying your dumbness. Wish I had no brain just like you. Life would be much easier. Your fall back to "Your Momma!" speech basically shows your level of intelligence.

        > So have you reached the bottom yet? LMAO

        We talked about Mozilla, right? But when it comes to me, your level will forever be unreachable for me, as it is extremely low. So low that it's not worth talking about.

        > I know. It doesn’t take rocket science to see that.

        Great justification for jumping to conclusions. Will tell you that next time when you bring my own "assumptions" up.

        > Then move on.

        More of your "move on" bullshit. Of course I'll move on. Does this make the change any better? Does this make Mozilla any better? I'm not even talking just about *me", dumbass.

        > Keep whining, bro. You deserve to be fucked with here. -lol

        LOL, dumbass responding every single time is the same like "fucking with people" in your mind. You're an annoying idiot, nothing more. Sorry to say, but... Actually talking to trees still makes more sense and does bring up more useful answers when compared to conversations with you.

    • Nebulus August 9, 2017 at 1:40 pm #

      The possibility of this kind of behavior was obvious since they introduces the add-ons signing. Now Mozilla will abuse it to force things their way. I'm disgusted by such attitude from a developer that was supposed to be user-friendly.

      • Appster August 9, 2017 at 1:51 pm #

        @Nebulus: Let's not pretend that Mozilla ever listened to user feedback to begin with. People didn't want Australis, Mozilla included it. People were against Pocket, Mozilla included it (got paid to include it btw). People disliked add-on signing, Mozilla included it. See the pattern?

      • Anonymous August 17, 2017 at 3:05 am #

        @www.com

        Mozilla rakes in nearly a half billion dollars in revenue. CEO and top management have multimillion dollar salaries. You really think "they can't afford" a legacy database? They have abandoned their base and just want to part of the big corporate club, which is a giant FU to all the small donors who got the organisation off the ground to start with.

        What do they care, they'll all walk away from from the ash heap of mozilla set for life. Half of them probably already have jobs lined up at google.

  2. Nik August 9, 2017 at 9:43 am #

    Only 1 addon out of 6 I use is being ported to webext. Moving to chrome.

    • Anonymous August 9, 2017 at 10:09 am #

      They are not ported yet. But most of the addons will be ported. Or maybe you will switch to alternatives. but DON'T MOVE TO CHROME you won't find these legacy addons on Chrome.

      • Paul's dad. September 22, 2017 at 3:15 pm #

        There's no reason to stay with Firefox is it doesn't have extensions. It's the only reason people bothered to use Firefox in the first place.

    • Appster August 9, 2017 at 10:17 am #

      Not surprised at all. Capability-wise WebExtensions are a joke, as expected. However, what do you think Chrome will deliver that Firefox 57+ will not? You will end up with pretty much the exact same type of add-ons.

    • michal August 9, 2017 at 11:11 am #

      How on earth moving to chrome (made by evil doers of google ;) ) could be a better choice?
      - it's extensions are limited compared to even current firefox's webext. So you re going to switch to even more limited product
      - it has been promised that webext possibilities will evolve
      - privacy concerns, open vs closed source etc.

      Judging on firefox 57 with servo enabled, threads etc I'd say that it improved in similar ways as AMD Ryzen compared to previous generation - simply put: big steps.

      • Martin Brinkmann August 9, 2017 at 1:31 pm #

        The main argument that I see is that Chrome is way more reliable than Firefox when it comes to features and support for extensions. Yes, there is this rare breaking of stuff and Google removing or changing features, but this has happened only a couple of times. Yes, Firefox is still better when it comes to privacy, customization options and add-ons.

    • HK-Rapper August 9, 2017 at 11:19 am #

      Good riddance, so you limit yourself even more. Especially in your privacy.

      People are just lazy, you could have still used ublock and have a better bookmark system on Firefox.

      • Paul's dad. September 22, 2017 at 3:16 pm #

        Grasping at straws.

    • Elias Fotinis August 9, 2017 at 11:35 am #

      After the v55 update, I was shocked to see that 15 out of my 16 addons are marked with the dreaded LEGACY tag (see http://i.imgur.com/CXwPmWp.png). The only one that isn't I installed just a couple of days ago. I've been using these for years and some of them are absolutely necessary for me. I have no idea which are being ported and I'm sure half of them will be abandoned. Since I have no intention of moving to Chrome, I guess I'm in for some fun times… This just proves how bad it is to rely on a single product or service. I used to get mad at this, but the older I get, the more I've learned to adapt and endure. Nevertheless, I am curious too see how this will affect Firefox's market share.

      • Julian Alarcon August 9, 2017 at 4:46 pm #

        Hi Elias

        You really need to take control of your Addons (like your programs, you need to update them and also check if not are deprecated).
        Please check this to this alternatives (firefox57+ supported):
        1. Clean Links: Link Cleaner https://addons.mozilla.org/EN-us/firefox/addon/link-cleaner/
        2. Context Search: Unavailable, blocked by this bug https://github.com/benbasson/contextsearch/issues/27 But if you need specific websites (Wikipedia), there are already some available
        3. FireGestures: Gesturefy https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/gesturefy/
        4. Image Search Options: Unavailable (but extension in Chrome is available so a port is possible https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/image-search-options/kljmejbpilkadikecejccebmccagifhl)
        5. Javascript Injector for Firefox: Unavailable (but multiple Chrome extensions are available, so port is possible)
        6. LiveClick: Unavailable (Some extensions to manage bookmarks but I don't know if there is any with the specific functionality that you need)
        7. Minimalist Bookmarks Toolbar: Unavailable (This is a hard one, I think that this kind of APIS will never be implemented, they change the main appearance of UI)
        8. New tab Override: Unavailable (some can change the new tab, but I think this is one of the behaviors that Firefox wants to forbid to increase security) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/custom-new-tabs/
        9. Nuke Anything Enhanced: Remove/Crop-to Selection https://addons.mozilla.org/En-us/firefox/addon/remove-crop-to-selection/
        10. Places' Tooltips: Unavailable (But multiple bookmarks addons, I don't know what is your real need with this)
        11. Stylish: Stylus https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/styl-us/
        12. TiddlyFox extension for Firefox: Pocket (no need for extension, I know that this is not related with TiddlyWiki)
        13. Translate This!: Translate Now https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/translate-now/
        14. UnMHT: Unavailable (A hard one, seems to be a Firefox bug related https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40873)
        15. YesScript: NoScript https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/noscript/ (I know that is not Web Extensions right now, but this is an example of a good developer embracing new technologies, webextension support is comming, also this is an example of Firefox addons APIs vs Chrome https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migration-to-webextensions-apis/ )

        Bonus!:
        My recommended extensions, all with WebExtension support:
        - Ublock Origin
        - Image reverse search
        - Smart HTTPS (revived)
        - Twitter Web - Night Mode

      • TelV August 10, 2017 at 12:27 pm #

        Elias,

        Provided you made a backup of your FF profile before installing v55 you can uninstall the current version and replace it with Firefox ESR whereby your list of legacy extensions will continue to function until June 26 next year.

