Tab Mix Plus WebExtension Development Build is out - gHacks Tech News

Tab Mix Plus WebExtension Development Build is out

The author of the popular Firefox add-on Tab Mix Plus released the first version of the upcoming WebExtensions-based version of Tab Mix Plus yesterday.

The extension is available under a new URL on the Mozilla Add-ons Store to separate the classic add-on from the new.

The extension is a complete rewrite of the legacy add-on using the new WebExtensions system that Firefox supports. Mozilla dropped support for the classic add-on system in Firefox 57 Stable.

Tab Mix Plus WebExtension first look

The only functionality that the first development build of the Tab Mix Plus WebExtension offers is the Links functionality. You can use it to control links and link opening behavior only.

It is required to modify several preferences on about:config for much of the functionality provided as WebExtensions cannot modify existing Firefox preferences anymore.

The options of the extension list five Firefox preferences that users are asked to modify to unlock all available options.

Once done, the following options are provided:

  • Open links that open in a new window in: new tab, new window, current tab.
  • Use separate preference for links from other applications.
  • JavaScript and Popup restrictions: allows resize popups, open all popups in tabs, allow all popups.
  • Open tabs with middle-clicks.
  • Start downloads with Alt-Click.
  • Prevent blank tabs when downloaded files.
  • Force to open in new tab: all links, links to other sites.
  • Open links with a target attribute in current tab.
  • Open links with target to existing frame in the current tab.

Single window mode is not implemented yet. The WebExtension lacks support for events, sessions, mouse, display and menu functionality.

Closing Words

The release is an early development build and users of Tab Mix Plus should not get their hopes up just yet as it lacks pretty much all the functionality of the legacy add-on.

The author of Tab Mix Plus is held back by missing WebExtensions APIs. Many features of the legacy version of Tab Mix Plus are simply not supported by WebExtension APIs.

While some APIs exist already, others are still in development or not decided upon yet at all by Mozilla. Users of Tab Mix Plus are asked to vote for bugs on Mozilla's Bugzilla bug tracking website.

Still, the release of the WebExtensions-based version of Tab Mix Plus is a sign of life. While it is uncertain whether the WebExtensions version of Tab Mix Plus will support all the functionality of the legacy add-on, it appears that the developer of the extension will release a stable WebExtensions version eventually.

Now You: Do you think that a near feature complete WebExtension-based version of Tab Mix Plus will be released in the future?

Related articles:

Summary
Tab Mix Plus WebExtension Development Build is out
Article Name
Tab Mix Plus WebExtension Development Build is out
Description
The author of the popular Firefox add-on Tab Mix Plus released the first version of the upcoming WebExtensions-based version of Tab Mix Plus yesterday.
Author
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo




  • We need your help

    Advertising revenue is falling fast across the Internet, and independently-run sites like Ghacks are hit hardest by it. The advertising model in its current form is coming to an end, and we have to find other ways to continue operating this site.

    We are committed to keeping our content free and independent, which means no paywalls, no sponsored posts, no annoying ad formats (video ads) or subscription fees.

    If you like our content, and would like to help, please consider making a contribution:

    Comments

    1. Ben said on February 4, 2018 at 2:21 pm
      Reply

      Waterfox got an update yesterday. No reason to use FF58.

      1. Richard Allen said on February 4, 2018 at 2:46 pm
        Reply

        Except for Tracking Protection not working in Private Browsing or when set to Always, since v55. I suspect that the “Privacy & Security” page not working in the new Options layout and Tracking Protection not working are related, either that or it’s a hell of a coincidence. Alex has had it on his to do list since the first release of v56, the latest release is the fifth version.

        1. Appster said on February 5, 2018 at 12:42 pm
          Reply

          @Richard Allen:

          For what it’s worth, I have forwarded your issues to Alex Kontos (Waterfox dev). He said that tracking protection is working on his end. I can also confirm that, having just enabled tracking protection, and having used the private browsing mode. The only issue he can confirm is the new options layout not working, he says this is due to Waterfox-related options such as “Locale Selector”, which happen to break the layout. He is working on this one.

        2. Richard Allen said on February 5, 2018 at 5:00 pm
          Reply

          @ Appster
          Thanks, I appreciate you doing that and the info that it is working for you and Alex. Four weeks ago on reddit I asked if anyone could verify if Tracking Protection was working. The only response I got was two words, “ublock origin”. Whatever. LoL

          Before doing a clean uninstall and then reinstall I tried Safe Mode again, Tracking Protection still not working.
          Then I deleted everything in my profile folder except places.sqlite, Tracking Protection working in Private Browsing!! Whoop Whoop!
          I had tried Safe Mode and wiping my profile four weeks ago and it didn’t work. I had also tried older versions of 56 with no joy.
          I then set TP to Always on and enabled the UI in about:config, still working.
          Reused my original prefs.js file from my saved profile, still working.
          Reused folders from my saved profile: extensions, extension-data, browser-extension-data, chrome and so forth, still working. WTH?! Now I’m pissed! ;)
          At that point I saved the current profile and replaced it with my original saved profile folder from earlier in the day. Tracking Protection still working. WTF?!
          In 10 years of using FF based browsers that is a first.

          So, basically after spending half an hour playing with my profile folder I ended up where I started, with nothing really being changed, except now Tracking Protection is working. I think I hate Waterfox. Just kidding, I’m glad Tracking Protection is working. I’ll give it a week or two then uninstall FFv56 but don’t waste your breath, I will continue to use FF and Nightly, with FF as my primary. Having choices is always good.

        3. Richard Allen said on February 5, 2018 at 6:01 pm
          Reply

          I just now noticed, for the first time, when in Safe Mode, Tracking Protection does not work in FF56, 58 and 60, even if opening a “New Private Window” while in Safe Mode. I didn’t know that. Is that intentional or a bug? No wonder Tracking Protection wasn’t working in Safe Mode while using Waterfox. Anyway, that’s what I’m seeing on my desktop.

      2. Pedro said on February 4, 2018 at 3:22 pm
        Reply

        One day you’ll understand that Firefox and its forks are in the same boat through and through.

      3. jupe said on February 5, 2018 at 12:22 pm
        Reply

        You obviously have never heard of 32 bit Windows.

        1. Appster said on February 5, 2018 at 12:44 pm
          Reply

          @jupe: Which PC since 2008 has been sold with a 32 bit OS? Netbooks?

