Mozilla removes individual cookie management in Firefox 60 from preferences
The most recent version of Firefox Nightly, currently at version 60, comes with changes to Firefox's cookie management. Mozilla merged cookie settings with site data in the web browser which impacts how you configure and manage cookie options.
If you run Firefox 59 or earlier, you can load about:preferences#privacy to manage privacy related settings in Firefox. If you set the history to "use custom settings for history" or "remember history", you get an option manage cookie settings and to remove individual cookies from Firefox.
A click on the link or button opens a new browser window in which all set cookies are listed. You can use it to find set cookies, look up information, remove selected or all cookies.
Update: Some commenters stated that Firefox users may still manage individual cookies in the following ways for now:
- Load chrome://browser/content/preferences/cookies.xul to display the dialog.
- Click on the information button in the Firefox address bar, and navigate to "right arrow" > More Information > View Cookies. Erase the site name to list all set cookies.
- Use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl-Shift-I to open the Developer Tools and switch to the Storage tab (enable it under settings if it is not there). This lists only the cookies for the active site.
Check out this post on Reddit by the creator of the change to better understand why Mozilla made it.
Mozilla engineers changed this in recent versions of Firefox 60 (currently on the Nightly channel).
If you open the privacy section of about:preferences, you may notice the following:
- History lists only three options. The "accept cookies from websites" option is no longer listed under History.
- A new Cookies and Site Data section is available. It lists the cookie preferences that were listed under History in previous versions.
- The "show cookies" link has been removed from the history. It is replaced by a combined management option that includes Site Data and cookies.
Cookie settings moved from "use custom settings for history" to a better location in the preferences. Firefox users who did not select the custom option were probably never exposed to the cookie preferences in first place. Also, all options but one that existed previously are still there, some, however, under a different name.
There is no "show cookies" button anymore; Mozilla moved it to Settings under "Cookies and Site Data". A click on the button displays the new management interface. It looks similar to the cookie management interface of previous versions of Firefox but includes storage as well now.
The interface lists sites and the number of set cookies and used storage, as well as the time the site was accessed the last time in the browser.
While the new interface looks great, you may notice that it is no longer possible to list or remove individual cookies from Firefox using it.
Mozilla mentions the fact on the official bug listing.
As per our UI concept in bug 1421690 and (finally) following the spec guidelines (https://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/#privacy) we'd like to merge the cookies settings into the "Site Data" section and move them to top-level.
This also means removing individual cookie management from about:preferences.
This is bad for users who want full control over cookies. While it is possible that Mozilla will implement the removed functionality before Firefox 60 hits the stable channel, Firefox users may use extensions to restore the functionality.Â Check out our updated Firefox cookies management guide for a list of extensions that support Firefox 57 and newer, and Firefox 56.x and older.
Google Chrome includes an option to list and remove individual cookies, still.
Now You: Do you need the removed functionality?
- Configure Firefox To Delete All Cookies On Exit But Select Ones
- Edit or remove cookies from Firefox's Developer Toolbar
- Get a listing of all Internet cookies with CookieSpy
- How to deal with Firefox extensions that require cookies
- How to disable third-party cookies in Firefox
Alt+R in that dialog doesn’t work, I didn’t try Alt+E but my bet is it doesn’t either, also it is painful to remove individual cookies quickly, you need to select a SINGLE cookie then press remove with the mouse which loses focus from the list so that you need to click back into it to delete the next one, very painful experience, I don’t want to remove all because I like having some saved for various forums/logins etc.
There’s multi-select for removal in the page information cookie management, as long as its a single site:
1. Click on the left side end of the url bar on the information button
2. Expand right
3. Click “More Information”
4. Security Tab -> View Cookies
I forgot about trying that!!! You sir are my hero! LoL
If you don’t want to install a cookie managing extension but somehow still want to check what a website’s cookie contains, you can also view and even edit individual cookies with developer tools.
Press F12 and check the storage tab. If there’s none you’ll need to enable it once by clicking on the cogwheel on the right and ticking the “storage” checkbox.
Alternatively, just set a bookmark to chrome://browser/content/preferences/cookies.xul
@Splinter – i can’t believe i didn’t know about that. i have an add-on that i use to delete all cookies with 2 clicks of the button when i leave every site, but i usually keep about:preferences#privacy in a tab and pin it as well in case i want to only delete certain cookies.
i made a bookmark of chrome://browser/content/preferences/cookies.xul and pinned it in a tab as well. Gives me another option.
Thank You Splinter.
@mentalmongrel – Alt+Shift+R does nothing for me.
This is a very Google-like thing to do, which is strange coming from Mozilla. This is going to go over like a lead balloon weighted down with more lead balloons.
Not even Google goes so far. I quote from the article:
> Google Chrome includes an option to list and remove individual cookies, still.
Yes, I meant in the sense that it resembles something that Google does, though in this case, Mozilla beat them to it.
@Appster First, i love your posts. You always hit the point :D
Mozilla just tries to be more Google than Google. Perhaps that way – they may think – they will be successful in luring all Chrome users over to Firefox.
Mozilla are nothing than lame copy-cats who do not earn the right to call themselves Open Source, as they are the gravediggers of the very same!
Google b*tches :D
Too much honor. I am just trying to enlighten people when it comes to the new path Mozilla has chosen. They are not aiming at power users, or even moderately technically skilled (and privacy-sensitive, for that matter) people anymore. The Chrome crowd is their new target. I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if they decided one day to remove about:config. Some power users (read: people who actually understand the program) will howl and cry because of that, but Mozilla will keep the simple users on board anyway. They just do not care about user choice and customization anymore.
Though I doubt that they will win many Chrome users back, by the way. At most, they are probably going to stabilize their terrible market share.
Many people do not realize that Mozilla is monetarily involved with companies like Cliqz, the owner of Ghostery. Ghostery is known to sell data to advertisers. These same users fully expect the sell-outs at the Mozilla headquarters to protect their privacy. Naive beyond comprehension.
How is it strange coming from Mozilla?! They’ve been imitating Google for 10 years. This is just another nail in their coffin, not a surprise at all.
Mozilla just hates their users and seethes all they long about how their userbase is grounded on a very tech-savvy group of individuals and they do their best to change that, at every turn.
“How is it strange coming from Mozilla?! Theyâ€™ve been imitating Google for 10 years. This is just another nail in their coffin, not a surprise at all.”
Well, definitely since 2012…Since Google gave an assist to Mozilla, they have occupied the same bed since.
An article from 2012
The Mozilla FF Desktop Icon is so….eerily similar to the google desktop icon….
They’re trying to streamline and dumb down the browser so it resembles Chrome. There are probably also technical reasons to change some things to make development easier. As long as the “advanced” stuff remains an option it’s ok.
Being able to view and delete individual cookies is essential. Mozilla should know that.