        However, if you didn't make a backup then I'm afraid installing FF ESR won't do you any good as explained in https://www.ghacks.net/2017/08/02/you-cannot-downgrade-firefox-55-profiles/

      • A different Martin August 10, 2017 at 7:15 pm #

        @TelV:

        Thanks for this reminder. I had recent backups of my pre-55 Firefox profile in a few places, but I hadn't thought to rename them to protect them from being overwritten. Firefox isn't my primary browser and I will likely install Firefox 57 et seq. just to see how it works for me, but a lot of people will want to postpone the inevitable by going with ESR.

      • Jody Thornton August 11, 2017 at 2:25 am #

        @Elias (regarding that 15 out of 16 plugins are marked as legacy)

        How come you are only noticing this now? It has been discussed that "legacy" notations were coming on here for quite awhile.

      • Elias Fotinis August 14, 2017 at 1:26 pm #

        @Julian, thanks for the suggestions. I *really* appreciate you taking the time and doing what I should have done in the first place. Unfortunately, life sometimes forces us to change priorities and we neglect some things. Ten years ago, I would have gladly tested dozens of alternatives. Hell, twenty years ago I'd probably implement half of them myself. But not now, at 39. :o)

        @TelV, I do have backups, but, to be honest, I'd rather go with the flow and adapt to the inevitable. In the past, I've tried to hang on to programs, services (even people and ideas), but it never paid off. I never was one of the first to jump ship when it started heading in a different direction, but I don't want to cling on to it while it goes down either.

        @Jody, I knew it was coming, but it seems I underestimated its effect on me. :)

      • Jody Thornton August 18, 2017 at 2:20 am #

        I think for you Elias, ESR 52x is the only short to medium term answer I'm afraid.
        :(

    • Pants August 9, 2017 at 11:58 am #

      Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater :)

      You can still use ESR until July 2018. It is based on FF52 (so no e10s, no photon, no stylo, no sandboxing etc), but all your legacy addons will work. Who knows what APIs will provide to bring back some of that lost functionality. Sure, some will never come back - but ignoring the UI visual ones and focusing on work methodology, you can stick with ESR and wait, and move at some point as things like better tab control, gestures or whatnot maybe make a comeback. You will still get all the security updates in ESR. Maybe you can adapt your workflow a little even - some sort of compromise (that's what I'm doing) and after a while it's no big deal.

      Privacy & security first, workflow second, UI a distant last and not even important, IMO.

      • A different Martin August 10, 2017 at 7:31 pm #

        UI is a big deal to me. I have 29 toolbar buttons on my Pale Moon menu bar, and I have 9 buttons (all of them relating to navigation) between the address bar and the search bar. All of my buttons are time-savers and I use most of them quite regularly. You can't put toolbar buttons where you want them in Google Chrome or stock Australis Firefox. Even if I got rid of half of them, the remainder would still steal a bunch of room from the URL box and extend into a dropdown menu. In Chrome and Australis, I find clicking the navigation bar's dropdown button for more toolbar buttons, searching for a command in the context menu, or having to learn a special shortcut key combo a PITA by comparison. So, different strokes for different folks.

      • Anonymous August 10, 2017 at 8:07 pm #

        > You can't put toolbar buttons where you want them in Google Chrome or stock Australis Firefox.

        Well Chrome is Chrome, but you can move shit around with Firefox, even post 57. I guess you mean something slightly different than what I have in mind ?

      • Pants August 10, 2017 at 9:54 pm #

        @A different Martin

        Err wot? You can move toolbar buttons around in FF, so not sure what that has to do with anything. I'll define it a little better then.

        Privacy & security first, workflow (part of THIS involves UX and covers your buttons which isn't an issue) second, UI a distant last and not even important, IMO.

      • A different Martin August 10, 2017 at 11:07 pm #

        @Anonymous:

        Thank you; you're right: I just tried it in Tor Browser, which is the only implementation of Firefox I have that doesn't have Classic Theme Restorer installed. I moved a bunch of toolbar buttons to the menu bar and was happy about that.

        I must say, though, that button positioning is awfully buggy. No matter where you drag spaces or flexible spaces to, they seem to go to the right of the bar, and once they're there, you can't drag them out. (You have to reset to default, losing all of your customizations.) Also, at a certain point, if you drag a button to "the head of the line," on the left, it either gets put at the back of the line, to the right of the other buttons, or it sends the button that was previously at the head of the line to the end. The solution seems to be to drag all of the other buttons in back of the new one, which is kind of a pain. Finally, when I put the last button at the end of the line and it stayed put, and then exited customize, the last button moved to the head of the line. Another round of customization seems to have fixed that, for now.

        I recall having similar difficulties with toolbar-button instability in the very first Australis, although either I didn't try to drag buttons to the menu bar (if there was one), or I didn't succeed. I didn't have these problems in pre-Australis Firefox, and I don't have them in Pale Moon (except for a few buttons that seem to have been anchored to the Status Bar by their developers).

        Anyway, thanks for the correction! I appreciate it!

      • Anonymous August 14, 2017 at 5:56 pm #

        No problem, you should probably try it out on Nightly for a future proof experience. They are on Firefox 57 and the UI changed noticably, it's not Australis any more but Photon. You can also move things around but the experience should be a lot smoother than Tor Browser's, even though Nightly 57 is a development version released less than two weeks ago.

    • www.com August 10, 2017 at 10:57 am #

      >Only 1 addon out of 6 I use is being ported to webext. Moving to chrome.

      Well good luck finding all those extensions you so desperately crave in the Chrome Store. I hope you do well.

      lol...

  3. wybo August 9, 2017 at 10:30 am #

    Makes sense what you are saying about the forks but what will happen down the line when legacy add on authors will abandon their work and no more updates are provided. Isn't this going to be a security risk for legacy add on users?.

    • Appster August 9, 2017 at 12:03 pm #

      The add-ons are a rather unlikely target for hackers. Infiltrating a PC via the Flash plugin or even WebRTC, PDF.js looks far more promising. This is true as long as the legacy add-on you have installed is not in itself malicious (rather unlikely, especially after the approval process conducted by Mozilla on AMO).

      • wybo August 9, 2017 at 1:13 pm #

        Thank you Sir for that explanation. That makes sense.

    • Martin Brinkmann August 9, 2017 at 1:33 pm #

      Depends largely on the add-on, I don't think it is that much of a problem.