    2. Richard Allen said on February 4, 2018 at 2:24 pm
      Reply

      Very glad to see progress being made. I’m looking forward to and hoping that the session manager becomes a reality in the future. TMP is one of the few addons that I’ve donated to and I hope that Mozilla does what’s needed to make the addon successful.

      1. pHROZEN gHOST said on February 4, 2018 at 6:06 pm
        Reply

        Mozilla chose their current direction (WebExtensions) to prevent Firefox users from monkeying with the UI. In the past, there were too many problems with Firefox after an update. These problems were usually caused by add-on flaws and conflicts. This led many to blame Firefox.

        I don’t expect Mozilla to hand over control of the UI the way they did in the past. So I don’t see TMP becoming all that it once was.

        However, it is certainly promising to see a genuine effort being made to revive some of the functionality of TMP. It was my favorite add-on for Firefox.
        I am hopeful that much of the functionality can be restored.

        1. ams said on February 4, 2018 at 8:41 pm
          Reply

          Yes, many Mozilla decisions / changes have been motivated by their perceived need to “protect their brand”: Signed addons, XUL deprecation, CPOW script isolation. Firefox is now “their product”; it’s no longer “our” browser. The needs and desires of freethinking users, and addon developers, are moot.

          Mozilla is moving toward embracing a subscription model, so don’t be surprised (Richard) when your beloved “Tracking Protection” becomes fremium-upgrade-only feature.

        2. Rad said on February 4, 2018 at 10:21 pm
          Reply

          I went to a lazy bum bar the other day and got served pretty much that level of analysis and foresight.

        3. Gavin said on February 5, 2018 at 12:52 am
          Reply

          “Mozilla is moving toward embracing a subscription model, so don’t be surprised (Richard) when your beloved “Tracking Protection” becomes fremium-upgrade-only feature.”

          You have evidence of this?

        4. Sophie said on February 5, 2018 at 10:57 am
          Reply

          Yes, that’s exactly the response to your comment that I had………….. where is the evidence?

        5. poe said on February 5, 2018 at 5:51 am
          Reply

          I don’t like the current Mozilla but I don’t like people spewing bullshit more. Subscription model? Freemium? Where did you get that information? With the current market share even below Safari(http://gs.statcounter.com/) there’s no way Mozilla will do that.

        6. Martin Brinkmann said on February 5, 2018 at 9:48 am
          Reply
        7. Sophie said on February 5, 2018 at 11:00 am
          Reply

          Ok, I must have missed that article. It sounds as if the ‘basic’ browser would never become ‘freemium’, and I’m sure I’d have bases covered for other offerings that might go that way. I don’t blame them…they have to stay relevant and make money. But it would be browser suicide to mess around with the core software.

        8. Martin Brinkmann said on February 5, 2018 at 11:58 am
          Reply

          Yes, it appears that this is just in the “consideration stage” and if implemented, would not touch the core browser. I think of it more as add-on services to the core browser which Mozilla won’t touch.

    3. Clairvaux said on February 4, 2018 at 2:36 pm
      Reply

      Links in new tab was really the main reason I used TMP. Apart from sessions, but altough I liked having them, I rarely ever reopened an old session.

    4. Jessica said on February 4, 2018 at 2:43 pm
      Reply

      Great news. While it can be annoying to miss the functionality provided by the old add-ons, the underlying system that powered them had to be replaced because it was nonstandard, undocumented, and ever increasingly hard to maintain.

    5. Tom Hawack said on February 4, 2018 at 3:35 pm
      Reply

      I’ll have to try ‘Tab Mix Plus Webextension” but from what is mentioned in the article the last four options only make the new webextension worth it, IMO, with decreasing order 3, 4, 1, 2 :

      Prevent blank tabs when downloaded files.
      Force to open in new tab: all links, links to other sites.
      Open links with a target attribute in current tab.
      Open links with target to existing frame in the current tab.

      On my way to test it.

      1. Appster said on February 5, 2018 at 12:53 pm
        Reply

        @Tom Hawack:

        Not sure how to judge you at this point, my dear Tom Hawack. You are basically settling for less than what you previously had, just because Mozilla says that this is the way forward? Imagine if your TV was delivered with far less features than what was advertised, would you keep it? I for one would return it, even if it was nominally the TV I’ve ordered, to make it clear to the manufacturer that dumbing down things – which were advertised as having far more functionality – is a deal breaker for me.

        This attitude to settle for less than the previous functionality, is a major contributor to the omnipresent dumbing down in the tech world. Developers just do it without any consequences, it’s depressing. I mean, after all, there are alternatives, right? And no, speed does not outweigh functionality, nor is it a valid reason for dumbing down the whole program.

        I could now make some snarky, ironic remark about surrenderism among the French. I’d certainly like to, but it’s just not my style.

        PS: Mozilla could have approved the Gecko-elevated WebExtensions concept, if they only wanted to. They didn’t.

        1. Tom Hawack said on February 5, 2018 at 1:21 pm
          Reply

          @Appster, you’re writing a book when my comment wasn’t even a chapter.
          All depends of what a comment is referring to. I haven’t put in comparison browsers, nor Firefox versions, nor webextensions and add-ons, in one word I haven’t explicitly nor implicitly stated any subversive statement which would allow any rational mmind to consider it aimed willingly or not at triggering your well-known advocacy for a global reconsideration of browsers in the face of privacy considerations.

          I was commenting on what is offered now with this release of ‘Tab Mix Plus Webextension’ : no subliminal message my dear friend!

          Your remarks, snarky or not are always welcomed, as far as I’m concerned. I cannot imagine any that would annoy me, but I always hope to discover any that I wouldn’t be aware of :=)

        2. Anonymous said on February 5, 2018 at 7:13 pm
          Reply

          You’re being “judged”, the person talking to you is not accepting of your own freedom of choice and on top of that he would “certainly like to” pick at your country with a degrading remark about one of the lamest American memes in history. Good internet friend is good.

        3. Appster said on February 5, 2018 at 8:23 pm
          Reply

          @Anonymous: I have absolutely no problem with @Tom Hawack and vice versa. We both have straddled the comment section long before you have even been around, haha. I think Tom is intelligent enough to recognize a (lame, granted) joke when I happen to make one.

          As far as his “freedem of choice” goes… From a market/product perspective, I am in no way doubting his freedom of choice. However, from a technical point of view, WebExtensions are so limited that they can’t change much inside of the browser. So, when I say that he settles for less, then this is objectively and technically true.

