Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 57.0 Released

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 836 posts

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#801

Post by kk_cz »

coldtea wrote: post #795
kk_cz wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

great. let them use Chrome then. FF was strong in customization. I don't care if site refresh takes 20ms or 50ms - I can't notice. I do care very much if you break all of my current extensions and as a result the UI behavior I was used to is gone. It's like being forced to switch to a completely new browsers. If I wanted different browser I could have switched to Chrome years ago, thank you very much. Customization i…

> Customization is much more important than speed. Obviously it's not, since the majority of Firefox user base (which used to be very high) jumped to Chrome 5-10 years ago, despite the first having customizations (add-ons) and the latter not yet (and when it added, incompatible ones). In fact, by mozilla's own estimates (based on telemetry), only about 33% or so of their users even use add-ons.

sigh... should have ended that sentence with "for me", but I thought that it was clear enough that the entire paragraph is about my preferences, not talking about users in general.

still - as you wrote, folks who cared about speed jumped the ship already. Honestly, I don't believe they're coming back, just because FF's speed is now comparable to Chrome.

> In fact, by mozilla's own estimates (based on telemetry), only about 33% or so of their users even use add-ons.

alternatively: advanced users that tend to use add-ons also happen to be those who know how to disable telemetry.

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#802

Post by MadWombat »

Viper007Bond wrote: post #740
MadWombat wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you post a link? I have looked at their site and all current builds, including dev say that they are not 57 compatible.

Sorry, I may have heard wrong. I personally just stopped using the addon.

shrug I have yet to find a viable alternative

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#804

Post by infogulch »

microtheo wrote: post #658
parmesan wrote: post #116

I just updated - WOW! What an improvement! Compared startup time and scrolling around some over-monetized sites; Behaves just as well as Chrome. Time for a switch again, I've missed FireFox since I started having Chrome as my default browser back in ~2011

Yes, it is even better if you have a precision touchpad and you disable smooth scrolling. Whole new world of reactivity! It is almost as smooth as edge!

Whoa thanks for the tip! This is so much better!

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#805

Post by CorpusCalcium »

HaroldTheBarrel wrote: post #738
CorpusCalcium wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can read the bug report there and see what actually happened. Nobody even tried to detail what they needed until the VimFX came around a year ago to do so, and to begin workin on an experimental API. That experiment didn't really bear fruit until TWO MONTHS AGO, when the Firefox devs were knee-deep in the release cycle of their biggest product launch since version 1.0. So yeah, the Firefox devs didn't have muc…

That's not really the full picture. One of the lead Firefox extension API devs is also the primary Pentadactyl (and former Vimperator) dev. I'm sure they were aware of exactly what was needed for that and similar extensions. They also made it clear from their earliest announcements that they intended supporting these extensions. It simply isn't a priority which may be fair enough. Pentadactyl still works well on ESR.

But the full picture also includes the fact that if all people were willing to do was wait for someone else to do the work, then they really have no high ground to complain that it didn't get done in the time-frame they wanted.

Other addon devs did help push things along, and they got the abilities they needed much sooner. We can only excuse ourselves so far before we share in the responsibility for things not getting done.

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#806

Post by submeta »

submeta wrote: post #792

This post made me switch from Safari to Firefox. (I abandoned Chrome several years ago. Don't like Google's philosophy.) Hadn't really been using FF in ages. It has made tremendous improvements. Super fast startup and navigation. Also installed a plugin named Vim Vixen. Now I am able to navigate and use the browser almost without touching the mouse. Thank you Mozilla. Keep up the good work!

Firefox 57 + Duckduckgo = Winning team!

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#807

Post by xbkingx »

DamnInteresting wrote: post #212
eoger wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a look here [0] for legacy extensions replacements. [0] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TFcEXMcKrwoIAECIVyBU...

There's no replacement for ScrapBook, a plugin where I have a decade of stored annotated documents (no hyperbole, my oldest files date from 2007). Ever since I discovered that FF57 was going to kill ScrapBook I had to disable Firefox updates so I don't lose access to ~6GB of stored data. It's a mix of past, present, and future writing research. I know I have access to clumsy workarounds such as copying FF56 to a VM w…

At this point it would be best to start exploring other notetaking extensions and programs, like OneNote, Evernote, Zotero, etc. Now is the time to jump ship because from here on in it will get more and more unlikely that any viable bridges will remain compatible.