    • www.com August 10, 2017 at 11:00 am #

      I agree, I don't think it's much of a security issue, but as websites evolve, those legacy add-ons will become useless over a period of time. Just more junk code sitting in your browser doing nothing.

  4. Pants August 9, 2017 at 10:46 am #

    "as it could lead to user irritation if a legacy add-on they just installed got disabled when Firefox 57 is launched"

    But that will happen anyway. It is a non-FF57 issue: eg those who choose to stay on FF54/55/56 and those who move to ESR (based on FF52, so likely to be way less add-on breakage). But regardless of what version you are on, if you are using a legacy add-on that breaks, and it is fixed by anyone who is not the original author, then there is no way for that to be put on AMO. And we have over 10 months of extended ESR life left at a minimum

    • Martin Brinkmann August 9, 2017 at 1:32 pm #

      ESR won't be affected by add-on breakage though, as the base is pre-Firefox55.

      • Pants August 9, 2017 at 1:46 pm #

        I disagree. If the addon breaks it breaks (or it is **already** broken, and theee are plenty of those for ESR). If the author has abandoned it, there is no way to get a fixed version on AMO. The ESR base is 52, not "pre-Firefox55". And AMO has refused to allow forks of legacy addon's for at least 3+ months - as well as the obligatory massive wait for approval. Earthling uploaded his NoRedirect clone to AMO almost 4 months ago well BEFORE 53 came out (as that was when the missing multi process flag was meant to disable the addon)

      • Martin Brinkmann August 9, 2017 at 3:03 pm #

        I meant, that if Firefox 55 breaks an add-on, that it won't affect Firefox ESR until it is upgraded to the next major version.

      • Pants August 9, 2017 at 8:13 pm #

        "... that it won't affect Firefox ESR until it is upgraded to the next major version."

        It won't affect anything because the next ESR will be based on 59 and legacy addons will not be permitted :) Maybe you next to skip down to you know where for a few more days, enjoy that sunshine :) Take a break :)

      • www.com August 10, 2017 at 11:13 am #

        >It won't affect anything because the next ESR will be based on 59 and legacy addons will not be permitted :) Maybe you next to skip down to you know where for a few more days, enjoy that sunshine :) Take a break :)

        No need to be nasty. And no, it won't be the NEXT version of ESR. That change won't happen until the middle of 2018 so people on ESR have a few more months to see what happens.

      • Pants August 10, 2017 at 9:57 pm #

        @www.com I wasn't being nasty.. notice all the smileys, plus there's hidden meaning there in the words that only Martin would get from our private conversations. Apologies if it seemed that way :sadface:

        Yes, ESR has a two version overlap

      • Pants August 10, 2017 at 10:05 pm #

        @www.com "And no, it won't be the NEXT version of ESR"

        https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar

        The next version of ESR ***IS*** based on 59, scheduled for 2018-03-06. 59.2 (2018-06-26) is not a major ESR release (but even so, it is still based on 59). ESR 59, which is the next version (not some minor dot release) IS based on 59 - hence the same version number.

      • www.com August 11, 2017 at 7:14 am #

        @Pants, the next major release of ESR I believe will be 52.4.0, not 52.7.0 (59.0), so how can you say that's the next major release?

        ESR users still have plenty of time to observe the transition until the WebExtension change for ESR due in March, 2018. I've been on ESR for the last 3 years, so for me it's just continuing the course and observing what happens until then.

        Although some features I like will be ending, I don't look at it as the end of the world.

      • Pants August 11, 2017 at 9:29 am #

        @www.com

        dot releases are not major releases - they only contain security fixes. Your interpretation is different to mine :) <- smiley

        ESR52.x is based on FF52
        ESR59.x is based on FF59

        The next MAJOR release of ESR is based on FF59. Why else do they base it on the version number. I know you are trying to defend your point. And ESR is slightly different I guess with it being such a long time frame. But DOT releases are not MAJOR releases.

        And yeah, not the end of the world :) Adapt of die, I say. Sucks to lose some UX for workflow, but there is a lot of chatter that more people can soon move into WE APIs (after they strip out all that legacy code). Can;t wait for Quantum, Stylo, WebRender, Servo, Photon .. etc :)

  5. pd August 9, 2017 at 11:04 am #

    Mozilla is doing everything it can to turn me from a lover to a hater.

    • Anonymous August 9, 2017 at 4:50 pm #

      I'm not sure it's Mozilla or Ghacks comments these days.

      When I come and read them, I'm always kind of baffled by the vocal minority, completely unable to salute the good and rampaging at every single opportunity, even making up some along the way.

      • Appster August 9, 2017 at 6:48 pm #

        > I'm not sure it's Mozilla or Ghacks comments these days. (...) vocal minority (...)

        *Irony On* Yeah, because fucking around with the UI (Australis) and cutting out functionality all the time has worked out sooooo well for them in the past. Their over the top great market share growth says as much! *Irony Off*

        Seriously, you really should read up what Firefox was all about in the beginning:

        - customization
        - privacy
        - open web standards

        These three are timeless and not subject to change, one might think. However, all three points are compromised today. With all those customization options gone, why would someone still feel any incentive to use Firefox? Why should anyone bother, when they could just use the far more popular Chrome anyway?

        Let this sink in for a moment. Mozilla destroying Firefox and what it stands for has brought them down for years now, this is just the final nail in the coffin.

        I tell you what: People are going to be SO pleased to see their UI being totally changed once more, in addition to their broken add-ons. Calling it now, they will be grateful without end... NOT!

      • Anonymous August 9, 2017 at 8:56 pm #

        > However, all three points are compromised today.

        Such bullshit. Useless to waste time again, you never ever take any argument into account. You have a rock immutable view about whatever and you spam it at every. single. occasion.

        I wouldn't work harder if there was money involved.

      • Appster August 9, 2017 at 11:06 pm #

        > Such bullshit. Useless to waste time again

        Keep whining... Oh, and read up all those customization options which formerly existed, or DRM being accepted into Firefox, or all those privacy guides describing how to turn Firefox into a privacy-respecting product because the defaults are severely lacking in this regard, or... Nah, you got the point.

        > you never ever take any argument into account.

        Not true. I've already said that WebExtensions are totally capable of basic tasks such as adblocking, video downloading, script blocking etc. But I was also saying that they are and will always be severely lacking when it comes to actual functionality enhancements and customization options. And this is a NO GO for me. So, my view is actually quite balanced. WebExtensions are not up to the task in most cases, which is not my fault.

        > You have a rock immutable view about whatever

        Whatever = Customization, user choice in this case. Should Mozilla change their path I will also change my opinion about them in spite of past disappointments. But this is not going to happen, because Mozilla will stubbornly follow through with what they think the user base wants (without taking feedback into account, that is). Let them be - their current management is responsible for the Firefox market share having been cut in half. I suppose their current decisions will not change that trend.