You can still view and remove individual cookies from the page info:
1. Click on the left side end of the url bar on the information button
2. Expand right
3. Click “More Information”
4. Security Tab -> View Cookies
Or alternatively use:
2. Storage tab
which also provides cookie editing.
I’m embarrassed to admit that I forgot about both of those options. Especially since I often use the URL bar info to save images and videos and I’m always using the dev tools. I will now quietly slink away with my head down in shame. LoL
Why do people constantly re-design things that are working instead a fixing things that are not working (printing web pages in FF is a good example of the latter)…?
I really doubt the people in charge of the unnecessary annoying annual design-changes are the same who’d be in charge of fixing print-preview.
Mozilla has joined Google and other corps. that want to censor the Internet. The best thing users can do is to stop update their Firefox. I always remove the update file and the maintenance files in the install folder so i can be sure there will be no unwanted update.
Back when “containers” (home, shopping, work) were introduced, I looked at the code and wondered how the heck cookies could be managed via the existing UI. Remove cookies for THIS doman (from THIS container? From container A and B, but not C? From all containers?)
Seemed to me that the UI would need to become multi-column, a grid, in order to provide cookie management from a single screen. Hopefully the devs have pulled the “old UI” in order to transition to the use of a newer, improved UI. (fingers crossed)
Check Cookies AutoDelete extension. It has per-container cookie management, so it seems possible in the current extensions APIs.
Haha, “new and improved UI”, from Mozilla, keep crossing those fingers!
In my opinion, yet another silly movement from Mozilla. ðŸ˜”
Go to mozilla.org. They say there: “We make the internet safer, healthier and faster for good.” No, guys, I don’t think so no more. They’re removing user’s options, they’re just complicating people’s life.
The happy ending of this story is that there is and will be some good add-ons to solve this, as usual when a big company f***s a good idea.
There will be some addons to fix the issue, I’m sure, but don’t think for a moment Mozilla is happy that those addons exist.
Of course they’ll do their best to break those addons every six weeks. So if you’re using a fringe extension that isn’t used by a lot of people, it’s very likely its developer just won’t bother fixing it, eventually.
@KNTRO: “The happy ending of this story is that there is and will be some good add-ons to solve this”
I hope this is true. I’m doubtful, but hopeful.
LOL, the great dumbing down continues. Have fun with Quantum.
How dare you try and manage spyware cookies yourself?
Mozilla has once again finds a way to screw it’s fanbase~
“Google Chrome includes an option to list and remove individual cookies, still.”
Mozilla Firefox is becoming worse than Google Chrome.
Remember the Cliqz and Mr Robot incidents? Remember their involvement with Ghostery? No surprise here. The Mozilla of old, acting in the user’s best interest for the most part, is long gone.
What I find most funny about this is that when people start complaining “we need to install extensions to make GNOME Shell better!!!” and I tell them “but you have to install extensions in web browsers as well”, people keep telling me “no, web browsers have all the needed functionality by default”. Well, if something as simple as removing individual cookies is begin removed, then no, web browsers don’t have all the needed functionality by default (in this case Firefox).
@Heimen Stoffels: “people keep telling me â€œno, web browsers have all the needed functionality by defaultâ€”
Who says that? I’m not aware of any browser that has all the needed functionality by default.
Well, that might be true but that’s no reason to remove functionality from Gnome but rather to add the missing basic functionality to the browsers (and Gnome)
Mozilla is not your friend anymore, in fact It’s the exact opposite
A wolf in sheep’s clothing
When I saw the changes in Nightly to the cookie, site data and cache options I was extremely disappointed. If you want to disable automatic cache management and modify the cache size you now have to open about:config in v60. I don’t know how many people change that but I’ve always used a different browser cache size than what ends up being recommended.
How many people actually use individual cookie management? For example, keeping one YouTube cookie and then deleting all of the other YouTube cookies? How many of the 200 million FF users actually clean cookies like that? Seriously. The only two cookies I save are Feedly and YouTube, all 1st-party cookies are deleted at the end of each browser session and 3rd-party cookies are never allowed. Once every week or two for YouTube I delete all of the YouTube cookies but one, the PREF cookie, and that only since the new UI layout was forced on everyone. Deleting all of the YT cookies except the PREF cookie gives me a clean slate but saves my config (old UI layout), removes any recommendations, and the old UI works much better with Magic Actions for YouTube (player sizes).
The loss of some cookie and cache management options and then forcing users to dig into about:config is the wrong way to go. WTH Mozilla? Has Vivaldi lost users because they make so many preferences easily accessible? What exactly is the goal here? To make it easier for 12 year olds? 9 year olds? Where does it end? Mozilla… if you’re going to brag about the performance and you have every right to do so, why would you then force users to install and use an extension to replace browser functionality? Isn’t that at some point going to be counterproductive?
There should be more options available in the settings, Not Less. Like mousewheel acceleration, does anyone using a mouse not use acceleration? How about smoothScroll duration? Everyone uses the default? Prefetch? Even Chrome has an option for that!
For God’s sake, am I going to have to resort to using Waterfox? LoL
Yes @Richard but since Waterfox is moving in the Quantum direction too, will Alex eventually disable cache and cookie management?
I admit that this is disappointing, to say the least. I wonder what it is that Mozilla either thinks users will break, or else, what is their end goal?
With uMatrix I block all cookies by default, so I don’t care what Mozilla should decide on that subject personally.
Since I’m still on Waterfox, and I guess will be forever, I’m glad I still have cookie managment addons that work properly. I need a whitelist for cookies/html5storage and everything else should be deleted when I press a button (not automatically, and not when I close a tab) – CookieKeeper does this perfectly. Anyone know such an addon for Quantum?
And yes I need the functionality to see the data values of single cookies, but for reasons that probably only a couple of people need it for anyway. (I extract login/session cookies to make my web-scraping scripts work without having to go through login procedures via the scripts).
‘Cookie Quick Manager’
That`s the only thing I could find that came anywhere near CookieKeeper
(only testing Quantum at the moment due to curiosity – Waterfox is my browser)
Again though I understand that Waterfox 60 will basically adopt Quantum features, so won’t the benefits of Waterfox be gone then? Of course by using the term “benefits”, I mean if you dislike Quantum.
I’d really like Appster to pipe in on this.
Did I just hear somebody call my name? :D
Yes, Waterfox will go down the Quantum route in the near future. Alex Kontos (the Waterfox developer) has announced that in a post at the Waterfox subreddit:
Nobody (apart from Moonchild, maybe) believes that a handful of people can develop a browser these days. It takes huge teams, with skilled people in multiple fields. Alex is just a single person. Backporting security patches to Waterfox 56 is all he can do as it stands. However, he can’t let Waterfox stay the way it is in the long run, as it will sooner or later severely fall behind when it comes to support of modern web standards. Hence why he needs to use a newer Firefox base eventually, and he chose the next ESR version (v.60) for that purpose. The ESR will allow him to concentrate on feature development while not having to worry about security fixes (as the Mozilla fixes will apply to Waterfox directly in this case, no need to backport anymore). Waterfox 56 will stay around and be updated in parallel to that for the time being.