          I am saying that Mozilla needs to face the wrath of the users for dumbing down the browser, and Tom is free to disagree with me. I am of the opinion that things will get worse and worse if the user base fails to react early on. It will likely end with the total removal of about:config, and thus the total control over the browser (you know, the tool you entrust your data with) will be no more. That’s my prediction. Mozilla is already limiting control and user choice. Tom is somewhat okay with that, while I am not.

          Choices and opinions, you know.

        4. Tom Hawack said on February 5, 2018 at 8:26 pm
          Reply

          @Anonymous, I don’t think so. Sometimes I don’t understand Appster and obviously he doesn’t always understand and/or agree with me. That doesn’t stop me from thinking he does a good job with his in-depth, documented commitments to privacy. On the other hand we don’t kiss :=) and when there’s a disagreement, well : let it be said. So we said it. No big deal.

    6. Aris said on February 4, 2018 at 5:06 pm
      Reply

      Sadly tab hiding / tab toolbar hiding feature won’t be possible for a while if ever.

      The devs at Mozilla are kind of strange, when it comes to integrate useful stuff for add-ons/WEs to use.

      Look at Mozilla Add-ons Blog for Firefox 59 for example: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2018/01/26/extensions-firefox-59/

      They added an “Experimental Tab Hiding”, which is useless in my opinion, if it is (like they say) “restricted to non-active tabs”.

      Quote:
      There are certain restrictions when hiding tabs:
      The current active tab cannot be hidden

      Meaning it won’t be possible to hide tabs toolbar, if using sidebar tabs. It also won’t be possible to hide tabs toolbar for only one visible tab, so basically this “experimental” feature is useless.

      1. Name said on February 4, 2018 at 7:50 pm
        Reply

        Tab hiding and tab toolbar hiding are two different APIs. The former has already landed, the latter has seen some work but isn’t finished yet.

        You are evaluating the utility of one API through its inability to do what the other API is meant to do, so obviously it won’t make sense.

      2. Pedro said on February 4, 2018 at 8:38 pm
        Reply

        Woah, you’re more than a little confused here. If I understand your point of interest, what you want is to hide the horizontal tab strip. This is not what the API you’re talking about is doing. The API you’re talking about hides individual tabs, so that you can make tab groups. Say you made two groups of 10 tabs, this API will let you hide for example one group and have 10 tabs visible in the tab strip instead of 20.

        What you want is the API that hides the tabs toolbar (= strip) altogether. It’s already possible with CSS right now, but an API has been accepted as well: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1332447

        The CSS with which the tab strip can be hidden currently is:
        #TabsToolbar { visibility: collapse !important; }

        Once the API is there, add-ons like Tree Style Tabs and Tree Tabs will be able to hide the horizontal tab strip so that you only have a vertical sidebar. Right now you need to add the CSS above to get the same feature.

    7. Tony said on February 4, 2018 at 5:35 pm
      Reply

      Does voting for bugs on Bugzilla actually help?

      I’ve seen bugs with many votes sitting unfixed for years.

      1. Ayy said on February 4, 2018 at 7:40 pm
        Reply

        in my experience no. a lot of good coders have given up and stopped working on the mozilla codebase so niche features normally fall on deaf ears.

        1. Paul's Dad. said on February 5, 2018 at 1:04 pm
          Reply

          It all started with the rapid release cycle. Mozilla has estranged the vast majority of the early contributors and extension makers.

      2. Robert Ab said on February 5, 2018 at 1:04 am
        Reply

        It is difficult to say if voting helps. But it is better to use any opportunity which can help.

        Voting is only one of the ways to pressurize Mozilla to work on APIs our extensions need.
        Other would be leaving comments below articles on:
        https://hacks.mozilla.org/
        https://hacks.mozilla.org/
        and other websites where Mozilla employees publish their articles.

        People publishing here:
        https://hacks.mozilla.org/
        works also on extension-related APIs and bugs.

        Check also this:
        https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/7t6hmx/extensions_in_firefox_59/dtavor8/

        Examples of bugs with 200+ and 100+ votes:
        https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrap&resolution=—&target_milestone=—&votes=200&votes_type=greaterthaneq&bug_interest_ts=%20&list_id=13997854
        https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?action=wrap&classification=Client%20Software&classification=Components&resolution=—&target_milestone=—&votes=100&votes_type=greaterthaneq&list_id=13997860

        1. Duran said on February 5, 2018 at 8:25 pm
          Reply

          Ow, that link! :D

          FYI you can make proper links on Ghacks with:
          <a href=”YOUR_URL_IN_QUOTES”>YOUR_TEXT</a>

        2. Robert Ab said on February 6, 2018 at 2:51 am
          Reply

          Every site has different rules. Should be the same in all places. Example from reddit:
          https://www.reddit.com/wiki/commenting

          Also I do not like short links (I am not opening them and not creating), because you cannot see what site they are referring to.

      3. John Fenderson said on February 5, 2018 at 7:34 pm
        Reply

        @Tony: “Does voting for bugs on Bugzilla actually help?”

        I don’t know, but it sure doesn’t look like it. Actually, I’ve been struggling to continue to have faith that any activity in Bugzilla from people who aren’t insiders has any effect at all.

    8. jojo said on February 4, 2018 at 8:21 pm
      Reply

      I have donated to TMP in the past and will do so again if the extension future is ensured by the rewrite.

    9. Ray said on February 5, 2018 at 1:58 am
      Reply

      Best news of the day. Sure it is a dev build. The bugs will be fixed in time.

      1. Paul's Dad. said on February 5, 2018 at 1:01 pm
        Reply

        That’s so unreasonably optimistic, it’s bordering on delusional.
        Tab Mix Plus is probably the biggest, brightest example of what can be achieved with a proper extension. Mozilla banned proper extensions. To bring TMP back, they’re gonna need to unban it, basically.

        1. Duran said on February 5, 2018 at 8:35 pm
          Reply

          TMP is a load of small features grouped together. Already many features are provided independently by either small add-ons, such as duplicate tabs or search tab based on title or URL (Edit: Is that in TMP ?), built-in Firefox features or CSS tweaks. Even multi-row tabs are possible.

          I don’t know the full list of tiny features provided by TMP but it’s not unreasonable to say most of them will be there in time. The important metric though is to know whether or not the TMP features any one user cares about can be replicated, since a user is unlikely to care about all of them.

          As for me, I found happiness in switching and refreshing my add-on list and I’m better served than I was.