I did find this add on to convert Scrapbook files with a quick googlin' (no experience with it). Hopefully it helps. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/scrapbookx-co...

The other option is to look at some of the PDF printing add ons because I remember a few supporting batch operations on scrapbook data. At least they did in 2010-ish.

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#808

Post by xtraeme »

Yoric wrote: post #782
xtraeme wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I believe that we're moving from something unsustainable to something sane It is only unsustainable because the FF team chose to make the process more difficult than it had to be. This is how what you are saying sounds: 1. We didn't want to break plugins so we involved addon developers 2. The process takes so long that it takes 18 months to introduce any new code 3. Since 2 was so slow we decided instead we would P…

Looks like we're both running out of arguments, since we're both essentially repeating ourselves, so I'm going to admit that I'm not going to manage to convince you :) Have a good day.

I am not trying to be hard on you. I know you likely don't have any real say in the process, but as one of the senior developers at the Mozilla Foundation you have an opportunity to call out shenanigans when you see it.

First we hear the changes are because adding new code took too long because the team didn't want to break addons, yet WebExtensions does just that in ways that are far worse than just temporarily breaking addons.

Second we hear it's about privacy. Yet WebExtensions breaks a large number of privacy plugins that won't be ported. There is also the Cliqz partnership and the October experiment. "In August 2016, Mozilla ... made a strategic investment in Cliqz. Cliqz plans to eventually monetize the software through a program known as Cliqz Offers, which will deliver sponsored offers to users based on their interests and browsing history."[1] "Mozilla is experimenting with including the Cliqz plug-in by default in its open source Firefox browser."[2] The reader can decide for themselves whether or not this is in the interest of privacy.

All that is left then to explain the changes are possibly security and speed. Security I am not so sure about as privacy and security tend to go hand in hand. It would be nice if you could respond to the earlier questions. FF57 is noticeably faster however so that is at least believable.

Whatever the real story is I do appreciate you engaging with us because you have no obligation to be here and you deserve respect for that.

Stay well David, hope you have a good day too.

[1] http://archive.fo/zjf8a#selection-319.2-323.243

[2] https://www.htmlgoodies.com/daily_news/mozilla-experiments-w...

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#809

Post by infogulch »

Vinnl wrote: post #17
barrkel wrote: post #7

Hopefully most of the missing extensions will be developed sooner rather than later. I have 15 extensions installed, 14 of which are "Legacy". The most critical one, Tree Style Tabs, has been converted. That was the key blocker that prevented me from seriously using Chrome. But many more remain; Cookie Controller, RefControl, some kind of Classic Theme Restorer equivalent (to get a menu bar back for Bookmarks, at a m…

> to get a menu bar back for Bookmarks Is that something other than the "Bookmarks Toolbar" or the "Menu Bar" (which includes a bookmarks drop-down) that I can enable by right-clicking on the empty space in the toolbar?

I desperately wish FF showed the bookmarks bar on the new tab page like Chrome does. It makes bookmarks infinitely more usable for me.

Re: Firefox 57.0 Released

#810

Post by slrz »

thristian wrote: post #669
slrz wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your work on Firefox. > This WebExtension API is much smaller, much better documented, and does not expose internals-only stuff. It also doesn't expose a lot of stuff that's useful and not tied to Firefox internals in any way. The browser is one of the most heavily used programs on people's computers. Integrating it with the rest of your system and workflow can have huge payoffs in user experience and p…

As a fellow fan of It's All Text, I've looked into this a little bit, though I never got around to implementing anything. You're looking for the "Native Messaging" feature: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Na... I just checked the It's All Text github repo, and their suggested replacement is a thing called GhostText¹, which actually seems a good deal fancier that IAT ever was. ¹: https://gith…

Looking at GhostText and its editor integration scripts, those basically work by running a websocket server on localhost. Implementing access controls seems to be left as an exercise for the reader.

If I understand the native messaging API correctly, nothing in there requires the presence of any networking daemon. The browser just execs a program you can communicate with using JSON messages on stdin/stdout. That is already a lot better than I thought.

Post reply on HN