How to enable legacy extensions in Firefox 57

If you are using Firefox Nightly right now, you may have noticed that the latest update of the web browser disabled all legacy add-ons.

Firefox Nightly is the first version of the Firefox web browser that hit version 57, the version of Firefox that drops support for so-called legacy add-ons in favor of WebExtensions.

Nightly is the cutting edge version of the Firefox browser. Development lands in Nightly first, is then moved to Beta before it lands in the release versions.

Legacy extension support will be dropped when the Beta version is updated to version 57 on October 10, 2017, and when the Release version of Firefox is updated to version 57 on November 14, 2017.

Nightly is special, as users of Firefox Nightly may bypass the restriction that blocks the usage of legacy extensions in the browser. The switch won't be part of Firefox Beta or Release.

Legacy Extensions in Firefox

firefox legacy extensions

We talked about options to run legacy extensions in Firefox when Firefox 57 is released before; one of the options mentioned in the article was to use Firefox Nightly and configure it to run legacy extensions. It was not clear back then how that would work, and this guide reveals the process to you.

Note though that some legacy extensions break in Firefox 57 and newer, even if you enable support for them. The main reasons for that are changes to code that extensions rely on for functionality.

Firefox 57 lists disabled add-ons under legacy extensions on the about:addons web page. A "find a replacement" option is shown next to each legacy extension. A click redirects users to Mozilla's AMO website where replacement WebExtensions are listed.

Read also:  Firefox's New Form Autofill is awesome

This does not work properly right now, but that is to be expected considering that Nightly is a development version. One issue with the replacement option is that there are not replacements for some legacy add-ons.

Classic Theme Restorer is a prime example as WebExtension's cannot replicate the functionality of the Firefox legacy add-on.

Enable legacy extensions in Firefox Nightly

firefox extensions legacy enabled

To enable legacy extensions in Firefox Nightly, do the following:

  1. Load about:config?filter=extensions.legacy.enabled in the Firefox address bar.
  2. Double-click on extensions.legacy.enabled to set the preference to true.
  3. Restart the Firefox web browser.

You enable support for legacy extensions in Firefox Nightly if you set the preference to true. The default value is false which means that legacy extensions are not enabled.

Now You: If you use Firefox, what will you do when the browser hits version 57?

Summary
Article Name
How to enable legacy extensions in Firefox 57
Description
Find out how to enable support for legacy extensions in Firefox Nightly to run disabled legacy add-ons again in the web browser.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Advertisement
Please share this article

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedinmail



Responses to How to enable legacy extensions in Firefox 57

  1. Pants August 12, 2017 at 6:31 pm #

    "...what will you do when the browser hits version 57?"

    AFAIK, the preference won't exist, it is planned to pull it. It is in Nightly for transitional purposes. By then legacy code would have been stripped out and legacy addons will all be broken anyway .. just sayin'

    • Jody Thornton August 17, 2017 at 3:37 am #

      I wonder if it will be in Nightly 58 (only in respect to it being transitional)
      :)

  2. Richard Allen August 12, 2017 at 7:19 pm #

    Preference didn't exist for me. I added it then went to AMO to try and install Bookmarks Menu. Not available for my version. Installed a local copy which appeared fine but did not function. I didn't think it would, it had quit working on the 8th. But...Wishful thinking. ;)

    • Eureka August 12, 2017 at 8:18 pm #

      also fwiw....
      https://github.com/MoonchildProductions/moebius/blob/master/README.md

      • Appster August 12, 2017 at 9:26 pm #

        @Eureka:

        Regarding Basilisk...

        - Will not support WebExtensions (support for both legacy extensions and WebExtensions would be perfect)
        - No support for DRM, for ideological reasons (Goodbye Netflix etc.)

        Yep, this will be it. ;-)

      • George August 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm #

        @Appster official Basilisk website mentions "...and a direct replacement for Firefox with full add-on capabilities (both NPAPI plugins and all types of extensions)" so not sure where you are getting that info.

        http://www.basilisk-browser.org/preview/index.shtml

      • Appster August 15, 2017 at 11:43 am #

        @George:

        Pale Moon won't support WebExtensions: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&p=116604&sid=fd245732d9c68a13c3350994d48d69c5#p116604
        Pale Moon and Basilisk will use the same platform code: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15505
        "This forked platform code can then form the basis for a current-day Firefox-derived browser (which will be published along with the first publication of this platform-in-progress), offering an alternative for current Firefox users to continue using their browser the way they are used to, with all their extensions supported. This platform can be used by other applications currently building on Mozilla code, as well, including Thunderbird, Instantbird, SeaMonkey, and also Pale Moon down the road." (from the second link)

        So, most definitely no WebExtensions in Basilisk.

      • rodndtube August 24, 2017 at 10:45 pm #

        I like the attitude of the Basilisk logo: http://www.basilisk-browser.org/bas-logo-500w.png

        What I don't understand is the relationship to Pale Moon with this statement:

        "Who is behind this browser?
        This browser is released by the team behind Pale Moon."

        Did the Pale Moon team move over, is Pale Moon dead?

      • George August 25, 2017 at 8:58 am #

        @rodndtube Pale Moon is not dead of course, Basilisk will be an independent/different browser I'm guessing for those who want something a bit closer to Firefox (without the Mozilla crap). The two browsers will co-exist and Pale Moon continues as always.

    • Richard Allen August 12, 2017 at 9:18 pm #

      I'm planning on taking Waterfox for a test drive after it gets updated to v55 and after backing up my current profile folder. If I understand correctly it takes over the default FF profile folder location. Which is fine. Being able to use both Legacy and WebExt at the same time, for an extended period would be nice. I mentioned the update to v55 because I've seen a significant performance improvement since v54, actually since updating from 52 ESR, not that ESR was "bad". From FF v29 to v54 I was on the ESR channel and updated to stable when v54 came out, to see how things were progressing. Now, I'm not particularly interested on moving back to the ESR channel and loosing the performance improvements that I've seen. And the next update to ESR will be v59, so...what would be the point of doing that. ;)

      • Mystique August 13, 2017 at 6:02 am #

        @appster

        Support from both would be a huge kick in the pants to Mozilla as it would support the best of both worlds in regards to extension flexibility. There are already a few addons that are web extension only which has left previous and current XUL based browser in the dark.

        I have been critical of Mozilla but ultimately I am skeptical of the choices being made Mozilla and path being taken for Firefox.
        I will give Firefox a try and see how it works and feels once it goes live but I do see myself continuing to use Pale Moon and or another derivative of Mozilla such as Waterfox or even Cyberfox (if it re-emerges someday) but I am sure we will see another spin off eventually which may find a healthy medium between Firefox and what people actually want.

      • Robert August 13, 2017 at 4:04 pm #

        I just installed Waterfox on both my Windows 10 and Linux Mint systems yesterday after updating Firefox and having it bork my extensions. Waterfox does indeed use the same names and locations of the folders Firefox uses. All my my extensions are working again. (Two of them I had to add manually in Windows (IDM and Hypersnap)). There is also an unofficial PPA for Linux available that made installing easier on Linux Mint. I added these lines to my repository https://hawkeye116477.github.io/waterfox-deb/ and then "sudo apt-get install waterfox".

      • dmacleo August 13, 2017 at 8:04 pm #

        been using waterfox on 12 or so computers for last 6 months and had no issues, but we'll see what the future holds.

      • torenson October 9, 2017 at 6:41 am #

        I have been using Mozilla since I bought my first computer 13 years ago and never thought I would switch to another browser. Well that day has come. I've lived with all the crashes, updates and slow speed because of my 59 favorite add- ons.