        2. Tom Hawack said on February 5, 2018 at 10:53 pm
          Reply

          I sort of agree with you, Duran. When I realized that TMP would no longer be available starting Firefox 57 I had it really bad… but alternatives, or rather alternative solutions appear, though not always/not for all functions. The advantage of TMP is/was an all in one solution but adding several extensions made it here, though not for everything.

          Prevent blank tabs when downloaded files : no alternative;
          Force to open in new tab: all links, links to other sites : alternative extensions
          Open links with a target attribute in current tab.: no alternative found
          Open links with target to existing frame in the current tab : no alternative found

          That concerns only the first module, “Links’.

          We’ll see how TMP Webextension develops. We all know that given the APIs presently available some features are just not possible to carry out, at this time, and that’s true for an add-on to webextension portability.

          To be frank I recall a time when I considered announced webextensions and e10 as the apocalypse. Not enough background, not enough knowledge leads to subjectivity defeating objectivity.. We adapt and now that we’re in this new approach of extensions maybe a valid behavior is to try to get the best out of this new environment. Not to mention that other browsers sticking to older Firefox are bound one day or another to quit the game : none will last eternally on an old architecture. We’re in a new game now, not perfect but factual, my bet is to make the best of it.

        3. John Fenderson said on February 6, 2018 at 12:46 am
          Reply

          @Tom Hawack: “maybe a valid behavior is to try to get the best out of this new environment”

          That is indeed a valid behavior. Equally valid, I think, is the one I take — since the new Firefox has eliminated functionality that is very important to me, with little to no hope that it will ever return, I’ll use a different browser that better matches my needs.

          Because of my deep historical and emotional connection to Firefox, I keep up with developments there in the hopes that one day it may meet my needs again. Until/unless that day comes, I’ll stay with the better (for me) solution.

          “other browsers sticking to older Firefox are bound one day or another to quit the game”

          Maybe, maybe not — but it doesn’t matter to me as much as it may seem. If I’m using a fork that is abandoned, and there is no better solution that is actively maintained, then I’ll just keep using the abandoned fork.

        4. Tom Hawack said on February 6, 2018 at 1:44 am
          Reply

          @John Fenderson, one point everyone will agree with I guess is that we have the chance of pluralism and the possibility to choose a browser based on several factors of which some are not related to speed, to latest technologies but as well to more personal requirements.

          Diversity of browsers is maybe on a decreasing trend. Diversity less in browsing engines perhaps and in this area as in others I’m not sure imagination isn’t being swallowed by the Google black-hole architecture : are browsers bound to become cousins? Maybe, some say inevitably. Could be worse if Google Chrome was craps, which it is not : those who don’t adopt it are led by a business environment with its lot of tracking with which they don(t agree, which doesn’t mean the browser is bad : if we forget the inquisition, Google aims excellency and is never far from it.

          Security above all seems to gather a consensus. After that the fact many users don’t adopt the latest technologies does mean that there’s more to it than excitement for the latest innovation : we have our habits, preferences, references and that is a major criteria for many users, respectable.

          If I moved on to Firefox Quantum it’s essentially for three reasons,
          1- I was afraid as I mentioned above that the trend would render old Firefox models obsolete. “Maybe, maybe not” : I read you, but that was a reason for me, the fear of being left behind too long and then having to catch up once the last wagons slipped off-track so to say.
          2- A blend of excitement and curiosity. Reading users’ experiences with the latest browser in town without using it myself is felt here as if I were ill in bed while a party is going on downstairs : you hear the music, laughs, cries, life! and you’re stuck in bed.
          3- An effort to combat my nature which too often is lazy in the comfort of a conservative intellectual and emotional attitude : “why search for more if I’m happy as it is?” which aggregates easily with the well-known wording “If it works don’t touch it” — The counter-argument is that things can be better even if they are satisfactory, and this addition of risk and hope is exciting in a way, as well as frightening : the choice is personal but with no-risk attitudes we’d still be monkeys … maybe happier, but who knows for sure?!

          This topic is not hear its end, for sure.

        5. John Fenderson said on February 6, 2018 at 6:32 pm
          Reply

          @Tom:

          “Security above all seems to gather a consensus”

          If only that were true! Security is a major point for me, but most people don’t seem to want it that much. Yes, they want applications that make them feel as if they’re secure — but security doesn’t really come from tools as much as from behaviors, and people seem singularly unwilling to change their behaviors, or suffer any inconvenience, for increased security.

          “The counter-argument is that things can be better even if they are satisfactory, and this addition of risk and hope is exciting in a way, as well as frightening”

          I don’t find it frightening at all, personally. I’m a neophile, and relish discovering new things and ways that improve my lot in life.

          That was why, for example, I gave the new Firefox an honest try — that, plus I want so very much to love it. However, (and this is just me), it didn’t actually improve anything for me, and made a number of things substantially worse. In cases like that, it would be silly for me to keep using it just because it’s new.

        6. Anonymous said on February 6, 2018 at 9:01 pm
          Reply

          > If I’m using a fork that is abandoned, and there is no better solution that is actively maintained, then I’ll just keep using the abandoned fork.

          > If only that were true! Security is a major point for me, but most people don’t seem to want it that much.

          If security is a main concern of yours, you should really not use a heavily deprecated browser. Even if you disabled scripts and everything you would be using a browser with many *documented* vulnerabilities, in a world where attackers have apparently automated the picking up of disclosed vulnerabilities and updating of attack suites. Even I wouldn’t do it, and security is not my primary concern at all. (It actually comes 4th…)

          If security is your main concern, you should also favour the removal of legacy add-ons: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com///pubs/archive/38394.pdf

          Given these, security is probably not *that* huge to you, completely outweighed by workflow. That’s fine, just make sure you don’t fool yourself with a false sense of security.

        7. John Fenderson said on February 7, 2018 at 5:21 pm
          Reply

          Thanks for the advice, Anonymous.

          I am not using a heavily deprecated browser, and the browser isn’t my only (or even my first line) defense. A secure browser is important — but a multilayered defense is even more so, so if an attacker leverages a browser flaw, that will just get him to the next locked door.

          My approach works for me, but it’s not the advice I give to most people. I happen to be a security-related developer professionally, and my systems tend to be much more hardened than the average user would be willing to tolerate.

    10. staywokemelineo said on February 5, 2018 at 2:51 am
      Reply

      In the mean time FoxyTabs incorporates some of the menu related features like Close left, Merge Windows, Reload Every X, and have some of its own like Sort tabs.

