Absolutely. I won't be upgrading and I'm already looking for alternatives, as long as crucial parts of my workflow (tree tabs, session manager) have no adequate replacement. The ugly redesign is also a thorn in my side.
Agreed. The inability to customize button placement and the enforcement of a lowest-common-denominator default placement is painful. Unfortunately, all the other major alternatives are just as bad or worse.
Unsure, but doesn't the 'Customize' option give you exactly the ability to customize button placement?
The whole reason I use Firefox is the availability of add-ons such as NoScript and Cookie Culler. I'm guessing NoScript will work with Quantum, but Cookie Culler hasn't been updated since last year.
Roomy Bookmarks is also a major quality-of-life factor; it allows me to have a well-stocked bookmarks bar. And it definitely won't work with Quantum. That alone will give me strong pause about updating.
Agreed. The inability to customize button placement and the enforcement of a lowest-common-denominator default placement is painful. Unfortunately, all the other major alternatives are just as bad or worse.
Unsure, but doesn't the 'Customize' option give you exactly the ability to customize button placement?
There are some things you could change that will be going away - such as having separate (and equal sized) forward and back buttons and separating them from the location field; breaking out the stop and reload buttons; changing button appearance; and the like that depended on XUL and are going away with the new "Proton" UI.
Even now adjustments I used to be able to make in seconds by installing an alternative theme now take an hour of wrestling with the Classic Theme Restorer extension to restore and unbreak with each version upgrade.
honest question, why would anyone use an in-browser screenshot tool when screenshot tools already come pre-installed in basically every operating system? can Firefox's screenshot tool be disabled? I'd like to switch back from Chrome due to Big Brother concerns but not if Firefox is making questionable choices like this.
This is one of the best features of new Firefox for me. Normally I had to start up gimp, select an option, set few seconds timeout, grap the screenshot, and then edit it to show only the part I wanted. Screenshot in firefox is aware of the page, you can select the appropriate html tag visually. Actually I thought they removed it in recent Nighlty and was looking for it, after few days I found it in the triple dot, (j…
Note that there are a ton of ways to grab screenshots on linux that don't require you to start gimp. (I'm assuming you're using linux since you mentioned gimp; yes I know it runs on other platforms, but those platforms also have other, much easier ways to capture screenshots). On linux workstations I usually have one of those quake-console things so I hit whatever key combination triggers it (on my mac it's double-ctrl, brings down iterm 2 window). From any console you can use the "import" command (part of imagemagick package). This lets you grab the whole screen, a single window, or an arbitrary rectangle. `import foo.png` Gnome has its own screenshot tool, and there are likely dozens of other packages that do the same thing.
They did have the choice to not ship the increased sandboxing, multi-process architecture and performance constraints until three months after the new extension APIs were ready. They didn't because they thought the trade-off wasn't worth it.
They really couldn't. People don't do things until pressured. Look what happened with Python 3. It took 10 years for it to reach Python 2 parity in terms of packages...
The problem with WebExtensions has been Mozilla not providing APIs, not extension developers dragging their feet.
Thanks for the reply. Adding a "cloud" icon to a button called "Save" does not make it clearer, it makes it contradictory (does it save it or does it upload it?). It's very clear based on the design of the interface that your primary goal is to get people to upload their screenshots to your servers. The "save" button is the only one with a label. The others are icons only. The "save" button is 3x as big as the other…
> I'm not convinced "user research" is the best way to go here. If the majority of your selected users think "save" should mean "upload to mozilla" does that mean they're right? More or less, yes, if more people understand one design than another, then the one that more people understand is the right one. We're generally shooting for more than a majority though, we'd want most people to understand the interface, and…
> and specifically it was obvious after first use what was happening.
Sure, it's obvious after the first use, but if somebody is taking a screenshot of sensitive information, is the best way for them to find this out to show them that they've already uploaded said sensitive information to Mozilla's servers?
Do you have version 57.0b3? It comes with two blocking lists.
I have 57.0b6. Looks like it's only enabled on Privacy mode like others have mentioned. Would LOVE to have this enabled on regular mode (even behind a flag). I'd totally switch to Firefox for most development if that worked.
Type `about:config` in the address bar.
Then type `privacy` in the search bar that appears.
Look for `privacy.trackingprotection.ui.enabled` and double click it.
If this is a problem for you, please switch to 52 ESR and use it until June 2018, and file bug reports against those legacy extensions. Disabling updates for a piece of software that is used to run untrusted code is a terrible piece of advice.
Unfortunately, a profile backwards-incompatibility was added in FF55, IIRC, so if you're already on 56 you can't downgrade to 52.
A forum thread[1] suggests it may be possible to use the profile refresh functionality to recover most of the profile. Only problem is that it does not preserve extensions or settings.
The web developer base is far more interesting and relevant to Mozilla's mission than the extension developer base, and Quantum is the only shot Mozilla has at regaining mindshare there. Looks like it's working, though.
Here's the thing though. Developers understand the technical differences between Chrome and Firefox. To 95% of general users they don't see why they are different. They look about the same and hey, I get Chrome offered to me every time I visit Google so why not use that? The average user doesn't see the difference that gives them any reason to want Firefox. Now the extensions base will be essentially the same, stripp…
Tgis is not true The extension base is not the same. Firefox 57 will have tree style tabs, for example.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm fairly sure that if the Firefox developer team could support XUL with the new internals, they would (just look at the insane backlash for a source of motivation). But they didn't, and there must be a reason. Likely it's due to how integrated XUL is with the internals of Firefox and that couldn't gel with the Rust rewrites.
Oh I totally understand why Mozilla did what they did. It was the logical step to make Chrome addons available on Firefox, abandon the structure XUL imposed, and migrate to Servo-based components. But while they promised a better WebExtension standard (which I defended at the time), they didn't deliver. They needed more time to improve the API and make sure the most used extensions were ready[1]. Developers needed mo…
Well they gotta make the cut at some point. If Firefox waits forever then Chrome will just eat up all their users.
Don't listen to the stragglers who want all the old Firefox behaviors supported forever. The wast majority of users don't care about Tree style tabs and vim style keyboard navigation or what XUL even is. They just want something snappy and fast like Chrome. That's how you get users to use your browser. That's how Firefox became popular in the first place. That's how any browser ever became popular. Yes even IE was faster than Netscape at one point, maybe because of nefarious practices by MS, but it was faster, and that's what the users wanted. It's all about the speed.