Waterfox 60 will have the typical changes (no telemetry, no Pocket etc.). Alex also aims to restore some legacy add-on capabilities via further, more powerful WebExtension APIs.
However, the new website that will probably be launching soon is currently occupying his time, as it seems. I am optimistic though that Waterfox 60 will show up in May or June 2018.
That is incredibly sad news. Not unexpected, but sad. At least I can stick with older versions, though.
Thank you Cookie Mueller. Seems a bit strange to use though.
@Jody Thornton: Well “Quantum” has established kinda as the name for FF57 and above (this is how I used it in my post)- but actually Quantum is the name for the advancements FF made regarding their render engine.
The problem people like me have with the new browser, is the removal of “legacy addons” – aka XUL addons. This has nothing to do with the Quantum enhancements actually but Mozilla choose to publish both at the same time. XUL – and therefore the old addon system – is still inside, and they still use it for their addons, but user addons cannot use it anymore.
So a browser with the Quantum enhancements would be very welcome, as long as you can use the old Addons.
@Ben and @Appster:
But my guess is with the Quantum engine adoption by Alex, that means XUL addons will be kaput on Waterfox as well. So really, other than security fixes and removal of telemetry components, there won’t be much to separate Waterfox 60+ or Firefox Quantum, will there be?
Is a long-term Waterfox ESR in the works that continues the XUL legacy? That what I remember hearing.
@Jody Thornton: See my reply to Ben, Jody. Alex aims to enhance the WebExtensions APIs greatly in Waterfox 60. That’s a good thing as far as I’m concerned. However, clearly there won’t be any direct legacy add-on compatibility anymore, but an equivalent system capability-wise (which is more than Mozilla offers already). Add-on developers could modify their already existing WebExtensions (great advantage right there) for Waterfox, if they want to support the project.
Waterfox 56 will be security-patched in parallel for the time being, but will and must be dropped eventually, as it will have fallen behind significantly in terms of web standard support in the mid-term.
@Jody Thornton: I don’t know. The link provided above somehow suggests Alex wants to implement his own WEApi? This seems to be a useless waste of time though as nobody will use them.
But he also wants to copy the old addon website AMO, so I guess he still wants to keep XUL around. As said, XUL is still intact inside the new FF versions (some minor things are already removed I think), so he just has to enable XUL for normal addons again.
I hear ya. Boy, that seems confusing.
@Ben: What else is Alex supposed to do other than improving the API? I don’t think it makes much sense only to remove telemetry, Pocket etc.
And then, he can only win by implementing his own APIs. Firefox extensions are going to work anyway, and maybe some worthwhile extensions for Waterfox only will also appear. I don’t take issue with the idea personally.
XUL will be kept around as far as Mozilla allows, I think. Maybe he is going to add the preference that allows legacy add-ons by default, maybe not. Keep in mind that even if some add-ons run nominally, some of them are going to be broken in Quantum. How do you explain this breakage to Joe Average?
I’m going to ask the dumb question, can’t open source be more open? security block, main engine, 2ndary security block, UI, default media support, side engine for addons.
Can’t they built it were UI and add ons have their own SDK but they have to go through the security systems in the main software engine else they fail/can’t send/receive data? I mean the main engine is where all data is processed, you should be able to secure that pipe line and allow near infinite customizability for UI/addon stuff, as long as all permissions have to be okayed by the user on usage.
Seems like it can be done but no on has to the time to do that because it takes focus away from trying to look better than Google/chrome.
Mind you all my coding knowledge comes from Uscript, Unreal 1-2,99,0ut04 and ut3 and some C++ and other SDKs mind you the api/engine stuff was beyond my pumpkin head but its seems like the data layer of highly custmizable UI/add ons should be able to be allowed to work with a set in stone main engine. I mean windows 8 and 10 works and its a nightmare…but it works.
I don’t think the issue is “how open” the source is. You can grab it all right now and modify it to your heart’s delight.
The issue is that the browser is an enormously complicated piece of software, and so modifying and maintaining it isn’t exactly simple. That’s not an issue related to how open it is, it’s an issue related to software complexity.
It’s largely a result of a direction that all browser manufacturers (including Mozilla) very badly want to take things: to make the browser, in effect, the operating system. I strongly feel that this is the wrong direction to go, but it’s not my decision to make.
> What else is Alex supposed to do other than improving the API?
Improving the API is useless – first of all one guy alone cannot do such a giant task. Second and more importantly: nobody will every use them anyway as WF market share is too insignificant – heck even FF only has 10% market share left and lost lots of developers.
The only thing he can do is re-enable XUL for addons and put back the stuff Mozilla removes.
The only reason most of the WF users use WF in the first place are XUL addons. If I cannot use XUL addons I have no use for WF.
> Improving the API is useless â€“ first of all one guy alone cannot do such a giant task.
The API is already developed, see the first link. It could be implemented by him easily, as he doesn’t need to develop it all by himself in the first place.
> Second and more importantly: nobody will every use them anyway as WF market share is too insignificant â€“ heck even FF only has 10% market share left and lost lots of developers.
Can’t argue with you on this one. I am just thinking that all things started out small. And since Waterfox will still be compatible with all Firefox add-ons anyway, I really don’t see the issue here.
> The only thing he can do is re-enable XUL for addons and put back the stuff Mozilla removes.
Yeah, he might be able to bring features like the one mentioned in the article back. Waterfox e.g. still has the “ask me everytime” cookie option that Firefox had removed long ago. But XUL add-ons? No. Mozilla is actively removing very complex code with many dependencies from Firefox. Other than patching Firefox/Waterfox 56, I don’t think he’ll be able to do anything about it.
> The only reason most of the WF users use WF in the first place are XUL addons. If I cannot use XUL addons I have no use for WF.
I second this, but you – just as I – should realize that anything beyond patching Waterfox 56 won’t happen. It’s just not feasible for a single person.
@Ben: “nobody will every use them anyway as WF market share is too insignificant”
This is true. But, to fantasize a moment, wouldn’t it be awesome if all the forks got together and agreed to collectively do this in a cross-compatible way? That might make it more attractive to developers, and would spread the work of supporting it over several different fork devs.
I understand the anger of many people about the fact that legacy add-ons are no longer supported. After all, I am also angry about it. However, it should be clear that a single person (the Waterfox dev in this case) cannot develop a browser alone. It’s impossible these days. He already does all he can to keep them going (backporting of all security fixes). He is aiming to introduce this in Waterfox 60, though:
This will enhance the capabilities of WebExtensions greatly. For Mozilla, this is a “non-starter” for whatever reason. See Mozilla’s reaction here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1427377
@Ben: “The problem people like me have with the new browser, is the removal of â€œlegacy addonsâ€ â€“ aka XUL addons.”