    11. victorvscn said on February 5, 2018 at 9:28 pm
      Reply

      So, basically, there’s no reason left to use Firefox? The only thing Firefox had going for it were the superior extensions. WebExtensions is a joke.

      1. Anonymous said on February 5, 2018 at 11:38 pm
        Reply

        WebExt are superior to Chromium-based ones.

        1. Paul's Dad. said on February 6, 2018 at 4:07 pm
          Reply

          Yeah right, tell that to all the extension developers who have bailed on Firefox a long time ago and switched to Chrome, for a very simple reason: Mozilla keeps breaking their extensions. WebExtensions are indeed superior to Chromium “extensions”, but at least they are stable and have a huge market base and a lot of developers working on them. And they’re cross compatible between Chromium-based browsers.

        2. John Fenderson said on February 6, 2018 at 6:34 pm
          Reply

          @Anonymous:

          That’s the wrong comparison. Perhaps they are superior to Chrome extensions, but they’re inferior to the system they replaced.

    12. TMPLover said on February 6, 2018 at 3:27 am
      Reply

      Yay for adding in basics that already exist in Firefox’s core…

    13. Anonymous said on February 6, 2018 at 12:49 pm
      Reply

      Is it working or not with it? > Mouse clicking > Double-click on the tabbar to open a new tab instead of the shitty default action everyone hates.

      1. Paul's Dad. said on February 6, 2018 at 4:08 pm
        Reply

        It’s not working for that. And likely never will, as long as Mozilla’s objectives don’t change.
        They haven’t changed in 10 years though.

        1. Anonymous said on February 7, 2018 at 2:49 am
          Reply

          Thanks for the info. So I will continue to ignore Quantum.

    14. Clairvaux said on February 6, 2018 at 4:39 pm
      Reply

      As is often the case, the classic brawl about Firefox evolution misses the bloody obvious. The question is not : should Firefox have kept an outdated, insecure, incompatible but powerful extension system, or switched to a more secure, modern, compatible but less powerful one.

      It’s even less : should we switch to old forks maintained by one or two marginally unhinged individuals which will inevitably die out a few years from now, in order to stick it to Mozilla and because we’re more pure and morally worthy than the great unwashed masses ?

      The question is : why are all these extensions even necessary ? Why does not Firefox add natively the main features users love so much in those older extensions ? What is so difficult in adding a “Close Tabs to the Left” command to a browser ?

      While extensions are necessary to add specific, peculiar features that not many people might want, there are plenty of features in all those extensions that users claim are the main reason why they chose Firefox, that should be standard in the browser.

      Why can’t big, for-profit Mozilla try and hire a few of the best extension developers out there, in order to give a massive feature boost to Firefox, and help it stand above the competition ?

      1. Tom Hawack said on February 6, 2018 at 5:05 pm
        Reply

        I quite agree even if I would have maybe sait things a bit less straightforwardly.

        “[…]should we switch to old forks maintained by one or two marginally unhinged individuals which will inevitably die out a few years from now […]?” … :=)

        Not sure they are “marginally unhinged”, in fact I believe they have their own convictions and approach. And I wish them a long and profitable life, need to say. Lol!

        You know, Clairvaux, that’s the whole Firefox problematic you are seizing. Your comment is likely to trigger a few reactions, don’t plead guilty and if you need a lawyer I’ll be around, lol!

        1. Clairvaux said on February 6, 2018 at 5:28 pm
          Reply

          The unhinged part of it is not my own judgement. It comes from some other people here who have pointed the deplorable social skills of one of the developers of one of the forks. I don’t remember who, and it does not matter. It’s just that it does not bode very well for that particular program’s future.

        2. John Fenderson said on February 6, 2018 at 6:38 pm
          Reply

          @Clairvaux

          If deplorable social skills on the part of developers meant that the software they develop is doomed, then we’d have very little software.

          Also, it’s more than a little unrealistic to say that because one fork’s developer might be problematic, that means that the same is true for all forks.

        3. Clairvaux said on February 6, 2018 at 7:18 pm
          Reply

          Not really. We’re talking about software that depends on extensions, that is third-party developers. If you can’t convince third-party developers to coalesce around your program, if on the contrary you keep antagonising them, there’s little chance you’ll develop the extension eco-system that’s necessary to your survival.

          That’s all the more true when Mozilla has just pulled the rug under your feet, by changing completely the core of the extension system, and you stick with the old one. Now developers have even less incentive than before to work for you, because even if you were a swell guy and everybody craved to support you, the writing is on the wall for the old extension system.

          Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, all Firefox forks are essentially the work of one or two people. That might have been sustainable while they were riding on Firefox’s coat-tails. But now that Mozilla has broken the link, browser development will increasingly appear for what it is : a big-time endeavour, that can’t possibly be done by a single person.

          A browser is interfaced to the Web, and everything keeps changing very fast over there. Plus, it’s the most dangerous place to stand for a piece of software. The security problems are daunting. That’s very different from, say, a note-taking program.

          I love and use Cinta Notes daily. It’s a terrific piece of software. It’s developed by one person and a half. It has limited ambitions, but fulfills them very well. Even thus, its age is rather showing. I don’t mind, because I love old-fashioned software and I haven’t caught on with modern trends (notably, the cloud, smartphone use and device syncing). But other people have. A new major version is in the works. But it’s not out yet.

          Even regarding the handful of geeks who love to use programs nobody else does, how long will they stick with Firefox variants which are bound to lag more and more behind modern software standards ?

        4. John Fenderson said on February 6, 2018 at 7:33 pm
          Reply

          “Now developers have even less incentive than before to work for you”

          I suppose that depends on what the users of forks are expecting. I don’t expect that there will be much new extension development for the forks. But that’s not terribly important to me, and, I suspect, it’s not terribly important to most people who’ve move to a fork. What’s important to me is that the new system involves the loss of functionality. By staying with a fork, I can continue to use old extensions and don’t suffer any loss of functionality.

          “Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, all Firefox forks are essentially the work of one or two people.”

          There are quite a lot of forks, and this certainly isn’t true for all of them. It’s not even really true for the two major ones (Pale Moon and Waterfox).

          “A browser is interfaced to the Web, and everything keeps changing very fast over there.”

          True to a certain degree, but again, how important this is depends on expectations. Speaking for myself, whether or not a browser keeps up with current standards isn’t very important (in fact, to a certain degree, failing to keep up with the current standard is a good thing, not a bad one, since I have some rather serious issue with the direction and specification of HTML5).