        > and you spam it at every. single. occasion.

        If you don't like it, don't read it. You are not forced to read my complaints about Mozilla's direction, likewise I'm not forced to read your Firefox shilling and unfounded praise of this downwards spiral.

        > I wouldn't work harder if there was money involved.

        Is this the best you've got? You totally bashed me, I'm blown away. :-D

      • Jody Thornton August 10, 2017 at 2:10 am #

        Hi @Appster: (You Wrote)

        Seriously, you really should read up what Firefox was all about in the beginning:

        - customization
        - privacy
        - open web standards

        These three are timeless and not subject to change, one might think. However, all three points are compromised today.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I think that Mozilla's only mandate is to chase a lucrative market. In 2003, that market was geeks who were tired of Internet Explorer's hold on the market. Even web developers were ensuring compatibility with IE 6 sadly, so Mozilla presented itself as a breath of fresh air.

        However, that market is no longer an attractive one. Many more people use the Internet now, not only because it's grown and become more ubiquitous; but also because it's available on a wide range of devices. Many people in the late 90s and 2000s only used desktops and notebooks because that was the only way to access online video and music. That's no longer a limitation. I know several people who HATE computers - never liked them, and are so glad there's a way to use the Internet without needing a computer. They LOVE their phones. And that's most people now.

        Are you saying Mozilla is dumb to go after that market? That is where the Internet is now.

        Look at all of the websites that have remodeled their sites around a mobile-first strategy. Sure the sites are less capable on a desktop. But the vendors are OK with that. As long as it works good enough on aa PC, the mandate has been met. They are focusing on the phone user - that's where the energy is and where the returns will be made.

        Meanwhile, us luddites will say, "oh but you need a real computer to do real work" (but even that argument will fade over time), but in truth, it's just a vocal minority saying this. Mozilla NEEDS to compete with Google. There are not enough people who want what Mozilla formerly focused on. Add-ons and customization is NOT a primary interest to most people. I even notice in my own case, there aare customization options that I used to care about deeply, that I don't anymore.

      • Appster August 10, 2017 at 6:14 am #

        @Jody Thornton: I agree with what you said about Mozilla chasing lucrative markets. However, their strategy has totally failed in the mobile sector so far. Firefox for Android never even remotely rose to prominence, and their budget phone OS is already dead and buried. If mobile is the only future (I doubt it for reasons I'll mention below this paragraph) Mozilla is going to die because they are neither relevant nor profitable in this market.

        Competing with Google is not within their scope unfortunately, save David vs Goliath scenarios. Let me tell you that I know one thing or two when it comes to how markets and competition work. Google has far greater resources, has promoted Chrome excessively on their very popular services, and has bundled it with other widely used software. And the (let's call them this way, hope you know what I mean) "simple" users are loving it. Those who only need an adblocker and are good to go after. This is not Mozilla's niche, and has never been. Chrome is prominent in this market and is not going to be replaced by Firefox, that's almost a certainty. If necessary Google would just boycott FIrefox on their services, making it harder for "simple" users to use it. The Internet and especially Internet advertising is far too important to Google to let this slip out of their hands. Their built-in adblocker ensures that people will not see ads of their competitors, even extending Google's dominance of the Internet. Firefox will not beat Chrome, but was always THE go-to browser for power users, despite its shortcomings. So Mozilla can either cater to its power user base and have a solid 10% market share, or repulse their power users and try to compete with Chrome, which will fail for obvious reasons (lacking resources, no important services owned by Mozilla, Blink dominance of the web, Google's advertising empire and its defence).

        When it comes to the desktop ever being fully replaced, I don't think so. How many people do you know who use their smartphone as their main device? At least at work this simply is not possible. Is heavy office work possible on a smartphone? No. Can you edit pictures or videos at any (even semi-)professional degree there? No. What are you going to do when your smartphone OS breaks down and there is no PC to restore it? How are you going to store large amounts of data on a smartphone (don't even get me started with the "cloud" - silly word for online storage by the way - the mobile data contracts are just not up to the task)? How are you going to make up for the tiny display that is not practicable in many cases (yep, even 6" is still tiny in my eyes)? The PC will always serve its purpose, if not as a primary device, then at least as a device meant for work. I don't know many people who do serious work on their smartphone. How many do you know, Jody? The guys I know are casually surfing the web, using WhatsApp/Facebook/Instagram/Twitter, and listening to some music at Spotify... That's it.

        Another trend I've notices is that people are content with less quality than they were content with in the past. Some examples? Here you go: Most mobile websites are uncomfortable to use. That's not necessarily the website's fold. A finger is just inherently less precise than a mouse or even a trackpad. Yet people are still using them, sometimes tapping twice or thrice to open a link. People would have laughed at that in the past. Some time ago a friend of mine showed me his "awesome" pictures he shot with his iPhone 7 Plus. Frankly, as someone who is used to twin-lens reflex cameras those pictures were hardly bearable (which I didn't say to him, because I tried to be decent and friendly). But yeah, this was what I thought. The pictures looked like shit. People are hammering whole novels into a single WhatsApp chat window, and I really have to ask how this is even remotely comfortable on a virtual keyboard. Makes me wonder how the Blackberry could go extinct. ;-) Anyway, the point is: Smartphones try to be everything in one device, which inherently makes them mediocre at what they do. They never will be able to hold a candle to a device specifically suited for the purpose. Of course I know that most people are content with "mediocre", but at least for professional purposes PCs will not fade. I do not overrate the mainstream, though. The mainstream also chose MP3s over Lossless audio, or even before that they chose Windows over Linux and OS X, or even before that they chose VHS over Betamax... And will probably choose the rather poor Netflix quality over Blu ray for convenience reasons in the future. One size fits all, you get the point.

        Funnily enough most Smartphones are not even providing a proper (read: usable) file manger today. :-D So, the mobile market is nice and still growing and profitable (although when it comes to the actual manufacturers only Apple and Samsung are profitable) and all, but I don't see the post-PC era that Apple and its copycats propagate all the time coming. Smartphones will replace the PCs for most people (although I doubt that there are many people who will use Smartphones exclusively), but will never take the PC's place in terms of what is functionally possible with it. So replacement in terms of quantity: YES! In terms of quality: NO!

      • John C. August 10, 2017 at 9:10 am #

        What a classic troll. Follows the Troller's Handbook to the letter. And to any others who feel inclined to reply to this idiocy from "Anonymous", bear in mind that nothing (s)he said was backed up by anything. It was purely a statement of opinion and loaded terminology ("vocal minority", when it's obvious that the negative opinions are in the majority), designed to provoke emotional responses.