Yes, this is me. The enhancements are fine (although I personally have not seen much improvement in terms of stability or performance, I’ve also seen no harm so I don’t care about them one way or another). My problem is that functionality that is important to me has been removed.
If the new add-on system were as capable as the old, there’d be no issue. But it’s not, so there’s a problem.
Also, Quantum (FF57+) represents a bit of a tipping point to me as well. Mozilla has made enough terrible decisions in recent history (Pocket integration, Cliqz, Looking Glass, etc.) that my trust in them has been shaken pretty hard. FF no longer has the assumption of trustworthiness that it used to have, which removes one of two biggest advantages FF has had over other browsers (the other advantage was the plugin system, and that’s gone now too).
I also found that very strange to use – very counterintuitive for me.
Have a look at CookieBro
That`s what I`m using now in both WF (replacing CookieKeeper !) and also the test install of Quantum – I found it easy to understand and use because I don`t like complex things that annoy me.
I want to browse not micromanage addons.
Every week a new “no-feature” from Mozilla guys!
Just one advice: Install Waterfox.
You can still remove individual cookies from the page info:
1. Click on the left side end of the url bar on the information button
2. Expand right
3. Click “More Information”
4. Security Tab -> View Cookies
Only shows the cookie accessible to the current page.
@Dad Nope, shows everything. Figure out step 5.
That’s not a solution, as you have to go to the page to do it.
For now, you can still open up the old dialog by going to chrome://browser/content/preferences/cookies.xul. This could be removed at any time though.
@All Things: “This could be removed at any time though.”
That’s one of the (several) problems that keeps me from shifting to Quantum — it’s unstable, in the sense that it’s impossible to know what will and won’t be there tomorrow.
Fix your article’s title, it’s more of a streamlining and rearrangement of options than actual removal.
Actually, the removal of the individual cookie management from the Options/Security & Privacy page in Nightly is what the article is about. The title is accurate.
As it turns out individual cookie management is available from the URL bar, thanks again to johnp for the reminder, but how many users will know and remember that. Hell, I’ve been using FF for 10 years and forgot about that and I go in there often to save images and videos.
The article still falsely claims Google Chrome has individual cookie management options which Firefox doesn’t have; that is a lie. Both browsers allow to manage cookies from DevTools and from the page info, accessible from the URL bar.
An errata to the post would only be fair.
Reading the comments here is sad. You still have control over cookies, not just individual ones… in that dialog. There are better built-in tools for that.
@Jessica: ” There are better built-in tools for that.”
I disagree that it’s sad for users to voice their discontent about changes to a product they love. It’s the opposite of sad — it’s important information for the manufacturer, and the sort of information that can’t be had in any other way.
The Security tab of the page info dialog and the Storage tab of the developer tools.
Neither of those are adequate substitutes, though, because they each only deal with the cookies related to a single site. (Unless I’m mistaken about the storage inspector — I’m not an expert in using that, but it looks like it deals with one site at a time, too).
Using the page info dialog you can access cookies from all sites, notice the filter above the cookies, just remove it with a click.
Alternatively you can bookmark chrome://browser/content/preferences/cookies.xul
Or install a cookie management add-on
You’re right… ALL of the cookies can be accessed from the URL bar and also with “chrome://browser/content/preferences/cookies.xul”.
I guess this is OK, then. :)
“Do you need the removed functionality?”
Yes, I need it — this is something I use very frequently.
What is Mozilla trying to achieve by removing this? Was this function a security weakness? Was it causing anyone any trouble? What’s the bug here? Honestly, this feels almost spiteful.
I don’t know. I’ve spent a lot of time trying to figure out what Mozilla is trying to accomplish. It’s such a bizarre mix of actions that it’s a hard question to answer.
The only thing I can think of is that they’ve decided that they want to make a dumbed-down “appliance” browser to appeal to those who don’t actually use computers or the web that much, and they want to do this so much that they don’t mind making the browser terrible if your needs are much beyond that.
That may not be a bad business decision, but it really does leave the rest of us rather stranded, at least until some new browser comes along to take up the role that Firefox has abandoned.
Do you also remove LocalStorage, IndexedDB and cache when removing individual cookies? Because if you’re not doing so and have only been removing the tracking cookies, you won’t have preventing tracking. The old interface (which is still accessible btw) was misunderstood by uninformed users that expected it to remove all possible tracking methods. The new interface is more intuitive for the majority of users.
The author of the change goes into detail here:
I have always been aware that tracking cookies are one (small) part of the entire spying infrastructure that’s used. And not even one of the more important pieces. I do all I can, but I also recognized that I can’t plug every hole.
@ John & Shinto,
Tracking cookies are mainly used for advertising and marketing. This move likely = more revenue for Mozilla.
That is exactly the point. They have just changed target user groups.
Simple users are their hope to be finally able to beat Chrome in market share numbers… Somewhere, sometime…. or should one say better somehow?
This and their branding fetish: Do not touch our UI – it is a trademark and you shall not be allowed to have too much control over it, even if we improve web extensions
Any more questions? ;)
They serve the needs of their corporate sponsors, not the userbase. Nearly a third of their income is from google alone.
Corporations want PC’s turned into entertainment consoles not under the control of the user. The ‘trusted computing’ model specifically identifies the user as an enemy that the software must be protected against.
More of the push to centralise all power in the hands of the few. Mozilla execs want to be part of the privileged few and are being richly rewarded for playing ball.
I won’t be surprised that at some point they’ll say “screw this, we’re getting Blink and ditching Quantum” because that would only mean that someone for years wanted to destroy Mozilla, Firefox and Gecko along with all unique customization features from the inside.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory I know but just look what they become.
Still using FF51 and “””Only upgrading Ublock0
without using cloud settings”””.
Also using the old legacy noscript and legacy self destructing cookies, HTTPS everywhere on default, as well as Pants paranoid settings.
Still not seeing any reason to upgrade…
Am Running Fast and clean with no out of the
ordinary footprint & absolutely No leaks.
Oh; still using the legacy random agent spoofer; It makes my old 24″ screen eazy to read from 6 feet away when profile set to android ((laughin)) yeah It’s frozen in time only running a mirror image when online. it’s a great way to play. Ya know it?
In the past I was bragging how I could do many things with Firefox, now Firefox is just half web browser with all the features removed.
Want to call using Skype? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
Want to call using Hangout? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
Want to download file from ftp? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
Want to open mht file? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
Want to delete individual cookies? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
Want to open flash without installing it? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
Want to sync browser easily between mobile and desktop? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
(feel free to add more)
Firefox is even using more RAM than Chrome. Looks like Firefox takes all the negatives from Chrome and removes all the positives.
Maybe next time Firefox will remove the scrolling tab feature? I think this is the only advantage left Firefox has over Chrome.
> Want to call using Skype? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
Use a Skype Client or use a service that supports WebRTC.