        I've done some checking and I'll be losing about 45 add-ons when v57 is released. I recently downloaded Chrome and to my surprise, I found some great extensions, even some of the ones being dropped by Mozilla.

        Mozilla has been losing market share for years ( now at an embarrassing 14%) The reason has been their lack of speed and reliability. All they had to do was fix this problem while keeping their big selling feature--the great add-ons.

        Old Mozilla users who went to Chrome aren't coming back and many current Mozilla users will end up at the top browser-Chrome.

    • Anonymous August 15, 2017 at 10:57 am #

      legacy extensions -> legacy browser

      • Anonymous August 17, 2017 at 2:13 am #

        Its only legacy because they are CHOOSING to delete the existing code. They could have written the back end and not replaced the UI with the fugly even more dumbed down version. The code still exists out in the world and hopefully alex kontos of waterfox can integrate the two into the 'best of both worlds' browser. In the mean time I'll stick with old FF.

        Quick stats:
        FF55 is current version
        1/3 of FF users on version 52 or earlier
        of earlier verions FF40 is most popular
        (source: statcounter)

      • Pants August 17, 2017 at 10:03 am #

        > 1/3 of FF users on version 52 or earlier

        52.x (ESR) _is_ current. Your figure should really be based on 51 or earlier (that's not to say statcounter's figures are wrong)

        FWIW, Mozilla's own telemetry provides stats that are probably more realistic (I do realize that this does not include all those people who disable telemetry - I think it's more like 5%, but even at 10% or 20%, that still leaves Mozilla with a large dataset. I also kinda think those who tweak and turn things on and off might be more likely to keep to up to date. Even at 50%, Mozilla still have a large dataset, and figures are true, not possibly obscured by UA and navigator.* overrides etc.

        https://telemetry.mozilla.org/update-orphaning/

        87.9% of users are "up to date" (I'm not a statistician, but I would think this figure would be more realistic than a lot of others)

      • Zed August 19, 2017 at 11:41 pm #

        @Pants

        That link was interesting, thanks.

  3. Appster August 12, 2017 at 9:10 pm #

    As some have already explained... Most legacy add-ons will break anyway, due to the UI change if not for anything else. So, won't hold my breath for any legacy add-on to survive post-Firefox 56.

  4. Ron August 12, 2017 at 9:21 pm #

    Firefox is my backup browser. My plan is to switch to Basilisk; hopefully it is ready by then.

    http://www.basilisk-browser.org/preview/index.shtml

  5. Anonymous August 12, 2017 at 10:52 pm #

    > If you use Firefox, what will you do when the browser hits version 57?

    Well, I am going to use Firefox.

  6. Neal August 13, 2017 at 1:18 am #

    Tried the newest nightly. Only 3 addons out of 15 are compatible. I assumed something like this would happen and I been using Chrome more since Firefox 57 announcement. Addons in Chrome almost never break so the continuity is a huge plus.

    However, I must admit Firefox 57 is very very fast and I can say decisively for the first time that Firefox vanilla is better than Chrome vanilla on a technical level. It is also very responsive compared old Firefox pre e10 which I still use with ESR. I am excited that the technical base of FIrefox is as good as ever, but usability in the short and medium term is an issue b/c of the addon situation. After taking Firefox 57 for a spin, it is hard to go back pre Firefox 57 including the numerous forks like Palemoon.

    • Appster August 13, 2017 at 11:02 am #

      Yes, sacrificing usability and customization options for one millisecond improvements in loading times and a few new animations seems like a good deal... :-D In all honesty, those who find that Firefox 57 as it is now presented to us in the Nightly channel meets their needs... Are those who would have been fine with Chrome and Opera for years now, actually. Clearly not the target group of the former (real) Firefox. Much like Opera 15 the new Firefox 57 is an ebarrassment and a punch in the face for everyone who up until now supported and recommended Firefox because of its customization options.

      • Pants August 14, 2017 at 7:13 am #

        WTF is wrong with you Appster? Why do you feel the next to throw walls of text at anyone and everyone with your anti-Mozilla 57+ crusade? Speak for yourself - you are not a "real" Firefox user, and you are NOT Mozilla running a large complex and expensive software. Neal above simply stated a middle of the road position, with a few relevant facts about his situation - he's running ESR, FF57 and Chrome, and has drawn his own conclusions. FF57 has only just entered Nightly, about 11 more weeks before it lands. And there is more improvement in terms of speed to come. Most comments I have read from users indicate way more than a millisecond, you pedant. How dare you tell Neal what he does and doesn't feel about about 57's performance. You are NOT him. Mozilla has mapped a path for the long term - this includes many factors, not just speed. And all the reasons why they have done what they have done have been explained, numerous times. Bitch somewhere else man. Take your UI obsessive view and shove it. Users can quite clearly use ESR until mid 2018, by which time you have no idea what the APIs will look like - they already exceed Chrome, and there are a lot planned. Hijacking almost every Firefox article on here to rant like a lunatic at everyone just makes you look like a fool now. I think I speak for almost everyone here - just STFU if you can't stick to the topic.

      • Anonymous August 14, 2017 at 10:37 am #

        @ Pants

        Seems like you are the one throwing walls of text at others.

        Doubt very much you are speaking for almost everyone here.

      • Frodo August 14, 2017 at 12:10 pm #

        At least he does for me, in a venting way that I can relate to. I hope this comment will help understanding that perception.

        I'm okay with Appster having his own view, but he shoves it way too eagerly and is way too omnipresent. It is tiring and make reading these comments way too one-sided and in particular extremely repetitive.

        He got carried away with his own flow IMO, that's fine, it happens, but a wake up call is not unwelcome to me. I have nothing against the guy, it's only about behavior.

      • Appster August 14, 2017 at 5:17 pm #

        > WTF is wrong with you Appster?

        Don't shit in your pants just now... I'm gonna explain myself.

        > Why do you feel the next to throw walls of text at anyone and everyone with your anti-Mozilla 57+ crusade?

        Well, this is not exactly "walls of text"... OK, for people who dislike reading certainly is, but otherwise - not really. Secondly, it's not a crusade. Thirdly, the only thing I am and was talking about is interface customization. I don't rate the performance or the default interface or the new logo or... You get the point.

        > Speak for yourself - you are not a "real" Firefox user, and you are NOT Mozilla running a large complex and expensive software.

        WebExtensions do not allow interface customization, so it is fair to say that people who are content with them don't value interface customization at all. Customization is/was the main selling point of Firefox, the capability that put it ahead of Chrome & competition. If you don't use/value this, you obviously failed to see the point of Firefox. You could by an UHD TV and only play DVDs on it, which is okay. However, this is not what I would call "valuing" the capability of the product. On the other hand, there are HiFi enthusisats. But have the DVD guys a right to lecture the HiFi enthusiast... Not really, right?

        > FF57 has only just entered Nightly, about 11 more weeks before it lands.

        Yes, and? Nightly releases are feature-complete as per Mozilla's definition. Only bugfixes will come after, but no new features.

        > And there is more improvement in terms of speed to come. Most comments I have read from users indicate way more than a millisecond, you pedant.

        LOL, there could be 1000% improvements and I still wouldn't care. The things I care about are privacy and interface customization, you troll.

        > How dare you tell Neal what he does and doesn't feel about about 57's performance. You are NOT him.

        I just said that better performance in exchange for actual features is a bad tradeoff IN MY OPINION. I find it ridiculous how people can call that a good deal, but okay. To each their own.

        > Mozilla has mapped a path for the long term - this includes many factors, not just speed. And all the reasons why they have done what they have done have been explained, numerous times.