          Also, there’s no reason why (for example) a FF fork would have to maintain compatibility with FF moving forward. A single developer could certainly use a third-party HTML rendering engine, thus avoiding the need to spend much time on the most complex part of a browser.

          “Even regarding the handful of geeks who love to use programs nobody else does, how long will they stick with Firefox variants which are bound to lag more and more behind modern software standards ?”

          You’re misrepresenting the motivations of people who opt to use the forks here. But, ignoring that, I can only speak for myself: I use the best tool for the job. Currently, for me, that’s Waterfox. If Waterfox ceases to be the best tool for the job, then I’ll switch to something else that is.

          The choice of browser is not a commitment. It’s trivially easy to drop one for another.

      2. Appster said on February 6, 2018 at 6:00 pm
        Reply

        @Clairvaux:

        If you knew what you are talking about, then you would probably know of this concept:

        https://exe-boss.tech/specifications/web-extensions/gecko-elevated/

        By implementing this, Mozilla could have made WebExtensions just as powerful as XUL. That is to say, they could have come up with an equally powerful system if they only wanted to.

        > outdated, insecure, incompatible but powerful extension system

        Outdated – Just because WebExtensions are newer doesn’t mean that XUL is outdated. Again, if you knew what you were talking about you’d probably know that Firefox is still largely based on XUL. That’s why you can still do all the userChrome.css stuff. Mozilla just removed the ability to do it right inside the browser, to the inconvenience of power users. Not more.

        Insecure – When an API can basically do anything to the browser it has to be insecure by definition, just because it’s so powerful. In the end, that’s what the add-on signing process is for, and that’s what the review manual process is for. Mozilla has switched to an automatic review process for WebExtensions, and see how much crap has now landed on AMO.

        Incompatible – It was NEVER MEANT to be compatible with other programs than Firefox and Thunderbird. You probably think that having weak add-ons, that are cross-browser, is a good thing. A “one size fits all” approach, so to speak. If everybody has to be involved, my dear Clairvaux, it usually comes down to the lowest common denominator. That’s a law of nature. Hence why we had to settle for the very low Chrome standards.

        Powerful – Yes.

        Regarding WebExtensions:

        > more secure, modern, compatible but less powerful

        More secure – Sure, if they basically can’t do anything, then they must be more secure by definition. Although they could of course still do malicious stuff. Mozilla has weakened its review process at the same time, so I wouldn’t bet on AMO as a totally secure source anyhow.

        Modern – Again, just because they came after XPCOM, doesn’t mean that they are any better. By the way, they largely copied the Chrome way of doing things, and this way has been around since at least 2008.

        Compatible – The lowest common denominator argument, alright. But why use Firefox then? Chrome is okay also, if you don’t care about privacy. The same extensions exist for both browsers, in >90% of all cases.

        Less powerful – Yes. Yet clearly Mozilla could have done something about that. They didn’t.

        Then you continue your little diatribe:

        > should we switch to old forks maintained by one or two marginally unhinged individuals which will inevitably die out a few years from now, in order to stick it to Mozilla and because we’re more pure and morally worthy than the great unwashed masses ?

        Firefox 52 ESR is also “old”, for that matter. Any release that is supported for a longer while must be “old”, by definition. Seriously, it comes down to whether they fit your needs or not. I have no doubt that at least Waterfox is going to follow Mozilla eventually (WF60 – based on FF60 has already been announced).
        Furthermore, you are conveniently overseeing Mozilla actions like installing add-ons out of nowhere, without any user consent (Mr Robot debacle), or other things like shipping spyware with the installer (Cliqz) etc.
        I for one also don’t use Firefox anymore because Mozilla – as an organization – is working on projects like the “Mozilla Information Trust Initiative” (MITI), which is an automatic censoring tool aiming to silence non-mainstream opinions. Whether or not I share these opinions doesn’t matter here; I strongly believe in this freedom as a principle. So it’s not just your (cheap, badly thought out) “argument” of “sticking it to Mozilla”. My reasons are valid.
        And indeed, the “unwashed masses” don’t know about things like this (yet) because they do not inform themselves. Nobody can do it for them, though.

        Your diatribe continues as follows:

        > The question is : why are all these extensions even necessary ? Why does not Firefox add natively the main features users love so much in those older extensions ?

        Have you ever heard of the word “modularity”, mon cher ami? That means the following: Not all features have to be in the browser, because we would end up with bloatware that way. Have a look at Vivaldi for more info. If you want a specific feature, you can install an extension. That’s how it always used to work, and it’s still the same. Sadly enough, extensions have become a joke in the meantime.

        @Tom Hawack:

        > You know, Clairvaux, that’s the whole Firefox problematic you are seizing.

        No. He is just uninformed, but still has an “opinion” on everything Firefox.

        > Your comment is likely to trigger a few reactions, don’t plead guilty and if you need a lawyer I’ll be around, lol!

        I just reacted because most of it was pure and utter nonsense, as expected. I have hopefully uncovered the invalidity of his entire “opinion” now, no need for a lawyer anymore.

        1. Tom Hawack said on February 6, 2018 at 9:37 pm
          Reply

          @Appster, what I consider valid in Clairvaux’s comment above is that there is an over-reaction concerning Firefox Quantum and its lot of innovations.

          Privacy is a true issue, we’ve commented on this. On a purely technological point of view, frankly and this is my opinion, webextensions bring far more than what an average user needs. My belief based on my experience is that add-ons are not necessary as the gap is progressively filled, maybe some functions will never be available but they are limited. You remember I used 70 add-ons on Firefox pre-57? I manage very well now with less than 30 and could even surf comfortably with less. Concerning Electrolysis (e10) I’d cry then when announced and encounter now no issue while it participates to speed increase and general fitness of the browser.

          It is on these points that I agree with Clairvaux, resumed by my conviction that many users are out of reality when they express their attachment to the older Firefox environment.

          Of course we must remain more than attentive to privacy issues, as a principle but also regarding Quantum’s new features. Of course Quantum has some inconsistencies to vacuum and of course some demands for APIs will be honored and some others never will.

          Generally speaking I can say but one thing : now that I (start to) have a certain mastery of Firefox Quantum (though very relative) I wouldn’t return to past Firefox versions, be they ESR, Waterfox, Pale Moon … FF58 runs fine, is opened to numerous extensions, is fast, problem-free. it just works, better.