> Want to call using Hangout? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
Firefox supports WebRTC, so as long as a web app uses that standard and does not discriminate based on user agent you should be fine. Mozilla has no control over how Google only supports their own product. It even work(ed) in december:
> Want to download file from ftp? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
Firefox can. Unless you mean FTPS.
> Want to delete individual cookies? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
Firefox can. The author is just reporting about it being removed from the preferences, not entirely.
> Want to open flash without installing it? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
Who would want flash today anyway?
Also, Mozilla actually went the way to support flash without having to install it via shumway, but gave up that project. Chrome still bundles (“installs”) Adobe flash.
> Want to sync browser easily between mobile and desktop? Firefox cannot, Chrome can.
Firefox Sync works great across all types of devices.
Ftp is on the way out: https://www.ghacks.net/2018/02/20/firefox-60-with-new-preference-to-disable-ftp/
People have been saying that flash is dead but you cannot deny that many websites still use flash. Considering Firefox has been imitating Chrome to appeal to casual users. Bundled flash is more user friendly than asking user to install it.
Firefox for Android is garbage and really slow: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/7yo6fm/firefox_android_makes_me_sad/
That’s enough talking about the negatives, so can you tell me what’s the advantage Firefox has over Chrome?
> Ftp is on the way out […]
If you would have read the article you would have read part of the quote: “We will be better off putting our energy into including a different js based ftp stack.”
So to me it looks like they would rather replace the current stack with a different implementation (rust or js/wasm probably).
Chrome also considered removal of built-in ftp support a while ago: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=333943
> People have been saying that flash is dead but you cannot deny that many websites still use flash.
I can deny that. The last time I saw flash was for a single products administration web-app (that was also outdated and has a html5 version by now) during my previous job. Besides that I haven’t had any flash running for years now.
> Thatâ€™s enough talking about the negatives, so can you tell me whatâ€™s the advantage Firefox has over Chrome?
Firefox still has the most advanced and extensible add-on ecosystem, has built-in privacy protection and tracking prevention developed with the Tor-Browser developers, is blazingly fast with stylo and webrender (though the latter is still a bit buggy) and is more memory-efficient than chrome. Firefox for Android is a bit behind, but that’s to be expected, since it doesn’t yet have servo enabled. It’s fast enough for my needs and offers easy tab-sending to my other devices, which I probably use more often than the browser itself.
@johnp: “Firefox still has the most advanced and extensible add-on ecosystem”
From a PR point of view, it might be best not to mention the add-on system. It was only recently that the much superior one was ditched, after all, and there is still a substantial pool of bad feelings about that change. You might want to let the memory and sense of loss about that fade before trying to talk up the replacement system.
Or use Opera for better battery life and efficiency.
As a normal web user, I can’t remember the last time I needed to delete one specific cookie, as opposed to deleting all cookies for a site, which I have needed to do on rare occasions.
Developers obviously need this functionality, but you can remove or even edit individual cookies in the built-in devtools, under storage inspector. No third-party addon required.
So… not sure why I should care about this.
Many sites set advertising tracking cookies (from the main site, not from an ad), so I regularly go through and delete just those, while keeping the other cookies that maintain my preferences for that site.
You need an add-on that whitelists individual cookies while others are blocked or auto-deleted, that sounds like it would save you a hell of a lot of time
@Splinter: “that sounds like it would save you a hell of a lot of time”
You’d think so, but really, not so much. The problem with whitelisting is that web sites change things around without warning, necessitating inspecting the cookies every so often anyway.
I have various anti-tracking lists enabled in uBlock Origin for that, and actually the built-in Firefox tracking protection would do it too. I believe Firefox uses the Disconnect list.
Sounds like this would fit you rather well:
Just needs someone to implement it. (Dunno if the necessary APIs are already there)
Martin, I am go computer guru, Have you heard of Steemit though? I believe a site like yours would do pretty good over there.
Yes I heard of it. I think that Steemit works, but only if I’d move the writing to it. It is easier for video creators who simply upload the video to the site as well but you cannot do that for articles because of duplicate content and such.
For all who are still confused.. Simple users do not need that, power users do.
Mozilla wants to absorb Chrome users, power users feature go away.
Now try to recalculate the security of userchrome.css
Disagree, I’m a power user and I never need to delete individual cookies outside of web development.
Another poster said he manually deletes tracking cookies, but a) that’s an insane amount of work compared to just running the built-in Firefox tracking protection or uBlock Origin and b) you can still do it in devtools anyway.
I’m very sensitive to privacy and control issues, and I’m not a Firefox apologist– I’m really unhappy about how they broke mouse gestures. And I really don’t see this as a problem at all.
There is still a difference between power users who are using tons of add-ons or the power users who love customization, features and built-inside functions.
I should have made it more clear that the power user group i was referring too is the second variant, not the first. The second one can be more called geeks/nerds while the first one, who are also power users are not interested in geek/nerds needs.
Also, the first class of power users still does belong to simple users, as their needs are still way then less specific as compared with class 2.
That should make more sense and clear any confusion.
Still, it is a shame and a disgrace that Mozilla is just bowing down to Chrome users – the very definition of the most simple users (which are no power users at all).
Mozilla of today is just riding the corpse of developers who had a vision and real goals instead of just being lame number counters. That Mozilla today has zero respect for the pasts heritage and they are also unable to understand it at all. It is just riding a dead cow for the sake for making money and trying to push Chrome away from number 1 in market share numbers out of pure jealousy and greed!
That is the very definition of abusing Open Source philosophy!
Seems, Mozilla assumes every power-user and developer are born as such, ie they were never born as noobs. So, Firefox needs to be dumbed down.
……. The likely end game is for Mozilla to extract more revenue from computer dummies through advertising and marketing via unremoved cookies.
@Paul T: ” thatâ€™s an insane amount of work compared to just running the built-in Firefox tracking protection or uBlock Origin”
Perhaps, but the tracking protection and uBlock origin are insufficient for my purposes. I understand that you (and others) likely have different needs/comfort levels.
“And I really donâ€™t see this as a problem at all.”
Which is fair — but again, different people have different needs. For example, I don’t find gestures to be useful at all and so I never use them. Therefore, what FF does with them has no impact on me whatsoever. But, you do value them — therefore it’s a problem! It’s just not my problem. Same with other issues that may not be important to you personally, but are to others.
@John Fenderson: Absolutely, did not mean to malign your concerns. They are valid. But they are very “long tail”, in that the vast majority of users don’t share them.
As deleting individual cookies is still possible via two separate means without an addon, I don’t see this as a problem at all.
And even if it wasn’t possible, I generally agree with the argument that features which a vanishingly small portion of the population cares about are better implemented as addons rather than in the core of the browser.
Where I disagree with Mozilla, and you may too, is what proportion of the population is “vanishingly small”. Mouse gestures demonstrably had hundreds of thousands of users, for example.