      • www.com August 10, 2017 at 11:22 am #

        @Anonymous

        As you can see, @Appster & company still have trouble with change out there. It's much easier to call you names than it is to switch to another browser and move on to something 'better'. And I use that term 'better' sarcastically since they deserve it.

        They need to get over it. Mozilla won't change for them. It's better they switch to Pale Moon. That way they can bitch at Moonchild all the time when their favorite websites won't render properly because it's based on old, outdated code.

      • Appster August 10, 2017 at 7:57 pm #

        @www.com: Like every Pro-Mozilla troll spamming this site you are completely missing the point. It being that Mozilla abandons the users who once recommended them to everybody, leading to their standing in the first place. You constantly bitch about it, yet of course these people have a right to complain. By the way, where did I "call Anonymous names"? Feel free to provide a quote!

        As I have already explained, like... a thousand times to you, I DON'T BELIEVE Mozilla will change because of the complaints they get from formerly loyal power users. However, I can still watch them sink their ship by trying to compete with a company like Google. Will be fun to see them suffer. If you really believe Firefox will make a comeback anytime soon you are delusional.

        Like every Pro-Mozilla troll you are of course bashing Pale Moon, claiming it is outdated forever, despite it being in the process of a major rebase as of now. And of course purposefully neglecting the fact that its memory usage is so efficient that Mozilla will not match it no matter how hard they try.

        Needless to say, in your narrow-minded view you believe that I am going to use a single browser and stick to it, whereas in reality I am already using a multitude of different browsers with different engines, Firefox being one of them.

        You better end this little private war you apparently wage against me for whatever reason, as it is just annoyingly underwhelming and pointless.

      • www.com August 11, 2017 at 4:30 am #

        >@www.com: Like every Pro-Mozilla troll spamming this site you are completely missing the point.

        Yup, here comes the name calling again. Anybody who disagrees with you is a troll. Is that the best you can do? Really?

        > It being that Mozilla abandons the users who once recommended them to everybody, leading to their standing in the first place.

        And? Nobody’s forcing you to use their browser, ya know. I’ve been on the internet for the last 15 years and there’s dozens of pieces of software that’s “abandoned me” in the past. Yeah, I get pissed off over it but I move on. It’s not like I lost a loved one, ya know.

        Yet you seem to have a hard time with this and FF 59 hasn’t even been released yet. What are we supposed to make of all your gloom & doom here? You might even be surprised about it at the end but you’ll never admit that.

        >By the way, where did I "call Anonymous names"? Feel free to provide a quote!

        You mean you didn’t just now call me names in your first quote?

        Well gol, gee… head smacking

        >As I have already explained, like... a thousand times to you, I DON'T BELIEVE Mozilla will change because of the complaints they get from formerly loyal power users.

        And? I’m not complaining about it. You are. I haven’t even seen the finished product yet. Then I’ll complain if I need to. You on the other hand shoot from the hip without thinking. All you see your favorite add-on going away and it’s the end of the world. That’s hardly an ‘open mind’.

        >However, I can still watch them sink their ship by trying to compete with a company like Google. Will be fun to see them suffer. If you really believe Firefox will make a comeback anytime soon you are delusional.

        Well then let the chips fall where they may. If they sink, they sink. If they swim, they swim and I told ya so. Until then, you're just shooting in the breeze here.

        >Like every Pro-Mozilla troll you are of course bashing Pale Moon,

        Ah yes, @Appster is always right and everybody else who disagrees with him is wrong. Another yabada yabada yabada tantrum…

        claiming it is outdated forever, despite it being in the process of a major rebase as of now. And of course purposefully neglecting the fact that its memory usage is so efficient that Mozilla will not match it no matter how hard they try.

        Then move on to Pale Moon and go bitch to Moonchild. Nobody’s stopping you. Seriously. Let Firefox die if it has to. Get over it.

        >Needless to say, in your narrow-minded view you believe that I am going to use a single browser and stick to it, whereas in reality I am already using a multitude of different browsers with different engines, Firefox being one of them.

        On the contrary, I have a very open-minded view of how Firefox will turn out. You on the other hand have a closed mind. They won’t support my favorite add-on so whaaa….whaaaa…whaaaa…

        >You better end this little private war you apparently wage against me for whatever reason, as it is just annoyingly underwhelming and pointless.

        I’ll give up when you do.

        Nahhh, don’t see it happening.

      • Appster August 11, 2017 at 12:43 pm #

        > Yup, here comes the name calling again. Anybody who disagrees with you is a troll.

        Note that I didn't call Anonymous a troll, but you. Surprised about that? Under several comments of mine you have tried to undermine my points by stating your own opinions, which always happen to be Mozilla-friendly and on top of that not backed up by anything. In fact, Mozilla is actively backing up my claims. They have stated repeately that Chrome parity is a major goal for them, and they have said repeatedly that WebExtensions will never match legacy add-ons in terms of what they can do. Go read it up. Your claims not being fact-based and presented with insulting undertones is what leads to me calling you "troll". Anonymous doesn't qualify for that as it stands. By the way: Disagreement = fact-based, polite... Trolling = false claims meant to provoke a response, insulting

        > Is that the best you can do? Really?

        No, it's not. I've told you multiple times how your arguments are flawed and why I am doing here what I am doing here, to no avail. Still you continue to annoy me. Hence I call you a troll.

        > And? Nobody’s forcing you to use their browser, ya know.

        It has met my needs in the past, but will not in the future due to changes introduced by Mozilla. I hope for a fork to appear. Which part of that don't you understand?

        > Yeah, I get pissed off over it but I move on. It’s not like I lost a loved one, ya know.

        I think you are reading a bit too much into what I am writing.

        > What are we supposed to make of all your gloom & doom here?

        I don't necessarily write here to attract an audience. :D I just want to express my disagreement with an organization that has for all intends and purposes betrayed its users. If you value my complaint for what it is, fine. If you don't, you don't. I don't care really and there is no reason to annoy me because I have expressed disagreement with an organization you apparently value so much that you feel the need to respond to me every single time.

        > You might even be surprised about it at the end but you’ll never admit that.

        Judging by what I did read about their future plans recently and what I myself have witnessed when testing current Nightly builds: No way they are going to surprise me positively.

        > You mean you didn’t just now call me names in your first quote? Well gol, gee… head smacking

        I did, for a reason. Has nothing to do with Anonymous, though.

        > And? I’m not complaining about it. You are.

        Yes, I'm complaining because I value customization, the ability to tweak the browser to the core. You don't value it, which is okay. But then, I have to wonder why you haven't been using Chrome and Opera for years now. Firefox is clearly not what you search for. Firefox has always been targeted at those who customize. People like you who don't value the product's most prominent capability trying to lecture people like me who have valued the options it provides since its very inception is extremely gross.