        LOL, Mozilla hasn't followed a clear path for years now. After Australis Photon is just their second change of mood. One factor of Chrome's success is and was interface stability. I know one thing or two about competition, and honestly... Copying what the competitor has late in the game is not going to make the cut. Anyway. Also LOL to "all their reasons have been explained"... Have you been to Bugzilla recently? In every interface-related thread there was only doomed silence on Mozilla's part, no explanation to be seen... Aris (the dev of Classic Theme Restorer) even stated that they were not true to their word despite multiple requests of theme-related APIs by him. In reality, they obviously want to preserve brand recognition. The stupid user is not allowed to customize the god-created interface anymore, so that he can't defile its unspeakable beauty and functionality, so that other believers like Pantsy here can still recognize Chromefox for what it is.

        > Bitch somewhere else man.

        As if I would take this for serious coming from a Pro-Mozilla TROLL!

        > Take your UI obsessive view and shove it.

        As if the UI wasn't the element the user interacts with all of the time... geez... talk about priorities, man.

        > Users can quite clearly use ESR until mid 2018

        Wow, how generous of Mozilla... Giving its loyal users one shitty ESR cycle truly is great. How could we dare to ask for more?

        > by which time you have no idea what the APIs will look like

        Well, Mozilla staff was hostile at anything UI-related, so unless they completely fire their staff and hire new guys I don't believe this will change. Why would they change their stance? There are enough Chrome users out there who don't value UI customization anyway. Like you, Pan(t)sy.

        > they already exceed Chrome, and there are a lot planned.

        Would really like to read your source for this one. And by "source" I mean something that exceeds meaningless lip service.

        > Hijacking almost every Firefox article on here to rant like a lunatic at everyone just makes you look like a fool now.

        Yep, totally a fool. I wouldn't even dare to compare my stance to the vastly superior opinions of those Chrome(fox) users trolling here. Honestly, you don't have to read my complaints, as you can already know the main point by now. Likewise I don't have to read your Pro-Mozilla bullshit, as I also already know your point.

        > I think I speak for almost everyone here - just STFU if you can't stick to the topic.

        Yeah, your opinion is totally that of the majority judging by the outcry of many add-on developers as well as users out there. If this decision was not controversial, why is there so much shenanigans made around it? And no, that's not only *me*... Speaking for everyone is not my strength though, so you could be right. Trying to silence other opinions is not at all surprising though, coming from a Pro-Mozilla TROLL. Why don't you visit the temples of worship otherwise known as MozillaZine and Firefox Reddit, where critics have already been silenced. You certainly won't read any "rants" there, other than Pro-Mozilla admiration orgasms (sorry, that's how I feel about some opinions there, including those of the Mozilla employees acting as would-be enforcers).

      • Frodo August 14, 2017 at 7:43 pm #

        Bear with me as I try to share a feeling. It may not be a pleasant read but I have to share what my Ghacks comments experience has been for a few months.

        First I'll back up the word crusade as it is IMO appropriate because you really do comment very often, tend to write very long posts, take part in most conversations, and in particular repeat the exact same thing countless times day after day for months. When people contradict you and leave you at a loss, you come back the next article writing the same thing as if nothing happened, and I've seen you copy-paste paragraphs multiple times.

        It's most definitely political activism.

        I'd like to stress that I have no ill opinion of you as a person, sometimes you cut away from the rant and appear to be a decent person. And I have nothing against your actual opinion either, or against the fact that it is represented in comments.

        But in spite of that, I would actually have considered putting you on an ignore list if that was possible, which is very meaningful coming from me as I have never ever done that since I first got internet access 20 years ago. I profoundly dislike not being exposed to whatever people have to say, I don't need no safe space.

        So why would I consider putting you on ignore ? Pro-blocking reasons relate to usability reasons. Your long and numerous posts clutter visibility and make reading Ghacks comments a troublesome experience: I have to guess if this long Appster comment is rehashed same old or something new, I have to prevent myself from replying because it will be too long a discussion that will serve no purpose since the same comment will pop out two articles later; and if I decide to just skip anything Appster it can still be hard to browse through other people's comments. Ghacks formatting doesn't help, sadly.

        Additionally and to my dismay, your omnipresence centers the global discussion around your thematics, while many people expect tips from Ghacks, and in this case Firefox tips. For instance what if I like tabs below the address bar, what can I do after Firefox 57 ? The solution has been given recently but it's kind of lost in a sea of walls of text from you and people like me replying to you regarding the same three topics that were discussed 200 times already, every now and then using the exact same paragraphs.

        Again I'm not trying to be mean on purpose even though reading this may be unpleasant, I'm trying to convey that perhaps Ghacks comments have room for more than one single thematic. I've borne it quite a long time, and I think Pants is in the same boat. We want room for other topics, and much less repetitiveness.

        I also go out of my way to share this feeling because I've seen very interesting and useful bits of information in Ghacks comments in the past, often as useful as the articles themselves. But it occurs very rarely these days and this is frustrating.

        I hope you can understand and maybe limit the rant to when there's a real discussion already going on, or once every few articles if no discussion occurred.

      • Appster August 14, 2017 at 8:50 pm #

        @Frodo: I get your point. Honestly, I do. Sometimes I feel the repetitiveness of my comments myself. But then, my reasoning for this is not to annoy anybody. Also, it is not a goal of mine to attract an audience. Why do you I write these comments, then? That's because a lot of false information is given here on gHacks. Like, some people really fail to get their facts straight.

        Some examples of things I've read that are definitely not true:

        - WebExtensions will be as powerful as XUL add-ons.

        The purpose of WebExtensions is to limit what extensions can do to the browser, which might enhance stability, but will - by definition - never be as powerful as the full access.

        - Every XUL add-on can be ported.

        Wrong, for the same reason as above.

        - WebExtensions can enhance privacy.

        Limited systems are also limited when it comes to combat privacy evasions. See the Google Analytics scenario in conjunction with uBlock Origin for more info.

        - Firefox is a privacy-respecting browser.

        By default, that's just not the case. The paragraph where I mentioned the settings evading privacy is the one I've copied and pasted multiple times, because it is not useful to type the same settings again and again and again. You should mention which kind of texts I copy and paste, pal, because in this case this totally makes sense. Those settings are actually proof of Mozilla NOT granting the user the privacy he expects.

        So, what I write does definitely not fit into the definition of "rant". I dislike Mozilla, true, but I really tried to keep my own opinion of them out of my comments. I write for a purpose, which is definitely not a "political agenda". People should be warned and worried at the same time of what lies ahead. WebExtensions do not allow customization, which is very bad, but in the end negligible. What is really dangerous are their implications for privacy. We all should be worried about that.

        I'm upset about unfriendly comments like those of Pants. Obviously those can only come from people who have no clue about these very implications. This kind of people trying to lecture me is ridiculous and annoying at the same time.

        If they don't care about privacy nor customization, by all means: Use Chrome or Opera! Honestly, that's my advice...

        I try to limit my writing here in the future, not because I am becoming tired, but since it is most obvious that most people do not care about privacy and customization anymore. So what is the point in writing with this audience in mind? That's wasted time, not more. Don't want to insult anybody (accept people like Pants who started to insult me long ago, don't care what they think about me to be honest), but this is what I perceive here.

      • Frodo August 14, 2017 at 10:00 pm #

        See, you did it again :D

        I don't want that you leave, I'm also fine that you share this opinion, though as the French say it's the dose that makes the poison. I'm pretty sure even you will be happier on Ghacks talking about more varied things, don't you think ? I've seen a few other posts of yours that were very refreshing, and they didn't hide at all that you are a UI customization lover looking for a new home.