        2. Appster said on February 6, 2018 at 11:26 pm
          Reply

          @Tom Hawack:

          Sorry, I am not seeing how Firefox could differentiate itself from Chrome via WebExtensions. Almost all of them are available for Chrome, too. For the average user it doesn’t make a difference anymore, if it has ever made a difference in the first place. I believe that many people are stuck with Firefox out of laziness, just like it is the case with Internet Explorer.

          The only major reason why Firefox would still be worth using over Chrome is be about:config. It won’t be there forever, if you ask me, but for now it’s a valid reason. Although it could be argued that some Chromium-based browsers like Iridium are more private than Firefox at this point, anyway.

          What this comment section – including you and Clairvaux – proves over and over again, is that people did not grasp the Quantum changeover in depth. “Quantum” is basically a collection of numerous smaller improvements. People would know that if they had read Bugzilla. Mozilla decided to combine them into one big release, instead of implementing them over time. This was done out of marketing considerations. Quantum was supposed to be the rebirth of Firefox, so they held many improvements back for this release.
          This of course makes some people believe that the supposed speed gain is a result of Mozilla removing the XPCOM architecture, which is not true. In fact, the Gecko-elevated WebExtension proposal could have led to an equally powerful architecture on Firefox 57+(!!!), but Mozilla decided against it on Bugzilla, saying that it was a “non-starter”, while not giving a proper explanation for that sentiment. I assume that power users are not a target group for them anymore; they most likely believe that users will settle for less choice, less customization, less control. So they took it away. It was a deliberate decision on their part, and by no means a necessity. This is what people fail to understand.
          Some people even think that Mozilla got rid of XUL (the language in which the application code is written), which is also plain wrong. They removed XPCOM and did not replace it, but they kept XUL. This again proves how Quantum was just a collection of changes that Mozilla held back for one big release.

          People don’t understand the background decisions and begin to think that powerful extensions held Firefox back, as Mozilla gives them this impression by virtue of their marketing antics. Yet it’s technically incorrect.

          I have every right to criticize that, just as I have the right to criticize e.g. MITI and their involvement with Ghostery. Mozilla apologists do not like to hear that, to be sure. I don’t care, though.

        3. Tom Hawack said on February 6, 2018 at 11:39 pm
          Reply

          @Appster, I haven’t mentioned Chrome, I was emphasizing on users’ reaction when facing Firefox Quantum to previous Firefox versions.

          I then explicitly focused on technology, leaving privacy aside as we have already often commented it.

          If you mention now Chrome then maybe is it worth stating that if Firefox’ privacy (including Quantum) is improvable it’ll always be better than that of Chrome.

          I don’t always understand where you perceive things I don’t write, Appster.

        4. Appster said on February 6, 2018 at 11:59 pm
          Reply

          @Tom Hawack:

          Sure, you didn’t mention Chrome, that was me. I mentioned it in order to make it clear why I think WebExtensions were (and still are) a bad idea. If Firefox is no longer able to distinguish itself from Chrome, other than through about:config, then its situation is truly hopeless. In order to exercise influence on the web you need market share. Firefox is already at 10% and falling. I believe that Quantum will not reverse that trend, as Mozilla has just driven the power users away. The rest that remains would also be content with Chrome, but is just to lazy/indifferent to switch in most cases. Firefox or Chrome or Internet Explorer or Safari… It makes no notable difference to them.

          People thinking that Mozilla is on the right path with Quantum are those who do not face reality, IMHO. If there is no differentiation anymore, then there is no point to the product itself.

          Talking about add-ons, most of them are also available for Chrome. This is what I am trying to emphasize. Yes, it has become this bad.

          Thus, all current Quantum users are potential Chrome users, IMHO. Except for the extremely small minority that happens to change settings in about:config. The rest? Chrome crowd, no doubt.

          Firefox – as in “privacy” and “customization” – is all but dead. No need to dissect the corpse.

        5. Tom Hawack said on February 7, 2018 at 12:10 am
          Reply

          You know Appster, should the equation be : Firefox = Chrome + Privacy
          I’d conclude => Firefox > Chrome
          It’s as simple as that and I can’t imagine anyone as committed to privacy as you are disagree on this.
          If you’re concerned by the market share maybe emphasizing on Firefox’s advantages compared to Chrome would better contribute to Firefox’s survival then systematically focusing on its imperfections.

        6. Appster said on February 7, 2018 at 12:30 am
          Reply

          @Tom Hawack:

          > I’d conclude => Firefox > Chrome

          The margin is very small, though. Non-existent for most users.

          > It’s as simple as that and I can’t imagine anyone as committed to privacy as you are disagree on this.

          Firefox is still better than Google Chrome when it comes to privacy. However, I would be hard-pressed to claim that Firefox is still more private than certain Chromium variants, e.g. Iridium.

          > If you’re concerned by the market share maybe emphasizing on Firefox’s advantages compared to Chrome would better contribute to Firefox’s survival then systematically focusing on its imperfections.

          Not if I am of the opinion that the current Mozilla management is actively destroying Firefox. Cliqz, Mr Robot, Pocket, MITI, Ghostery sure bode well for the future… Again, I think that Firefox has died both technically and philosophically. User control, apart from about:config, is virtually non-existent anymore since the add-ons were castrated for whatever reason.

        7. Tom Hawack said on February 7, 2018 at 12:49 am
          Reply

          @Appster,
          I pain to see the relationship between “[…] the current Mozilla management is actively destroying Firefox. Cliqz, Mr Robot, Pocket, MITI, Ghostery sure bode well for the future…” and the fact that this could be a reason to not support Firefox in front of a monopol in progress. As I see it, once you’ve made a choice between two browsers the least you can do is to not help those would contribute to your choice’s survival. I mean, to put things more simply, anyone who likes something, should it be for what is has been, contributes to help that something not shrink. When I read you I think of someone about to drown and others saying “It’s his fault, let him sink”.

          Maybe you just hate Firefox, Mozilla, maybe because of what you consider it has abandonned itself to. I can’t agree with that. IMO Firefox is still the best choice once all parameters summed up. Consequently I prefer to be constructive, within a critical mind, but not destructive, no way. That’s the worst scenario. A nicer perspective is to imagine — and act accordingly — a Firefox browser which is emerging with Quantum and which will recapitalize on market shares. I’ve already told you before and I’ll make it clear this time : either you hate Mozilla either you practice defeatism for having loved it when it corresponded to your expectations. It’s not my approach, maybe because I’m not involved for sentimental reasons but simply because I’m running IMO the best browser available in the scope of what I wish a browser to be and not to be. I’m not expecting perfection.