        > I haven’t even seen the finished product yet. Then I’ll complain if I need to.

        You can already test the Nightly, though. Feature-wise not much changes between Nightly and final release.

        > You on the other hand shoot from the hip without thinking.

        Are you serious? At least I have tested the Nightly and therefore know what I am talking about. I know what Mozilla is planning because I constantly keep up with the news in this regard. People like you who do not know anything, because they were either too lazy or too dumb to actually test the product and inform themselves are now accusing me of "not thinking". Good joke, man. Next one.

        > All you see your favorite add-on going away and it’s the end of the world. That’s hardly an ‘open mind’.

        Firstly, it's not about one, or even *my* favorite add-on. There are thousands of add-ons in peril, some of them were worked on for years. And those in turn have millions of users. Yeah, of course it's just about *me*. :D Furthermore the changes Mozilla introduces not only affect add-ons, but also the browser itself. Mozilla plans to introduce a new theme and new (albeit useless, to me) functionality in Firefox 57, which you would know had you only tested the Nightly or informed yourself. And I tell you what is not open-minded: To cut away any customization, preventing people to create the browser they like for themselves. It is not open-minded to force everybody in Chrome-like uniformity, destroying any competition between different concepts on the market. The day everything is grey and uniform people like you will be satisfied, I suppose. That's not true for people like me, who fiercely support individuality. But then, it is those same people like you who like to accuse and denounce those who argue in favor of the users and their respective needs.

        > Well then let the chips fall where they may. If they sink, they sink.

        If the downwards spiral continues, that's almost 100% guaranteed. The management responsible back then is the same leading Mozilla today, by the way.

        > If they sink, they sink. If they swim, they swim and I told ya so. Until then, you're just shooting in the breeze here.

        Yeah, you told me so. :D I'm just thinking the current trend through, until its logical end, which is Mozilla falling into oblivion. No way the current staff at their board is capable of turning the tides.

        > Ah yes, @Appster is always right and everybody else who disagrees with him is wrong. Another yabada yabada yabada tantrum…

        Disagreement != Trolling, see above. Obviously, you are the one having a temper tantrum here. I write something and you immediately feel triggered and respond in a very aggressive manner. Your aggressive ways, (unsuccessfully) trying to destroy my points and (again, unsuccessfully) trying to force me to accept your point is another facet of your open mind I suppose.

        > Then move on to Pale Moon and go bitch to Moonchild. Nobody’s stopping you. Seriously. Let Firefox die if it has to. Get over it.

        More anti-Pale Moon bashing from a Pro-Mozilla troll, not at all surprising. If it gives you peace of mind, let me tell you that Pale Moon is one of the variety of browsers I use.

        > On the contrary, I have a very open-minded view of how Firefox will turn out.

        Trying to force everyone into Chrome-uniformity = open-minded. LOL, there already is a browser or two for people like you.

        > You on the other hand have a closed mind.

        Not wanting to force everybody to use the same system is closed-minded. I get it. If you haven't noticed: I totally support competition. I see that there is a group who would like Chrome, another likes Firefox etc. Forcing everyone to accept the lowest common denominator is just not my thing.

        > They won’t support my favorite add-on so whaaa….whaaaa…whaaaa…

        Total nonsense, see above for more info.

        > I’ll give up when you do. Nahhh, don’t see it happening.

        Appster: I'd like to customize my browser to meet my needs.
        ...www.com: No, accept Chrome uniformity now!
        Appster: But, I...
        ...www.com: There is no "but"!
        Appster: Well, this status bar of mine...
        ...www.com: Status bar? Blasphemy! Mozilla doesn't support status bars anymore!
        Appster: I dislike Mozilla because of that, why should I use them?
        ...www.com: Why wouldn't you continue to trust the god-lead company Mozilla?

        -> It starts all over again.

        Yeah, this can continue forever. I will continue to support customization, so that every user can customize the browser according to his/her own needs. You will continue to try and force everyone to accept uniformity.

        Good luck with that, pal.

      • www.com August 15, 2017 at 9:41 am #

        @Appster, you do sound more and more desperate as time goes on. I skipped the rest of your blather up above because you're only repeating yourself again. You've made your dying point. For now.

        >Good luck with that, pal.

        Hey pal, that's my line.

        -lol...

      • Appster August 16, 2017 at 10:22 am #

        @www.com:

        > Appster, you do sound more and more desperate as time goes on.

        Yep, totally desperate. Showing you off as the kind of troll you are always depresses me. Will have some wine to ease the pain...

        > I skipped the rest of your blather up above because you're only repeating yourself again.

        Funnily enough you always happen to "skip" things when you fail to argue against them. Maybe I'll skip your trolly paragraphs next time, so that just like you I can come up with some smirky BS. That's some cowardice right there. Granted though, I sometimes have to repeat myself because others repeat their non-arguments over and over, as well. Yes, I mean you in particular.

        > You've made your dying point. For now.

        Yep, "for now". :-D

      • www.com August 20, 2017 at 3:36 am #

        >Yep, totally desperate. Showing you off as the kind of troll you are always depresses me. Will have some wine to ease the pain...

        You mean whine to ease the so-called pain, right?

        >Funnily enough you always happen to "skip" things when you fail to argue against them. Maybe I'll skip your trolly paragraphs next time, so that just like you I can come up with some smirky BS.

        Good, you can give me the last word.

        But I know you won’t. You’ll do no such skipping. You have too much to whine about.

        >That's some cowardice right there. Granted though, I sometimes have to repeat myself because others repeat their non-arguments over and over, as well. Yes, I mean you in particular.

        No need to copy-and-paste. You can read my other response to you from the 20th up above. We’ve touched on the same things up there, already.

      • Appster August 23, 2017 at 5:13 pm #

        @www.com: Your Pro-Mozilla trolling is quite funny to be honest. Everyone else is complaining while you are defending their move. Seems like you are 1000% more clever than the rest. Or, maybe not.

      • www.com August 24, 2017 at 3:57 am #

        >@www.com: Your Pro-Mozilla trolling is quite funny to be honest. Everyone else is complaining while you are defending their move. Seems like you are 1000% more clever than the rest. Or, maybe not.

        I'm also laughing. I like patronizing crybabies and whiners.

        I have nothing to lose here.

      • Appster August 24, 2017 at 11:38 am #

        @www.com:

        > I'm also laughing. I like patronizing crybabies and whiners.

        Patronizing is for idiots.

        > I have nothing to lose here.

        Apart from your credibility, obviously. Too late to save anything in this respect.