        Your privacy claims however are untrue, that paragraph has been repelled a few times already, and a bunch of arguments have been made to expand how Firefox is by oh so far the best non-Tor browser for privacy. But the discussion is reset 3 days after as if nothing happened. It's useless to start over a thousandth time, so let's call it an opinion until a time in the future when discussing it thoroughly will have become a pleasure again.

        Privacy and customization are among the things I care about most when picking a browser, and I pick Firefox 57 knowingly, so you can imagine that I can't agree with your attempt at making Firefox an objectively bad choice for people like me ^^

        It's true of Pants too, he states privacy first and workflow second as his top priorities, but workflow improvements require a high level of customization. For me, when I talk about customization, what I care about is workflow and a certain type of UI that no browser provides but Firefox, and it's very close to be replicable in Firefox post-57. If it can be I will have, based on my own needs, the best of all worlds. Even a very obscure and complex add-on is replicable according to a Mozilla developer, but I was a little anxious that it wouldn't be ported. Well, I just learned that a WebExtension inspired from it already exists, which might actually fit my needs even better than the original which I still hope to see ported.

        When I came to Ghacks' Firefox section, it's tips like that I liked to find. I don't want or need to be told which browser not to pick based on generic conclusions presented as facts. Reality is very granular, and I don't fit your scenario at all: As a privacy-customizer, Firefox 57 fits the bill, customization wise I'm getting reassured the more I learn about concrete solutions, and privacy wise I am downright enthusiastic about everything that is being developed.

        Many users fall in the same category as I do, a category that can closely enough replicate their user experience and benefit from Firefox's new technology at the same time. Even you acknowledge its value since you stress that you want a Firefox 56 fork, not a Firefox 52 one, knowing that Firefox 56 already has some amount of add-on breakage due to a reduced incentive to fix them.

        Some benefit from waiting out on 52 ESR until Firefox 60 is released. Some may want to try out a Firefox fork. We all have our own unique needs and there is no one solution fitting for all who care about X or Y, so instead of doing a campaign for this or that browser or shit talking Firefox or Palemoon or Waterfox, I would very much enjoy that Ghacks comments turn back to providing people with tidbits of information that will let them solve their problem without having to be told to change browser because of [blank statement about how everything is impossible].

      • Frodo August 14, 2017 at 10:17 pm #

        Basilisk, which has been mentioned a couple times, might become a nice haven for certain users if it delivers. I think it's a good tip to bring it up. Or ESR. It's as valuable as tips that provide solutions to replicate user experience post-57 in order to benefit from the huge tech improvements to come.

        Also let's not forget it, Firefox staying strong benefits the entire web because it's the last thing standing in the way of a Google monopoly, which would be even worse than a random browser's monopoly due to a synergy with Google's other monopolies. In particular, Firefox's strength ensures that Firefox 56 forks and their legacy add-ons will be able to live.

      • Frodo August 14, 2017 at 10:39 pm #

        Though at some point they will have an issue; it depends on how much of Servo comes to Firefox. The more Gecko becomes Servo, the less Gecko browsers will be protected by Firefox's weight.

        But we do want more Servo. So let's hope that by the time Gecko browsers become too incompatible with the web, in maybe five years, there will be enough WebExtension API and add-on development will be advanced enough to cover most needs of even people like you. Though there's no point to think that far ahead, you'll switch away from Basilisk or whatever when the time comes, years away from now, and maybe to a browser that doesn't even exist yet.

      • Appster August 15, 2017 at 8:20 am #

        > See, you did it again :D

        You too.

        > Your privacy claims however are untrue, that paragraph has been repelled a few times already, and a bunch of arguments have been made to expand how Firefox is by oh so far the best non-Tor browser for privacy.

        It's YOUR claims which are untrue. Nothing has been "repelled" so far. In fact, privacy-aware people like Tom Hawack already agreed that the default settings are not what they used to be. Again, I'm talking about the DEFAULTS here. Of course you can enhance and improve upon the defaults, but then... How many people are going to do that? The vast majority, that is, the non-techies are left in the cold privacy-wise by Mozilla. Especially settings like security.family_safety.mode are horrid, since they are actively getting misused as censoring tools as we speak. This local man-in-the-middle proxy is worrisome, to say the least. If you were referring to the discussion I had with "Ryan" recently, nothing has come out of that. He tried to defend those settings as they are used for good/neutral purposes by less than 1% of all websites. He didn't even argue against their privacy-evading potential, but was just like "Yeah, some sites use them positively, so them being enabled by default is OK". Interestingly he did not cover the man-in-the-mddle proxy at all. This topic was circumvented by a mile, why?

        > It's useless to start over a thousandth time, so let's call it an opinion until a time in the future when discussing it thoroughly will have become a pleasure again.

        Yep, let's classify those facts as "opinion", because how could Mozilla lie to us when it comes to relative terms like "privacy", anyway. As long as no camera is filming your room 24/7 everything is fine, so why bother?

        > When I came to Ghacks' Firefox section, it's tips like that I liked to find.

        Those are rare, always have been. Technical support forums and privacy guides are the way to go.

        > Privacy and customization are among the things I care about most when picking a browser, and I pick Firefox 57 knowingly, so you can imagine that I can't agree with your attempt at making Firefox an objectively bad choice for people like me

        In fact, I'm not trying to convince ANYBODY to use this or that. I mean, it's not as if I had access to your PC and could install anything. However, people making statements like "Use Firefox, it protects your privacy!" are either uninformed/naive, or lying. Because as it stands the defaults of Firefox are severely lacking in this regard. Otherwise there would be no need for extensive privacy guides explaining how to unfuck Firefox, right? To each their own, but those lies are hardly bearable.
        And with all due respect... If you are content with what Firefox 57 has to offer you might as well use Vivaldi. They are approximately at the same level when it comes to customization options, which is totally acceptable if you were not a heavy customizer to begin with.

        > Also let's not forget it, Firefox staying strong benefits the entire web because it's the last thing standing in the way of a Google monopoly

        Too late, pal. Google already dominates 70%+ of the market, and the rest isn't even fully Firefox, but Opera (also Blink-based), Edge, Internet Explorer, Safari as well. It's not like Google would still give a shit about Firefox at this point.

        > Though at some point they will have an issue; it depends on how much of Servo comes to Firefox. The more Gecko becomes Servo, the less Gecko browsers will be protected by Firefox's weight.

        Firefox and therefore Gecko itself is niche today. Their market share is shrinking, too. So Firefox's "weight" is a bit overrated here. If the trend of the last years is anything to go by Firefox will be irrelevant by the time Gecko browsers truly become incompatible with the web. I've said it for years: There is absolutely no incentive for Chrome users to use Firefox 57! What would that be? Most people use Google services, and Google will make sure that they will work best with Chrome, if necessary by boycotting Firefox. I don't see Firefox succeeding again, to be honest. Granted, this is speculation, just like the speculation you brought up just now.

        > But we do want more Servo.

        I don't, if that means limited functionality at the sam time.

        > So let's hope that by the time Gecko browsers become too incompatible with the web, in maybe five years, there will be enough WebExtension API and add-on development will be advanced enough to cover most needs of even people like you.

        Highly doubtful. The current Mozilla staff is clearly hostile towards interface customization, and since they attempt to lure Chrome users over, there is no reason to change that stance in their mind. They've more than clearly refuted Aris' requests of more theming APIs, so why should I believe in this statement of yours?

        ------

        Yep, this was walls of text again. However, I feel that people like you are not a lost cause yet, all things considered. You still fall for the privacy lie, but I'm sure Mozilla's most recent attempts to combat "fake news" will show you what I meant to say the entire time. Or not. Not my concern. It is useless to try and convince me of the "great things that lie ahead". Boy, I have been with Mozilla since their inception and have witnessed their rise and fall. I'm not that easily fooled. They are going after Chrome users all the way now, just acknowledge that reality. Customization and privacy can wait.