@Paul T: “As deleting individual cookies is still possible via two separate means without an addon, I donâ€™t see this as a problem at all.”
Yes, now that someone clearly explained how the new way works, I’m OK with it.
” I generally agree with the argument that features which a vanishingly small portion of the population cares about are better implemented as addons rather than in the core of the browser.”
I agree with this as well — it’s why I still feel that Pocket, for instance, needs to be an extension rather than built into the browser.
“Where I disagree with Mozilla, and you may too, is what proportion of the population is â€œvanishingly smallâ€.”
I have serious doubts about Mozilla’s metrics about feature usage. It looks to me like they have a bad case of selection bias going on. But I don’t know — I’m certainly not doing any usage studies myself, so I’m subject to even more selection bias.
That said, Mozilla seems to be following the latest fad in software development, of figuring that if something is not frequently used then the product is improved my removing it. Sometimes that’s true, and sometimes it’s not — the raw usage numbers give no insight on that question. The end result is what we’re seeing across all sorts of software these days: a race to the bottom.
But this is an industry-wide problem, not Mozilla-specific.
Cookiebro WebExtension will let you manage individual cookies and also filter/block unwanted cookies: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/cookiebro/
Yet another shot in the foot by Mozilla. Not surprised, at all.
As some others mentioned, you can view all cookies in the Inspector -> Storage in this build and delete and edit each one you see still.
So for developers there is no difference or concern.
In terms of normal users the plugins such as adblock will block the same cookies working, and other plugins like Ghostery still work the same. The cookie information and use is all still there, you can remove cookies from the quick menu in the same way as people mentioned.
The only thing is the deep backend management here and brings it similar to how other browsers do it. I am a developer and never gone to those areas anyway and if they are changing it most normal users did not either.
I think this will be a non issue.
Trusting MozCo to manage cookies is like trusting the fox to protect the hen house IMO.
Highly misleading article Martin, very disappointing. You are beginning to write like a sensationalist Daily Mail hack.
I use Cookie Autodelete and purge my local files regularly (and at FF shutdown). These new changes will not impact me much, but they make things simpler when you understand what has been done.
I suggest people read the reddit thread, specifically the dev’s post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/80bhv7/new_cookie_management_or_lack_of_in_nightly/duumo43/
And yet Mozilla is only developing for Chrome and simple users these days.
Your so much loved Mozilla is stealing and abusing the property of developers no longer part of Mozilla – origin Mozilla is dead. What is left is an ex-Chrome developer invaded numbers counting big business corporation nothing better than Google or Microsoft – money and fame greedy and branding centered only, which excludes much user interaction with the browser UI!
In the past Mozilla had visions, honor and respect of geeks, theme and add-on developers. Your fake Mozilla here has no value. If these guys would have the tiniest bit of honor in themselves, they would rename themselves and the product they are creating.
Because what Firefox is now has nothing to do anymore with the Geek/enthusiast driven Firefox of the past.
Btw. full respect to all the origin crew who has known that geek/enthusiast needs can co-exist with minimalism without bowing down to minimalism and simplictiy only!
Your Mozilla is bringing shame to the philosophy of Open Source. Just focusing on the technical aspect of Open source is worth garbage if there is no right philosophy behind anymore.
I totally agree. Couldn’t have said it any better.
@Appster it is also quite telling that Mozilla has a big reddit follower crowd. From time to time i read there what is written, and majority of people here are hating customization and features – basically all what is not simplicity and minimalism is called bloat.
Rather toxic place – same like Mozilla is a highly toxic developer. That is exactly the crowd which Mozilla is aiming at today. Rather depressive to say the least!
How we are saying at where i am was born (and have moved away since long time already):
Allt Ã¤r inte guld som glimmar!
How is it misleading? The article is about the removal of individual cookie management from the Privacy & Security page of the Options. Individual cookie management is certainly not available in my install of Nightly, not in the Options. Highly misleading?
What desktop browsers do not have individual cookie management in the Options/Settings? Vivaldi, Chrome, Chrome Dev and some others I can think of all have individual cookie management. Seriously, what browser does not have individual cookie management? Is FF60 going to be the first? That… is an achievement to be proud of.
@MarkCB: “I suggest people read the reddit thread, specifically the devâ€™s post here: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/80bhv7/new_cookie_management_or_lack_of_in_nightly/duumo43/”
You’re talking as if Martin was being intentionally deceptive. I see no reason to think that’s true. The fact is that this is a very confusing change, and it was far from clear that you can still engage in individual cookie management.
The dev’s comment that you link to does not make any of that clear at all — in fact, for people who are concerned about this, it fans the flames further.
The important information is only found in comments by other people, later in the conversation, both here and there.
This is another step to force every installation to be a cookie cutter copy for ease of maintenance. Mozilla continues down the path to a flashy do-it-all browser for Everyuser.
On the other hand, old fashoned, retrograde Pale Moon recently gave users more control over cookies. On the Menu bar under History>Clear Recent History, the option to clear “Site Connectivity Data” clears persistant cookies. Along with the option to clear session cookies, this wipes all cookies along with several other caches of your choice with a mere 3 clicks, and no messing around in about:config. Pale Moon holds true to user choice and a simple browser.
Watch it though, Moon-Matt are starting to bare down on the idea on too much user choice. They really seem to treat digging into about:config with much more disdain that they used to. Just look at this thread:
Moon-Matt are becoming more unhelpful by the day. Used to be they’d encourage you to tinker.
Mozillaâ€™s new slogan: We out-Google Google, one code line at a time.
As someone said on reddit:
“Holy shit what a clickbait title. Nothing is really removed, just streamlined and rearranged.”
Or another user:
“Nice clickbait. They only moved it.”
Unfortunately true. That’s not the ghacks I know.
You know what’s interesting to me about that? The reddit thread, and to lesser extent, comments defending FF here, have been quick to call BS on this cookie issue, but you have to dig pretty deep in the comments before you find someone explaining exactly how the new way works. Mostly what you find is simple comments like calling it clickbait or just brief mentions that “it’s different, not gone”, without anything that would actually inform people of how it works now.
This seems to be a trend that started with the FF crew and has been continued with a segment of the FF user base — a sort of condescension toward people for not knowing how things are working now. There is a serious amount of miscommunication and lack of effective communication going on around FF.
Perhaps that’s a big part of why so many long-time FF users are feeling like they are actively not wanted in the FF community anymore.
Also clickbait.. That is fitting in a 4Chan thread, but on the other side… many of Mozilla’s new gained normies are very well educated in that certain part of the web!
Hell, even Vivaldi – what is partly closed source has a more reasonable community and more reasonable developers who are actually CARING for user needs and demands.
And to double-fail against a REAL commercial closed source browser… that is a hard piece to swallow, not that the new retarded Mozilla management would care, but what can you expect from greedy stupidheads ;)
“Also clickbait.. That is fitting in a 4Chan thread, but on the other sideâ€¦ many of Mozillaâ€™s new gained normies are very well educated in that certain part of the web!”