    • TelV August 10, 2017 at 12:57 pm #

      @ pd,

      I agree with you there wholeheartedly. What riles me the most is Mozilla's point blank refusal to make APIs available for some of the most popular extensions like Classic Theme Restorer which would allow developers to create WE versions of what have now been deemed to be 'legacy' and which will be consigned to history come FF57.

      Why is Mozilla so totally opposed to allowing users to customize the UI in certain ways? Why does Firefox have to look like Chrome with its ugly tabs-on-top layout? It just doesn't make sense to force users to change their choices or go without just because some bright spark in the organization thinks it's a good idea.

      For the moment I've switched to Firefox ESR and Waterfox. The latter offers some hope for the future since there are plans in place to create a new browser written in C++ which will support all current Firefox legacy extensions. Whether or not it will come to fruition is yet to be decided, but the intention may well serve to bring about a change of heart at Mozilla in the same way that Microsoft was forced to drop the Windows 8/8.1 UI and reintroduce the Windows 7 Start menu in Windows 10.

      • Anonymous August 10, 2017 at 8:12 pm #

        > Why does Firefox have to look like Chrome with its ugly tabs-on-top layout?

        It doesn't have to, a couple lines in userChrome.css and you have tabs below. You can also have tabs on the side or tree-structured with WebExtensions.

        I don't know what other features you need from CTR so can't help any further.

  6. Jeff August 9, 2017 at 11:21 am #

    GoodbyeFox :D

    • www.com August 24, 2017 at 6:15 am #

      Goodbye Jeff :D

  7. turionium August 9, 2017 at 12:04 pm #

    For what it's worth, forked add-ons can still be uploaded here:

    https://addons.palemoon.org/

    They must be compatible with Pale Moon, though.

    • the-edmeister August 10, 2017 at 12:38 am #

      Since when does Palemoon do signing?

      Seeing that it doesn't how does that help Firefox users?

      • turionium August 10, 2017 at 3:54 pm #

        You don't need to use signed add-ons provided you flip an about:config switch, you know.

        xpinstall.signatures.required => false

      • A different Martin August 10, 2017 at 5:10 pm #

        Pale Moon doesn't do signing, but can't Firefox users turn off the signing requirement, in development releases at least? Not any more? (Sorry, I don't know. I rarely use Firefox since it adopted the Australis UI, even with Classic Theme Restorer installed. And it's always been much more crash-prone than Pale Moon, at least for me.)

        But the main point is, a lot of legacy extensions that won't be migrating to WebExtensions should not be too much work to adapt to Pale Moon. A decent number of them work out of the box, without modding. The great majority of my extensions in Pale Moon come directly from AMO, not from Pale Moon's Extensions page. I guess that's probably coming to an end. Anyway, discouraged legacy extension developers still have a platform to work on, and a home for their work, and that's Pale Moon.

      • Appster August 10, 2017 at 9:21 pm #

        @A different Martin: Waterfox and Cyberfox still support unsigned extensions by default. Same goes for unbranded Firefox builds, although they are kind of neglected by Mozilla and do not get advertised for general use.

  8. Straspey August 9, 2017 at 2:13 pm #

    I suspect someone will create an on-line bank - so to speak - where orphaned add-ons that Mozilla blocks on the AMO, can be provided and downloaded. Sort of like the userscripts site - except this one will be for old add-ons tha can still be installed and which will function in FF 55 and beyond.

    • the-edmeister August 10, 2017 at 12:39 am #

      And who does the signing?

    • www.com August 10, 2017 at 11:24 am #

      And who's going to pay for that?

      • Anonymous August 17, 2017 at 3:16 am #

        You can get an adequate website for $10 a month. You're getting as extremist as the guys you've been complaining about.

      • www.com August 24, 2017 at 4:02 am #

        >You can get an adequate website for $10 a month. You're getting as extremist as the guys you've been complaining about.

        We'll see how long that lasts. One man shop - depending on one person (and maybe a couple of volunteers) - Just like what happened with Cyberfox and Fossa Mail, I don't think I'd want to rely on some ad-hoc system that will eventually break down over a period of time due to lack of interest.

        But that's what happens when you get overly dependent on something without having a backup plan.

        A more restrictive browser? Go for it.

        A browser based on old code that won't render websites properly? Go for it.

  9. Gavin August 9, 2017 at 2:34 pm #

    No Resource URI Leak has not been abandoned, its functionality is being included in Firefox 57 so the extension will not be needed. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=863246

    • Pants August 9, 2017 at 3:11 pm #

      The developer has not responded to fixing the breakage in F55+. In 57+, the extension will not work, which is fine, because it is legacy. The bugzilla ticket has nothing to do with the add-on. Mozilla did not put out the add-on. And the add-on guy is not working on the bugzilla ticket. It is, effectively, abandoned. The fix was relatively straight forward, and its been known it would break for a while - users on FF55 and 56 are affected without recourse - I would call that abandoned.

      If the Tor Uplift ever get that ticket resolved (should be a lot easier with legacy addons not needed to be catered for, or tested for), then that's great.

      • Anonymous August 9, 2017 at 4:53 pm #

        NoScript might be able to replicate the functionality for those who care. Not sure, as I don't use No Resource URI Leak.

      • Rick A. August 11, 2017 at 11:16 am #

        @Pants - So i should just disable No Resource URi Leak on my Firefox 55.0 on Windows 10 and 7 because it's doing nothing? it's also on my Windows XP Firefox which is ESR 52.3.0 so that's fine.

        @Gavin said "its functionality is being included in Firefox 57 so the extension will not be needed.", is that true Pants?

        Firefox 55 broke 2 extensions, well 3 if you count No Resource URi Leak, first time a new version of Firefox ever broke an add-on for me, and the 2 are not really important, "Clear Cache and Data" and "About:about Button".

      • Pants August 12, 2017 at 4:28 am #

        @Rick A

        "So i should just disable No Resource URi Leak on my Firefox 55.0 on Windows 10 and 7 because it's doing nothing?"
        - Yes. The original addon is broken in 55 and 56 so it is useless. Keep it if you want to (in case the original dev patches it), or delete it. Earthlng's patched version will work on FF55 and FF56 (and is in fact backwards compatible) and his version uses a different id, so you'll have to reset your options. Once 57 comes, then who cares :) The whole reason I asked Martin to an article was to let everyone know that Earthlng patched it - 6,000 users of the addon and no way add it to AMO, or to let them know (besides maybe a review comment). The links are in the article.

        --
        Yes, the Tor Uplift team have had the original ticket re resource leaks ( https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=863246 ) tagged for a long time - it is currently Mark 3 - i.e [tor][fingerprinting][fp:m3]. The extension "No Resource URI Leak" will not work in FF57+ regardless of this ticket being resolved in time for 57. What the Tor Uplift is doing is not the same though, because their solution is more robust, edge cases, exceptions etc - but also made somewhat simpler by the fact that they will not have to deal with legacy addons (legacy addons were the reason why they decided not to land this until 57 at the earliest) - and they are going balls out to get it done in time. Here's hoping.