        You don't think so, which is fine with me. No need to respond once more really, I think we have exchanged our views at large now.

      • AnorKnee Merce August 15, 2017 at 9:11 am #

        Frodo = another pro-Mozilla/Firefox apologist who seems to have repeated his views and is trying to "censor" anti-Mozilla/Firefox 57 opinions.

      • www.com August 16, 2017 at 10:03 am #

        Wow, @Appster, you seem to be on a roll pissing everybody off over here at ghacks with your anti-Firefox crusade.

        Why don't you just use the browser that suits you and and lay off. You remind me of those Linux trolls who used to go on a crusade around here as well, only they didn't win many converts around here either.

        It's people like you (and Moonchild) who turned me off to Pale Moon a long time ago with your obsessed stridency. But keep killing your golden goose. You deserve it.

        PS: And take your sock puppet @AnorKnee Merce with you.

      • Appster August 16, 2017 at 11:13 am #

        @www.com:

        > Wow, @Appster, you seem to be on a roll pissing everybody off over here at ghacks with your anti-Firefox crusade.

        I totally don't mind pissing off you and your own sock puppets. You are a fanboy, obviously. So whatever Pro-Mozilla BS you utter is irrelevant to me. By the way, I'm not even on a "crusade". I'm against customization options and privacy being jeopardized through WebExtensions. You are in favor ot that. Let the users decide! Most people out there are NOT happy about Mozilla breaking important stuff.

        > Why don't you just use the browser that suits you and and lay off.

        Use your brain and you'll find the answer yourself. There is no browser apart from Firefox that allows full access to the core. I am not comfortable with using a browser I can't heavily modify.

        > You remind me of those Linux trolls who used to go on a crusade around here as well, only they didn't win many converts around here either.

        Except that I am not trying to "convert" anybody.

        > It's people like you (and Moonchild) who turned me off to Pale Moon a long time ago with your obsessed stridency.

        Good riddance.

        > But keep killing your golden goose. You deserve it.

        Maybe you can establish kind of a court that determines what I deserve? The holy trinity of Pan(t)sy, wwwanker, and Frodo the invincible Hobbit would certainly make for good judges.

        > PS: And take your sock puppet @AnorKnee Merce with you.

        I don't need sock puppets. But yeah, this one Anonymous guy out of the many accusing me of being on a "crusade" clearly bears your handwriting. He always answered when you were not around and vice versa. Anything to say about that, Captain Obvious?

      • Jody Thornton August 17, 2017 at 3:52 am #

        Well not completely @Appster. Firefox can still be customized a great deal more than Chrome or Opera. I still can tweak rendering with the content.notify.x prefs and the nglayout.initialpaintdelay stuff. So I can still further customize it. Even cache locations and setting can still be customized. So I still don't want to move to a Chromium/Blink/Webkit enviornment if I don't have to.

        I was initially weary of v57 coming, but honestly I'm starting to like the Photon UI a lot, and it does work nicely. In fact, v57 looks like a flat version of a classic browser (especially once I slide the tab bar underneath the address bar with userChrome). So after I am able to obtain a WebExtension version of uBlock, I'll be all set.

        It's still able to be customized enough to have your way in some senses, just not in respect to the UI I suppose. I know that's easy for me to say, since I like the Photon UI.

        I guess it's like smoking. We enjoyed how it made us feel back in the 80s, but knowing how bad it is for us, we abandoned it. It was hard to do, but life is much better without it. Similarly, Firefox was great in the early years (in fact I miss the first two versions the most). And add-ons were great. But you have to agree Appster, there have been some iffy add-ons over the years. Firefox is running better without the add-ons framework in v57 no doubt about it.

        You seem to be of the mind that back in 2004, Firefox was targeted towards expert users, and I never recalled that at all. It was just marketed as a better alternative to Internet Explorer. Add-ons were just one the ways to add extensibility to the browser. That's all. But Mozilla doesn't owe us anything. They find that the add-ons architecture is holding them back, and can we not agree that they have lost market share to Google? If I were a stakeholder in the browser's success, would I not want to try to claw that back?

    • Neal August 15, 2017 at 6:30 am #

      I would like to add for myself when talking about responsiveness, I refer to Firefox's jank problem especially noticeable if you don't have an ssd and using hard drives. There was a blog post about it by a Firefox engineer years back explaining the issue and specific bugs that would improve the situation, but like everything else Firefox OS sucked all the technical assets away from it. Then I guess e10 was planned and resources shifted to that which would eventually solve the jank problem anyways.

      For my part, I always liked how Firefox rendered websites which was comprehensive and error free for the most part. Sometimes Chrome has problems loading all images on heavy image websites, but Firefox always did, albeit with noticeable jank, like how the UI and the browser would freeze for a second or so when it ran into a javascript heavy or image heavy site. Of course your experience will vary with the setup of your computer, but it has always been noticeable to me and something I tolerated b/c everything else was just good enough for me to stay including the addons I have depended on.

      Firefox 57 finally solved the issue of jank which has been troubling Firefox for as along as I remember. It is the best of both worlds now. I hope the addon issue eventually solves itself though. Besides technical limitations of the new api, there will be a lot of abandonware addons and b/c Firefox's userbase is so small now that I doubt post Firefox 57 addon scene will be anywhere near robust as it was in the past. If Firefox solves this issue then I will go back to Firefox, but no one including Mozilla knows what will happen after Firefox 57 releases.

      • Zed August 19, 2017 at 11:46 pm #

        " Firefox's userbase is so small now "

        Just for the record, Firefox userbase is around 300 million users. Second most used in the world on desktop

  7. Nebulus August 13, 2017 at 3:03 am #

    "If you use Firefox, what will you do when the browser hits version 57?"

    I will stick to the current ESR release as long as possible.

    • Robert September 20, 2017 at 6:27 pm #

      Same here. I've disabled updates on all our boxes, and will stick with the present version until it becomes useless, then move to Chrome like the rest of the world.

  8. Anonymous August 13, 2017 at 4:39 am #

    I will try 57 and see if there are at lest comparible extensions available, If not then I will probably ride out ESR. Am not seeing much of a problem though since only have 8 installed. (knocks on wood)

    • Anonymous August 22, 2017 at 6:12 am #

      Jumped into ESR already after 55 started playing rough with my addons. May test drive 57 but suspect I will be here til 58 or 59 hits. Gota say I am looking forward to seeing where this new sly fox is headed.

  9. Elafym August 13, 2017 at 7:30 am #

    Like many here, I'll just stick to the current ESR version for the time being, and give a try to the next ESR once it's released.

    Actually Firefox is now my secondary browser. I've recently switched to Vivaldi. It gives me the customization I need (I'm not a heavy extension user), and I like the mindset the devs seem to have for its future.
    That said, if the next ESR offers me even more speed and customization, then I don't mind switching back to Firefox again and enjoy the ride. If not, I'll just remove Firefox from my computer the way I removed Netscape 10 years ago.

    • Anonymous August 13, 2017 at 12:35 pm #

      Why ESR though ? Why not the real deal, since the next ESR won't have legacy extensions ?

      • Anonymous August 22, 2017 at 6:50 am #

        The next ESR (59.2) will not be released til June 25 2018.