        8. John Fenderson said on February 6, 2018 at 11:32 pm
          Reply

          @Appster: “Mozilla – as an organization – is working on projects like the “Mozilla Information Trust Initiative” (MITI), which is an automatic censoring tool aiming to silence non-mainstream opinions”

          MITI is something that is rather nervous-making for me without a doubt. But let’s be fair and honest here — it’s also something that we don’t actually know much about in terms of, when the rubber meets the road, what it actually will do.

          If it’s an effort to produce special-built tools, I don’t really have an issue with that. If it’s an effort to have the browser proactively filter viewed web pages, I have a huge issue with that.

        9. Appster said on February 7, 2018 at 12:34 am
          Reply

          @John Fenderson:

          Of course I hope that MITI never comes to full fruition. The vibe I got from their website is that they try to create an AI tool which is able to identify “fake news” based on a common algorithm. They are definitely aiming for the automatic deletion of opinions, which is not a good thing, at all. I hope this project dies in its early stages.

        10. John Fenderson said on February 7, 2018 at 7:18 pm
          Reply

          @Appster: “They are definitely aiming for the automatic deletion of opinions”

          I don’t think that the “definitely” there is accurate. That may be their aim, but nothing in the information I’ve seen makes it provably true.

          But let’s assume that it is — again, (personally), how bad this is depends on what exactly they’re producing. If they’re producing optional tools that people who want such filtering can use, that doesn’t seem so bad.

          If they’re building the filter into the browser, that seems very bad. I think the nervousness that this may be the case is justified, but unless you have evidence I haven’t seen (which is possible, I’ve not spent a great deal of time researching this), that nervousness is based on speculation rather than actual facts.

    15. Clairvaux said on February 6, 2018 at 8:44 pm
      Reply

      The point is, it’s very doubtful that the existing functionality of Firefox clones + old extensions can keep working for long. I have been an avid user of Maxthon browser for many years. It was vastly superior to others (also, it did what Firefox did without extensions). One day, it began to work less smoothly. Web browsing became a pain. The Maxthon team, clearly, had stopped keeping up to date with new Web developments. I dropped it. It still exists, I think, but it has sunked into oblivion. It’s possible it’s used in China.

      One important factor is the work involved on the user side to learn a given program and get used to it. Also the amount of time spent adjusting the settings, finding the right extensions, learning how to use them… It makes more sense to invest that time on a program with a future.

      That being said, I’m still on Firefox ESR, but I’m loosing all my bookmarks from time to time, and Mozilla keeps killing some of my extensions one after the other. Clearly, this is a dead-end.

      1. Anonymous said on February 6, 2018 at 9:05 pm
        Reply

        How can you lose all your bookmarks when there are almost daily backups running and sixteen copies at any one time ? Sounds like you have some crappy bug that would be high priority to fix.

      2. John Fenderson said on February 6, 2018 at 11:34 pm
        Reply

        “The point is, it’s very doubtful that the existing functionality of Firefox clones + old extensions can keep working for long.”

        What would make them stop working?

    16. Clairvaux said on February 6, 2018 at 9:07 pm
      Reply

      “Little diatribe”, “Don’t now what you’re talking about”, “You probably think”, “Have you ever heard”, “Mon cher ami”, “He’s uniformed”, “He has an opinion”, “My reasons are valid”, “Pure and utter nonsense”, “I have uncovered the invalidity of his entire opinion”, “The unwashed masses don’t inform themselves”, “My dear Clairvaux”, “Your cheap, badly thought out argument”… all that from a single “comment” of the Appster troll.

      Exactly what I meant by marginally unhinged geeks, unable of common social graces, ignorant of basic civility, hell-bent on verbally abusing any stranger guilty of not positively loving the programs or hardware they themselves crave for, always ready to pick up a fight about things without any importance whatsoever, and eager to make obnoxious bums of themselves.

      A very lowly form of human life if you ask me. If all x-foxes of one persuasion of other are developed and maintained by goons with such a mindset, let me tell you that they have a very limited future indeed.

      1. Appster said on February 6, 2018 at 10:44 pm
        Reply

        > “Little diatribe”, “Don’t now what you’re talking about”, “You probably think”, “Have you ever heard”, “Mon cher ami”, “He’s uniformed”, “He has an opinion”, “My reasons are valid”, “Pure and utter nonsense”, “I have uncovered the invalidity of his entire opinion”, “The unwashed masses don’t inform themselves”, “My dear Clairvaux”, “Your cheap, badly thought out argument”… all that from a single “comment” of the Appster troll.

        Yeah, every single word of it was fitting and I don’t think I need to take any of that back, mon cher ami. You are all of that and more. You have already shown that you have no idea what you are talking about.

        > Exactly what I meant by marginally unhinged geeks,

        Insulting others and now playing the crybaby when it backfires. Cry me a river…

        > ignorant of basic civility

        I didn’t go as far as you did; you have just called me a “very lowly form of life”. I tell you what, mon cher ami: Everything you just said sounded like mere pig grunts to me.

        > hell-bent on verbally abusing any stranger guilty of not positively loving the programs or hardware they themselves crave for

        You are hardly a stranger. I’ve already had the questionable pleasure of reading your uninformed BS before.

        > always ready to pick up a fight about things without any importance whatsoever

        Nah, not always ready to. It’s the nonsense you are spewing that basically calls for a correction.

        > and eager to make obnoxious bums of themselves.

        Says the guy who has just proven his lacking knowledge once more. But of course I am the fool… Give me a break, I can’t stop laughing!

        > A very lowly form of human life if you ask me.

        Says the guy who is spewing nonsense day in, day out. If a proven fool attests a “very lowly form of human life” to me, then I have to feel honored. It just shows you for the idiot you are.

        > If all x-foxes of one persuasion of other are developed and maintained by goons with such a mindset, let me tell you that they have a very limited future indeed.

        As if I could represent the fork developers… I don’t even know them personally. Keep riding that train, you desperate fool.

        Typical Clairvaux comment: Read – laugh – forget about it.

        @all others: Have you noticed how this nice little fellow failed to address the actual points I made? Yep, that’s because he has now realized the nonsense he had been spewing. His solution: Going ad hominem at me.

    Leave a Reply