  10. Don August 10, 2017 at 12:25 am #

    I'm sad the huge amount of effort by volunteer add-on developers will be tossed aside.

    But I also like Firefox, and I like speed and stability and security that are promised when legacy add-ons are obsolete.

  11. buck August 10, 2017 at 7:40 am #

    Waterfox has an legacy addon repo planned.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/68pk1n/waterfox_57_and_legacy_firefox_addons_what_are/

    " TL;DR Addon support will carry on. I'll be setting up a addon repo as well."

  12. A different Martin August 10, 2017 at 5:35 pm #

    This is slightly off topic. Firefox 55 was released yesterday, and as I think Martin pointed out a little while ago, the default download for Windows x64 users is now Firefox x64 (64-bit). If you want Firefox x86 (32-bit) you have to go here:

    https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/

    and click on the Firefox for Other Platforms and Languages link. I don't know whether or when Firefox 54.0.1 (32-bit) is going to be updatable internally (by doing Help > About Firefox); it reported itself as up to date just a minute ago.

    Going back on topic, when I installed Firefox 55 x64, loaded it, and looked at my list of some 50-odd extensions, all but three were flagged with a big yellow LEGACY label. I might be able to find WebExtensions substitutes for some of them, and I might be able to defer Armageddon for a while longer by installing Firefox ESR, but I have a feeling a bunch of Firefox users are going to be royally pissed off when Firefox 57 is released.

  13. GiddyUpGo August 10, 2017 at 7:52 pm #

    The best site to Update Firefox that I have used for a long time is "https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/" It has all complete versions and all browsers listed.
    You are right about users not going to like 57. I upgraded to 55 and pretty soon decided I would not use it. I used an Windows Image to restore my 54.0.1, where I will stay until I find another browser that I will use. I have used Firefox from it's beginning....Time to move on!

    • Anonymous August 10, 2017 at 9:00 pm #

      Why ditching 55 for 54 ? An unmaintained add-on of yours became incompatible maybe ? Because otherwise I don't see a reason to pick 54 as opposed to 55, just like I don't see a reason to pick 53 over 54.

      I understand picking 29 over 30, or 3.6 over 4, basically any important change in a software will make some people reluctant to update. But what is the change in 55 is what I can't see.

  14. TelV August 11, 2017 at 10:37 am #

    @ Anonymous,

    Re: your suggestion to create a userChrome.css to address the problem with tabs below the location bar I hunted around for the code and found it on https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/997126 With a little trepidation I disabled CTR and then launched FF. Much to my surprise it works.

    It looks a bit wonky at the moment since it displays using the Australis UI which I don't like either, but I get the general idea.

    However, according to this Mozilla blog: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/02/16/the-road-to-firefox-57-compatibility-milestones/ XUL overlays will cease to work come FF57. So the solution will be shortlived by the look of it.

    • Django August 14, 2017 at 6:04 pm #

      The namespace line from your link might have been the confusing part but don't worry, userChrome.css is not XUL and will keep working beyond Firefox 57 which ends Australis' era and gives birth to Photon's.

      Try this one, maybe it's less wonky:

      #TabsToolbar {
      -moz-box-ordinal-group: 2;
      }
      #nav-bar {
      border-top-width: 0px !important;
      }

      Taken from Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/6rp0yv/can_we_have_a_big_userchromecss_thread/dl6q8iw/

      • TelV August 14, 2017 at 6:49 pm #

        Thanks Django, that one is infinitely better.

        So if I understand you correctly it should be possible to duplicate CTR by employing a userChrome.css file. Or is that a little too ambitious?

      • Django August 14, 2017 at 8:43 pm #

        I've never used CTR and it has many features so I can't provide a complete answer, but if you list the features most important to you maybe I can help ?

        Generally, userChrome.css should allow a lot of UI styling, e.g. changing colors, moving things around, hiding stuff. I'm not using it very much but there are very proficient people on Reddit's Firefox sub.

        Photon may allow a couple more things CTR does, you'll have to see for yourself, for instance by experimenting with Nightly 57 portable : https://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable/test#nightly

        Finally WebExt APIs allow more. Overall I can't say that everything is covered, I guess not, but what really matters is to know if everything *you need* is covered :)

        For me it is almost the case, still waiting on two uncertainties.

  15. A different Martin August 11, 2017 at 10:34 pm #

    Is it just me, or has it gotten a bit hot in here? Or chilly? I'm not sure which.

    For what it's worth, Pale Moon is still my favorite browser, but I'm curious to see how Firefox's new features (multi-process support, sandboxing, etc.) turn out and exactly how much functionality WebExtensions will end up supporting.

    Also, I managed to salvage a recent pre-55 user profile and I added it to Firefox's profiles.ini file. I now have both 64-bit Firefox 55.x and 32-bit Firefox ESR 52.3.0 installed, and I targeted their shortcuts to the appropriate respective profiles. That's a load off my mind, because loading a profile that's been previously loaded in Firefox 55 in pre-55 Firefox really does mess it up. (Or at least it did for me.)

    • mgol August 12, 2017 at 3:58 pm #

      Pale Moon is, unfortunately, an obsolete browser. Its web standards support is years behind all mainstream current browsers.

      I'm not surprised, though. Keeping up with standards today is a huge job for many people, someone doing that on their own, maybe with a few volunteers is just never going to keep up. Maybe they could if they only focused on the browser UI but once they forked their layout & JavaScript engines they've already lost IMO.

      • Appster August 12, 2017 at 4:08 pm #

        @mgol: Totally agree with you, in regards to Pale Moon. However, it should be noted that - at least in the past - the Pale Moon team could always rebase their browser on a newer Gecko engine they took from Mozilla (rebase on Gecko 52 in the making at the moment). Thus they were profiting from the development of Firefox. The interesting part is ahead of us: What will they do once Mozilla ends support for XUL/XPCOM? Now, that is going to be interesting, because another rebase won't be possible.

      • Anonymous August 17, 2017 at 3:31 am #

        Yeah the waterfox approach is smarter and more efficient. I really only have three principal questions for a browser:

        1. Can I customise the interface how I want?
        2. Can I switch off the privacy invading features?
        3. When the browser tries to stop me doing something, do I have override control?

        Chrome was always No,No,No, now Firefox looks like it is going to be No,No,No.
        Iridium and Iron are mostly No,Yes,No, so at least you get some privacy with Chrome compatability. Seems like the least worst option for pages that won't run on pre-53 Firefox.

Leave a Reply