        This is obviously a transitional period for not only Mozilla but all their usersbase of this great browser. I for one know this transition will not go smooth for many regardless how hard Mozilla tries. And the more addons one has the greater the chance that Firefox will break. For the people who need their addons working in Firefox then ESR is a great alternative to ride out this transition. By the time the next ESR is released Mozilla will have the bugs worked out, the Devs of these great addons will have them turned into webextensions and I for one will have been trolling around gHacks in a regular release for 6 months. @:)

        PS.
        I am quit aware many addons will not make it to webextensions.
        I am quit aware firefox will never be the same, I believe it will be better.
        I am also quit aware some people can never be happy.
        Good luck to them, and all that need it.

      • George August 22, 2017 at 11:05 am #

        @ Anonymous (the second one), while it's understandable that "people that can never be happy" can be irritating, "people that are always happy" are far less helpful and productive.

      • Tom Hawack August 22, 2017 at 5:25 pm #

        @Anonymous, you know what? I was happy, until Mozilla decided to move on to WebExtensions. Nevertheless, if "happiness is not an event but an aptitude" (-- Marcelle Auclair) I guess our emotions won't be too heavily tackled by what remains nothing but a browser. I'd rather consider "joyful" than "happy" when it comes to second-level down events.

        Otherwise I agree with your comment except that I don't think tomorrow's Firefox will be better. But of course it may be. ESR is a valuable scheme, I agree as well.

  10. AnorKnee Merce August 13, 2017 at 8:51 am #

    Mozilla announcement dated 21 Aug 2015;

    To help the add-on development community understand how we will enable these improvements, we are making four related announcements today:

    1. We are implementing a new extension API, called WebExtensions—largely compatible with the model used by Chrome and Opera—to make it easier to develop extensions across multiple browsers.
    2. A safer, faster, multi-process version of Firefox is coming soon with Electrolysis; we need developers to ensure their Firefox add-ons will be compatible with it.
    3. To ensure third-party extensions provide customization without sacrificing security, performance or exposing users to malware, we will require all extensions to be validated and signed by Mozilla starting in Firefox 41, which will be released on September 22nd 2015.
    4. We have decided on an approximate timeline for the deprecation of XPCOM- and XUL-based add-ons.
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _

    Point 1 & 4; ... Why not let Chrome change their extensions to Firefox add-ons instead.?

    Point 2; ... Shouldn't the developers be given the choice whether to add support for Electrolysis.?

    Point 3; ... Isn't this requirement the same as for Chrome Web Store, Android Play Store, iOS App Store and Windows Store.? Did the requirement really prevented malware infections.?
    .
    .
    Seems, Mozilla have gone over to the dark side, ie greed for more profit$.

    • Appster August 13, 2017 at 11:12 am #

      Point 1: Technically, this would not be possible. Chrome never used the XUL interface that Firefox uses, so an exact replica would not be possible anyway. The other way around an adaptation is possible, though. Strategically Google has never been a supporter of heavy customization in Chrome, and they at least stay true to what was promised (not enough for power users).

      Point 2: Yes, some extensions like Self-Destructing Cookies actually profit from a disabled e10s. However, Mozilla clearly wants to showcase the "awesome" performance they are capable of providing, sacrificing functionality in the process. Great deal, isn't it?

      Point 3: No, the requirement does not really prevent malware infection, because one can self-sign (also malicious) extensions. Mozilla has created a wannabe walled garden and wants to dictate which extensions can run in their browser. They failed to achieve a higher security level, and also failed to keep up an open platform, essentially only creating problems for its users.

    • Anonymous August 13, 2017 at 12:46 pm #

      I'm summing you up:

      1... ???
      2... ???
      3... ???
      4... Profit!

      ;)

      1&4: Mozilla wanted to implement an extension model that ensures add-ons don't break regardless of how deeply they change Firefox innards. There's no need to reinvent the wheel when you can improve on what already exists.

      2: Obviously no, that would not work. Should developers then be given the choice to support Out of process extensions, Quantum, Photon ? Should we keep two completely Firefox in one single installation so add-on developers can have a choice ? The best thing to do was what's written in my 1&4 paragraph.

      3: What really prevents malware and crapware on the "store" is Mozilla's manual review process, which will be faster because of WebExtensions. Signing is another topic: As a developer you can get your add-on signed instantaneously by uploading it to some Mozilla URL, and there you go, all signed. You can distribute it from another place.

      Finally, Mozilla is a non-profit and their revenue comes 90% from search deals they make with the default search engines, who get traffic from Firefox setting them as default.

      • Appster August 13, 2017 at 1:20 pm #

        @Anonymous:

        > Mozilla wanted to implement an extension model that ensures add-ons don't break regardless of how deeply they change Firefox innards.

        You have no clue when it comes to software development, as it seems. There is no API that enables "unbreakable" extensions. Seriously, Firefox will keep changing (including removal of old APIs some add-ons rely on), and so will the add-ons. Otherwise they will break even with the new model. Mozilla may reduce breakage, but cannot possibly prevent it. This "reduction" of the likelihood of breakage goes hand in hand with the add-ons' diminished capabilities, which are reduced to a pitiful level by now. Furthermore it is not Mozilla's responsibility to ensure the compatibility of an add-on, but that of the author of said add-on. Or would you also hold Apple accountable when an app breaks after an iOS update? :D

        > There's no need to reinvent the wheel when you can improve on what already exists.

        The way I see it Mozilla radically exchanges one add-on model for another, granting zero compatibility between the two. That's not what I would call "improve on what already exists".

        > Obviously no, that would not work.

        And your reasoning for this is...?

        > Should developers then be given the choice to support Out of process extensions, Quantum, Photon ?

        Silly comparisons that have nothing to do with the initial question. Seriously, the question was whether e10s should be forced on the developers, or not. What good is it to list completely unrelated components of the program?

        > Should we keep two completely Firefox in one single installation so add-on developers can have a choice ?

        Even more silly, exaggerated proposal.

        > What really prevents malware and crapware on the "store" is Mozilla's manual review process,

        Are you serious? :D :D :D Everyone can self-sign the add-ons as I have already explained. It is not even necessary to hand them over to Mozilla in order to run them.

        > which will be faster because of WebExtensions.

        And your reasoning for this is...? Even if the APIs are somewhat limited, WebExtensions can still be complex to fully review. Not that it would matter to you...

        > Signing is another topic: As a developer you can get your add-on signed instantaneously by uploading it to some Mozilla URL, and there you go, all signed. You can distribute it from another place.

        You name it. This is why I don't understand how you can still bring up the review process, to be honest.

        > Finally, Mozilla is a non-profit and their revenue comes 90% from search deals they make with the default search engines, who get traffic from Firefox setting them as default.

        But you know that there is a non-profit Mozilla Foundation, as well as the Mozilla Corporation, right? Go read it up. The Mozilla Corp. is in possession of companies like Pocket in Cliqz, which are for-profit.

      • Anonymous August 13, 2017 at 4:10 pm #

        Geez, another wall of text to say the same thing you said a thousand times. Dude, please calm down with the crusade. You may have infinite amounts of time to shit talk people and Firefox but we don't have that leisure.

        Also, you are clearly not a software developer. I suspect level 1 of competence, the moment when you think you know but don't.

      • Appster August 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm #

        @Anonymous:

        > Geez, another wall of text to say the same thing you said a thousand times.

        At least one third of that "wall of text" was of your own writing. And if you think this is a "wall of text" already you clearly need to read some novel.

        > Dude, please calm down with the crusade.

        Dude, please calm down with the Pro-Mozilla trolling under every comment of people who do not share your views 100%. That's also a lot of work I suppose. I'll give up to expose you when you cease writing nonsense.

        > You may have infinite amounts of time to shit talk people and Firefox

        :........D Keep whining... Oh and by the way, this is basically what you are doing the entire time, just in reverse direction.