1) 4chan hardly invented the term “clickbait,” and the word is widespread enough that to claim it’s primarily used on 4chan is silly. “Botnet,” sure (as unlike its normal meaning, it is used primarily on /g/ to refer to programs that track user data) – but not “clickbait”.
2) >implying we wanted reddit normies on 4chan in the first place
Phoneposting was a mistake.
Like the users, so are the developers!
No wonder why Mozilla is in such a bad moral shape when all their goals are about attracting the most normal numbnuts who only demand simplicity and minimalism and call everything else bloat!
At the same time, those pals are Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/Discord/Whatsapp/snapchat junkies.. the ultimate definition of something really bloated and the ultimate definition of a privacy nightmare!
That very special user base is freaking out over UI customization and a deep going but well working and reasonable function set, dismissing everyone who is supporting something like that…. THAT is really the users Mozilla are attracting today. The total zealot crowd!
Best one can do is to stay far away from that freak show called Mozilla Firefox! :D
It could be so funny if it would not be actually that sad!
Now You: Do you need the removed functionality?
Yes, I do. I frequently remove individual cookies from sites that wish to track me more closely than I wish to be tracked. Some sites even during the same session I first viewed them in.
Firefox claims to be doing this to prevent the web from being broken, but as far as I can tell, they’re aiming to actually be more friendly to web developers (and advertisers) than users.
Mozilla is just caring for the normal/simple user anymore. Everything what is not graspable for the uneducated normie will be removed, as that is the most ignorant and not compromise-willing user group.
It is sad when a developer who once valued the almost unlimited freedom of the user restricts their once full open browser to a crowd who is the complete opposite and demands only a nice looking UI and simplified stuff which “just works”!
Dont get exited or disappointed. We all know that FF is disappearing, on its way out. This and similar action only accelerrates that.
I hope they put back the removed functionality. Will the option to block all cookies except certain site listed, i.e., white listing, still be available? I like to block all cookies except for sites I like that I know I’ll need cookies for.
I’m just going to ignore all and any Ghacks Firefox stories on this site as the comments section is invaded by Appster and Kossan Nyx with their evangelical anti-FF crusade. At least on reddit you can drown out their angry tirade by hitting a downvote.
There is a difference if it is not justified criticism or if it is justified.
In Mozilla’s case it is justified. All is well documented and available to see.
– Mozilla’s goal to creater one single recognizable UI branding which excludes user interaction
– Their constant disrespect of add-on developers
– Their constant disrespect of theme developers
– Their recent dislike for power/advanced/ users and general nerds since at least 2013!
What you show is one of the typical normie reaction… Other opinion not wanted – censorship!
Who in gods holy name do you think you are? Some radical leftist dictator? Mozilla’s incompetent lawyer and defender of their mortal stupidity?
You are another great proof why Mozilla are incompetent wankstains as they have been declaring you as their new user group instead of advanced users! That is what you can expect from a normie user, all other opinions which are not their own being surpressed.
And it puts a very bad light onto Mozilla that they focus on such numbnuts like you people are :D
Something more what i forgot @Nightlyuser …
There would nothing be around to criticize if Mozilla still would offer also nerds an equal feature set like it was available in Firefox 22 for example.
There would be nothing to complain about if Mozilla would not have changed into a money and Google dependent b*tch who has sold their soul and old user base for an utterly dumb race with Google Chrome for it’s users.
And there would nothing at all be around to complain about if Mozilla would not have dumped all their past philosophies!
Then, Mozilla-present would be a good company. But they are not. They are followers and no leaders. And that has to be said and other users have to be warned of a leftist SJW invaded browser developer who once had real diversity for ALL users, no matter if simple or not simple ones.
But as it can be seen again and again, braindead radical leftism, greed and jealousy can mess up everything!
But as it can be seen again and again, braindead radical leftism, greed and jealousy can mess up everything!
Er, I always saw big business interests as being catered to by right wing governments. You seem to be making repeated references to fascist and left-wing politics as being part of the Google and Mozilla business mindset, and you’re starting to do it with the intensity of a zealot. You really are starting to sound like a fanatic rebel, so I’d suggest stopping it.
I’m not denying that Google (and formerly Microsoft) have tried to corner every side of the tech market, but bringing these fascist philosophies is something you’re taking WAY TOO FAR.
I do NOT hate old origin Mozilla. I do not hate old origin Firefox up to version 28!
What i do hate is Mozilla’s change of target user base and giving up their visions and old philosophy and instead adopting a new one – that the battle with the competition and to become number one in market share numbers is more of value than supporting advanced users.
I do respect past Mozilla/Mozilla developers/past versions. All that has my maximum available gratitude.
But this… this is neither Firefox and not Mozilla. This is Google and Google Chrome 2.0 – So give me a reason why i should give that imposters here some respect today!
@Nightly User: Appster is just pointing out issues about Firefox Quantum, and yes he’s a fan of Waterfox (although I now feel that given Alex’s new direction, that devotion to Waterfox may now be a tad misguided, since it’s just going to be Quantum)
But Kossan Nyx has the audacity to ask if you are, well let me show you what he said …..
“Who in gods holy name do you think you are? Some radical leftist dictator? Mozillaâ€™s incompetent lawyer and defender of their mortal stupidity?”
I mean, Kossan Nyx is getting carried away and you can actually envision him frothing at the mouth when he typed that – tsk tisk, what that blood pressure Kossan!
>”But Kossan Nyx has the audacity to ask if you are, well let me show you what he said â€¦..
â€œWho in gods holy name do you think you are? Some radical leftist dictator? Mozillaâ€™s incompetent lawyer and defender of their mortal stupidity?â€”
I just read Kossan’s “tirades”. You’re right, s/he’s definitely wrong about equating Mozilla’s user interface decisions of recent years with “right-wing” or “left-wing” politics. That stuff comes across as pretty incoherent. S/he’s right about everything else, though. Since Firefox 29, Mozilla has been all about fixing things that weren’t broken, and breaking them in the process. Too bad there aren’t any alternatives. Even though Firefox keeps getting worse at a steady pace, by imitating Chrome, it’s still better than Chrome and browsers based on it, like Opera or even Vivaldi. For the time being, I returned to pre-Australis Firefox, that is Palemoon, although it’s already doomed as its developer will have no choice but to move to an Australis-based browser sooner or later.
Not at all @Jodythornton i was quite relaxed and not angered at all when writing what i did. It was just a natural reaction of demanding censorship – Which IS a common thing happening in dictatorships. So, the next logical step was of course to ask if that person here is related with one.
But i can draw a very good conclusion of how you write… Have seen many many posts especially about a certain browser and it’s developer:
And that conclusion is… you are too one of that wankstain numbnuts :D And that also is written without any hard feelings, just a little smile in my face ;)
OK then, so instead of frothing at the mouth while typing your tirades, you are straight-faced and smiling when you type it. It’s a good thing you were there to correct me.