        > but we don't have that leisure.

        "We" is "you", right? You clearly had enough time to comment multiple times under the last Firefox-related articles, or so I thought at least.

        > Also, you are clearly not a software developer.

        What is the message of the artist here?

        > I suspect level 1 of competence, the moment when you think you know but don't.

        Absolutely, absolutely. Well Sir, what is your level then? You just totally screwed up, so... 0? -1?

      • Anonymous August 14, 2017 at 1:21 am #

        > Dude, please calm down with the Pro-Mozilla trolling under every comment of people who do not share your views 100%.

        Are you talking to yourself ? I barely intervene, and never to troll. There are other Anonymous ya know.

  11. Robert G. August 13, 2017 at 4:45 pm #

    Mozilla Firefox = Suicide = No respect for everyone has a PC.

    @ Appster

    I think you work for Mozilla.

    • Appster August 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm #

      You mean "Anonymous", right? The guy writing in favor of Mozilla is Anonymous...

      • Anonymous August 14, 2017 at 1:23 am #

        Dude there's no one named Anonymous, it's the default name Ghacks give when you don't insert one.

      • Anonymous August 14, 2017 at 1:26 am #

        (Same guy as above)

        I see at least 2 different Anonymous in these comments, maybe 3.

  12. gerald brennan August 13, 2017 at 4:49 pm #

    Tab Mix Plus. Firefox bitched at me when I tried to load it and said no. I tried again. Still no. But when I checked, it had installed. It works perfectly.

  13. citizedX August 13, 2017 at 10:38 pm #

    To everyone concern with censorship and privacy,
    Mozilla is joining MSM to fight "fake news".

    http://www.businessinsider.com/mozilla-new-initiative-counter-fake-news-2017-8

    You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to get what it means. I would say it's one slip too many. Well, it always worked like crap on my mac anyway. Go to Pale Moon or Waterfox.

    • Martin Brinkmann August 14, 2017 at 6:14 am #

      How is fake news defined?

      • Robert August 14, 2017 at 7:05 am #

        Pretty much when ever someone has anything negative to say about President Trump it is likely fake news. CNN knows more about this subject because they are probably sponsored by Hillary. It's a political thing to deceive the peasants!

      • citizedX August 14, 2017 at 7:21 am #

        Well, it seems that anyone with an opinion even an inch away from leftists could get hit. I've been following this thing for the last year and a half. If you're really interested in the matter you could check out adpocalypse 2, Google "Anti-Diversity" Memo on YouTube and Google search manipulation (look up "American inventors" for example). It's all related. That should get you started. I don't think that talking politics (and it's all about politics) on your personal site is a smart idea - from what I've heard German police already knocking out doors for "wrong post" on Facebook and Twitter. And while I do not necessarily expect for Firefox to start screwing with it's user base in any substantial way tomorrow, the mere statements by Mozilla management clearly sets the course for the future and repels anyone who do not want to do anything with ideologies.

      • 12bytes September 22, 2017 at 2:13 am #

        > How is fake news defined?

        by moz? they don't define it far as i know, but they certainly imply that "fake news" is anything that doesn't come from a mainstream source - they refer to corporate/government mouthpieces like the WSJ and the NYT ... you know, the presstitutes who spammed-up the non-existant WMDs that Suddam didn't have; the chemical weapon attacks that Assad didn't commit; the Russian hacking of the election for which not a shred of creditable evidence exists; etc., etc., etc.

        look up Amber Lyon on YT - ex-CNN journalist who found that CNN was GETTING PAID by the Bahrain admin to not write stories at all, or write favorable stories about the U.S. ally who was brutalizing and torturing its citizens

        12bytes.org/10182/yamr-yet-another-mozilla-rant-battling-fake-news

        that was the straw that broke the camels back for me - at this point, the primary reason i still use FF is because i cannot yet reproduce its functionality with the add-ons i have with any other browser

    • pd August 14, 2017 at 8:36 am #

      This topic isn't relevant here. Please remove.

      • Arby October 7, 2017 at 8:50 pm #

        That info is important. Buzz off!

    • Arby October 7, 2017 at 8:49 pm #

      That's good to know. I haven't liked Mozilla for a long time. The disdain for little people, like myself, speaks volumes. Try communicating with Mozilla if you're a little person. I knew they were nasty. They just managed to not get caught/exposed, the way 'do no evil' Google has been caught/exposed (tax evasion and, of course, openly working with the deep state as the global pacification of the abused people continues unabated) and the way that other tech titans have been. Caitlin Johnstone's tirade against Twitter is a must read. And WordPress, which I use, and which has been getting dumbed down forever, is another tech titan that hasn't been caught and properly exposed. It isn't possible, with the global pacification program that is underway (Jeff Halper) that tech titans are allowed to freely go their own way. They will no more be allowed to go their own way than countries, like Venezuela and Cuba, will be allowed to freely go their own way. They will receive 'attention' from the deep state until they are adjusted in a fashion that meets with Corporatocracy's owners and managers' approval.

  14. pd August 14, 2017 at 8:35 am #

    Turned off automatic updating, I'll be a laggard holding back the development of (content-based) web standards now, which is the last thing I want to be. However Mozilla has forced this decision on me. I did some research on the weekend and there's no new extensions to replace the ones I hate living without. I did this by disabled Tab Mix Plus in addition to all the extension changes I've been making in order to try and prepare for extension Armageddon. Disabling TMP simply screws up the way I want to use the browser. For example:

    1. I hate over-writing the currently loaded tabs from location bar, bookmarks, sidebar, search and I'll be arsed if I'm going to exagerate my RSI by running Ctrl+T or Alt + Enter every time I want to open a page. Yes, there are some times when I'd rather over-write but at around 15-20% of the time, they are very much in the minority.

    2. Missing 'Undo close tab' button/list. This is essential to me and the right-click, drag, click one at a time of the standard Firefox functionality is grossly inferior.

    3. Open links within a page next to the current tab - even if it's a third party site

    ...

    I could go on but who has the time? Here's a snapshot instead:

    http://i.imgur.com/aGWKDtZ.png

    All the preferences I've either inherited from TMP as defaults or gone out of my way to set because they make Firefox usable to me. Mozilla is going to kill most of that if I keep updating so fuck that!

    • AnorKnee Merce August 14, 2017 at 10:42 am #

      Same situation here.

      Might as well use Chrome eventually.

    • Django August 14, 2017 at 11:46 am #

      Tab Mix Plus capability to port is in the works. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1333837

      Meanwhile there is:
      FoxyTab (limited)
      Tab Auto Refresh
      Open Tabs Next to Current
      Always Right

      These possibly won't completely satisfy you, I'm going to assume, since the bug above is still in the works.

      List of WebExt work:
      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TFcEXMcKrwoIAECIVyBU0GPoSmRqZ7A0VBvqeKYVSww/edit#gid=0

      Tab Mix Plus author says:

      "It is currently unclear when Tab Mix Plus as a WebExtension will be ready."

      Which means it will be ported.

      http://tabmixplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19581&sid=77ba63e11345896064f9d15de018962c&start=340#p72340

    • Yoav August 14, 2017 at 4:22 pm #

      This! overwriting tabs simply drives me nuts. Undo closed tab/list is also essential.
      So it's bye bye FF... btw, both Palemoon and Commodo Ice Dragon are usable with tab mix plus.

      • Django August 14, 2017 at 5:21 pm #

        Undo closed tab and closed tabs list exist in vanilla Firefox. Tab overwriting can also be avoided in vanilla Firefox.

        The shortcut CTRL+SHIFT+T opens the last closed tab, and the history button gives a list of closed tabs that you can increase at will. Mine is set to last 100 closed tabs through browser.sessionstore.max_tabs_undo. I use that instead of history which I disabled for privacy reasons.

        To avoid overwriting the currently loaded tab when clicking on a bookmark, history, or side bar link, middle click on it. Same from the address bar, if there is a suggested link or a search engine icon to click, middle click will do. If however you're just typing stuff and then press enter because there's no suggestion and you don't want to click on a search engine icon, then yes, it's the only vanilla case where you have to open a new tab first to avoid overwriting the currently loaded tab.

        If there are other important use cases you can't live without, do share, there's often alternate ways to figure out :)

        //

        Worth knowing that Tab Mix Plus will be ported as a WebExt at some point, and partial alternatives already exist that may or may not fit your personal must haves list.

  15. citizedX August 14, 2017 at 8:56 am #

    Just to clarify what Robert probably meant and how I see the situation:
    1. Real Fake news - mainstream media, corporations like Google and the establishment who separate everyone into two camps - friend and enemy. They also support theories about gender fluidity, 100+ genders, hormone replacement therapy for 2yo "trans" kids, radical feminism and much much more, while shaming and smearing anyone who mumbles even one wrong letter.
    2. The Fake News they (Google, YouTube, FB, Mozilla and all the establishment) are combating - are in fact often real facts, that are not in align with their agenda or "violently hurt" someones feelings. In the beginning they overemphasized the importance of banning yellow press, and sold it under this veil. But now it's mostly uncovered.. Eric Schmidt of Google has been speaking for some time now that his search engine should give only a "single and correct answer" to any question instead of pages and pages of various data and opinions. And in the meantime YouTube has on it's agenda to stop giving you the videos you request and replace it with counter-results for anything they consider controversial. Tomorrow they'll decide that dogs are vile animals and instead of "cute puppies" you asked YouTube for, it will show you videos about how every dog has flees and could probably chew off your hand while you asleep. It's on their latest memo. Not dogs yet. Search manipulation. It is public. It is "for the good of humanity".

    • AnorKnee Merce August 14, 2017 at 10:45 am #

      @ citizedX

      Spot on.

    • kalmly August 14, 2017 at 3:31 pm #

      Exactly. Scary, isn't it?

    • Yoav August 14, 2017 at 4:23 pm #

      Well, at least they're not burning heretics at the stake...yet :)

  16. Johan B. August 14, 2017 at 4:12 pm #

    I discovered this by accident, if you hold ctrl and click on a bookmark, it opens in a new tab. Didn't know this existed.

    • Django August 14, 2017 at 5:32 pm #

      Yes, or alternatively you can middle click for the same effect. It works on essentially anything that is a link, including suggestions from the address bar, search engine icons and of course links within web pages. For the latter you even gain a security and privacy benefit over left clicking because window.opener isn't set on the new tab.

  17. Lorenzo August 14, 2017 at 7:39 pm #

    I am ready! Switched to using Vivaldi browser & Edge browser.

  18. KoO August 15, 2017 at 9:01 am #

    Using Manjaro linux with the just dumped firefox 54.0.1 Speed Dial no longer works with this version.
    Thanks to Palemoon 27.4.1 (64-bit) the extension still works.

    To me it is the extensions that make the browsers not the browsers themselves. Any browser can surf the web..

  19. RUSH August 15, 2017 at 10:16 pm #

    @[email protected]

    "It is obvious that we can no more explain a passion to a person who has never experienced it than we can explain light to the blind."

    -T. S. Eliot

  20. Lorenzo August 16, 2017 at 10:57 pm #

    Edge is better, and I am really liking Vivaldi browser these days. Dropping Chrome and Firefox and going with something new. With Vivaldi I can adjust the interface sizing to allow larger bookmarks bar and have open new links in a new tab, while being able to close that tab with another tap. In other words, I will not need Tabs Mix Pro on Vivaldi. The extension will come from Chrome Web Store, which may be good or bad. So far, so good with the performance.

    The update of Edge helped, with things such as open all within a folder using a right click. It is now good enough as a second, or for some an only browser, IMHO. Netscape, Explorer, Firefox, Opera, and others have had some good days along the way. I have moved on.

  21. Farmers August 20, 2017 at 12:51 am #

    I've already removed all legacy extensions, so I'm ready!

  22. Haind September 20, 2017 at 4:26 pm #

    I just think this is a new step to mozilla and firefox. I've used it and nothing to prevent me keep go on

  23. Anonymous September 20, 2017 at 6:31 pm #

    The way I see it, once you move to Firefox 57, you're ready for Chrome.

    • Rod September 20, 2017 at 6:55 pm #

      Until I learn differently you are absolutely correct, Anonymous.

  24. Rod September 20, 2017 at 6:56 pm #

    Anonymous, you are spot-on with your comment.

  25. Chip September 21, 2017 at 7:55 pm #

    "Classic Theme Restorer is a prime example as WebExtension's cannot replicate the functionality of the Firefox legacy add-on."

    That should raise some serious red flags that WebExtensions are not ready for prime time at all.

    • rodndtube September 22, 2017 at 1:06 am #

      Chip, my understanding is that Firefox does not want the user mucking around with the interface... Mozilla wants to spend its time monetizing (click, click) rather than fixing bugs/conflicts between programs such as Classic Theme Restorer and Firefox 2018. As a result, current users will eventually flee to Chrome or a FF knock-off such as Pale Moon or the rumored Basilisk. Others may find Vivaldi to suit their needs.

      I, for one, want my bookmarks menu, my tabs on the bottom, my separate search box, my program icons where I want them.... and the ability to increase the size of program fonts on a laptop and the size of the icons.

  26. Song September 24, 2017 at 12:50 pm #

    Just as a caution: I tried this and apparently some addons (in my case 'Web Developer Toolbar Button') will make Firefox not even start anymore. If that happens to someone, starting Firefox in safe mode and then disabling the offending addon again should do the trick.

    While this now works great, CTR doesn't look right anymore. Reload/Stop buttons look smaller then the rest and for some reason Firefoxs own developer toolbar is borked and can't be removed at all.

    At least the addon 'Hide Caption Titlebar Plus' still works...

    God, I'm tired of the 'Chrome parity' crap. Every half year I have to waste time to find alternatives for features Mozilla keeps removing.

    Anyway, thanks for pointing this option out!

  27. Eric September 30, 2017 at 6:13 am #

    Re: "If you use Firefox, what will you do when the browser hits version 57?"

    It depends. If Firefox provides reasonable alternatives to DownThenAll, httpsEverywhere, PrintEdit, and AdBlock, then I will stick with Firefox. If they don't, I will need to find a browser with at least some of the functionality. [At the moment the Waterfox fork looks promising and the PaleMoon fork (not Basilisk!) is apparently still active. Other Mozilla browser forks, like KMeleon, appear to be dead or dormant. PaleMoon's Moebius/Basilisk project hasn't released anything yet, so this fork has to be counted as dormant. Firefox ESR is a temporary possibility.]

    At the moment, available information indicates that only trivial extensions will have alternatives in Firefox 57. Extension developers complain (probably rightly) that the WebExtensions platform is too limited to provide useful functionality. Mozilla counters (again probably rightly) that the required functionality compromises performance and security. Seems to me that there is some middle ground, but Mozilla seems dead set against this,

    The bottom line for me: I can't see much point in continuing to use Firefox if it turns into another stripped-down clone of Chrome. [If that's the case, I may as well use Vivaldi or Brave or even Chromium.]

  28. pero October 4, 2017 at 9:42 pm #

    "Now You: If you use Firefox, what will you do when the browser hits version 57?"

    Hello Chrome, Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Leave a Reply