First off, there has been no inaccuracy of what I typed about that particular browser’s development team. If you were worth your salt, you would also care about users of that browser being given less than stellar treatment by Moon-Matt. So I don’t know what you tire of my writing about something that’s true – that bares repeating. Although I vehemently disagree with your political slant towards Google and Mozilla, you repeat it because you think it bares repeating, right? So you carry on the same way that you claim I do.
But another thing, I’ve never called you (or Moon-Matt for that matter) a “wankstain numbnut” – to their face or even behind their back. So if you think that’s acceptable, well that’s just piss-poor behaviour on your part. In fact, when you describe yourself as smiling while you type it, that sounds borderline psychopathic to me.
Do you really believe i would ever show respect to modern f*scists and N*zis and other discriminating utter-sc*m like actual Mozilla developers?
Then see the term “smiling” – just as my expression for utter despise. All the ones who limit freedom are nothing than modern f*scists.
Even a bacteria is more of use and value if i compare it to the above mentioned criteria.
OK so your borderline deranged @Kossan Nyx, but even at that, the whole Fascist and extreme-left arguments you make are beyond fanatical.
I’ll leave it at that, because I’m just provoking you if I continue to reply to you, and I have much more productive things to do. Admiring the smell of my own gas exhaust would be a MUCH more honourable and productive endeavour.
You misunderstand – you wanted an answer and you turned it around in a context so it was fitting your opinion of myself.
I am still not angry or provoked – i am calm, collected and have a very nice evening right now.
All i did was push things from a pure misconception into the right direction – how it actually is.
@Jody Thornton I almost never get angry at all. But believe me, when i do – you can start to run :D
But i guess everyone of us has a certain red line which should not be crossed. I am neither a f*scist or other kind of fanatic. I just have moral standards and my expression is sometimes… well… a bit misleading for others.
So no, you have not provoked me in any kind of a way, if you would have, you really would have known it from the way i am writing.
Peace and friendly greetings – Ha det sÃ¥ kul! :)
From your very username it can be seen that you are one of the IMHO braindead idiots who are doing the job of Mozilla’s quality assurance team for free. Yep, a company reaping in half a billion dollar per year surely is in dire need of those free testers, haha.
The Firefox subreddit did a wonderful job while Firefox sunk from 30% market share to a mere 10%. They applauded every move Mozilla made during this time. When Mozilla temporarily terminated the e10s project, they all said it was useless anyway. Now it is the best thing ever since sliced bread was invented. A clueless place with even more clueless commenters.
Furthermore, my dearNightlyUser, I am sure you’d hardpressed to explain where you see the “tirade” in me pointing out how…
– Mozilla simplifies Firefox to the disadvantage of power users who helped promote the platfrom in the first place.
– Mozilla cripples extension into a joke of their former selves.
– Mozilla is involved with companies like Cliqz (owner of Ghostery), whose extension is known for selling data to advertisers.
All of those things are facts you just refuse to acknowledge. If I were on Reddit, I would wear every single downvote by people like you as a batch of honor. The kind of person you represent should be prohibited from accessing the internet, to be sure.
Why not present counterarguments to the comments that you find so offensive? That would be useful and informative. Or, if you don’t want to go to that much effort, why not simply ignore those comments?
Yeah, I know that it’s still possible to work around this most recent removal, for the time being. We’ve seen this before with extensions. First things get moved from the usual settings to about:config. Then they’re gone completely. You gotta leave it to Mozilla, if there’s anything they’re good at, it’s removing features.
BYE BYE freedom, choice, expression, variety, and intellectual growth, Hello death to all 5 players fighting to control, make their own rules, and self-appointed standards based on no input of end-users. Why? the end.
noticed how FF and Google are all over the web as self-appointed browser standardization gurus? How the add-ons they had spawned ingenuity, careers, and growth, now the user choices are the burden of the user instead of the developer of the product? Devaluating another career too young to be known for limits on potential of growth, jobs, and economical growth. QUANTUM, not that ballpark, or resemblance. I lost hope with this, sadly it is default to Linux, so dummies of the millennium plus, don’t have to learn challenging things, and stay at home unemployed with their parents for lack of skill to work. anyone of the previous millenium have seen technology used to control, addict, and dumb society down like they do prisoners. FYI, poker anyone? I usually win.
Now Mozilla has removed chrome://browser/content/preferences/cookies.xul
I find Firefox Quantum still to be a RAM hog and slow to load pages. One of the main reasons I used Firefox was because of its extensions, but most of my favorite extensions have not been converted
Time to switch browsers again
If you want to delete or edit individual cookies for a site, you can do so in the storage inspector of the developer tools: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Storage_Inspector
V60 of firefox has an issue with not allowing cookies to be blocked.I set firefox to block cookies outright and it was still allowing cookies to be set.I then installed cookie autodelete and this was not functioning correctly.There is something wrong with firefox cookie settings and its too much of a pain to find out the why and how to rectify.
palemoon and basilisk do it correctly and clear cookies and storage when i leave a domain.
God no, why they done this!?!?
Removing this feature is of a similar stupidity level as when Chrome removed support for streaming jpeg (and thereby switched off every baby-cam). It is nuggets like this that made Firefox the love of site developers. Yes, I have used this extensively over the past decade to learn about what I could do with cookies, by inspecting the ones from my own and others’ sites. What’s next? You won’t be able to look at the page source anymore?!? Does anybody have a good fork of Navigator going?
Please don’t do this.
How can I develop without seeing cookies?
Cookies are mine. Not yours.
So effing tired of constant changes. Let us get some work done without constantly stopping to read and discover find workarounds.
Another plugin. More crap to fail, disappear completely, jump on your face or introduce more interlocking pieced that don’t quite interlock.
Google thinks they own the web. Don’t Firefox like that too please.
We need to have total control over cookies, ability to delete some, while preserving others. Mozilla is ruining this for us. We are not willing to sit and scroll through dozens, if not hundreds, of individual websites and manually click DELETE or PROTECT on each cookie! We need ONE page that lists every cookie, including ITS CONTENTS!, just like the old CookieKeeper did.
What on earth is Mozilla trying to accomplish by removing this ability?
There is way too much stalking & surveilling going on.
Mozilla is really trying to annoy the (few) users they have left with Firefox. Started with integrating Pocket, which has to be a plugin, if anyone wishes for that feature (I don’t).
This move now prompted me to re-inspect my shutoff of Pocket, which I had done immediately after they integrated it, fully activated, without asking. Now I find that they introduced new settings for Pocket in about:config, including an ID, and of course, again they never asked whether I want that or not.
So for everyone who, like me, thought they turned off Pocket, reinspect your about:config. I wonder how many other backdoors to spy on us got implemented to further the goals of Google?