I'm a tech pleb and my firefox just updated to v57 and now most add-ons stopped working or lost their previous config data. What the fuck are they doing? I feel like I've just been raped. Is there a way to go back to the previous version without reinstalling everything and getting back the add-ons as they were?
REEEE
Isaac Gutierrez
Other urls found in this thread:
bugzilla.mozilla.org
news.ycombinator.com
bugzilla.mozilla.org
bugzilla.mozilla.org
bugzilla.mozilla.org
developer.mozilla.org
twitter.com
Jackson Long
>I feel like I've just been raped
tell them SJWs about your feelings
Joshua Reed
>announce webextension transition two years before it happens
>work with addon developers to get their addons ported
>add legacy addon warnings to firefox and a "find replacement" button
>finally release 57 after lots of preparations
>"waaaaah my extensions no longer work"
Jordan Lee
>annouce webextension transition two years before it happens
>do not work with addon developers to get their addons ported
>add legacy addon warnings to firefox and a "find replacement" button
>release 57 without lots of preparations
>extensions no longer work
Jaxson Harris
>expecting an average flag to follow all that shit
John Sanders
They literally had a schedule when you could come to irc and pester a developer to help you port your addon.
Brandon White
They offered great help indeed
>FUCK YOU. YOU NEED CAPABILITIES NOT PROVIDED BY OUR GREAT WEBEXTENSIONS OVERLORD API? FUCK YOU. GO BACK TO YOUR BASEMENT
Connor Green
This is pure disinfo from a likely chrome shill. All of my add ons work perfectly in 57 and transitioned with their configs.
Isaiah Jenkins
Here's a list of pending improvements and additions to the API that were accepted by Mozilla.
You just need to have a good general use case and open a bug on bugzilla. Instead a lot of addons developers just wrote whiny blogposts.
Ryan Russell
Have you actually made your way through that list?
They were not at all accepted. They are discussing them. Some for more then 2 years.
Also the list of APIs rejected is probably ten times as large.
Also there are some features that will never get a replacement.
Also the stupidness of releasing new software without replacement for older APIs AT ALL.
Wyatt Jackson
[design-decision-approved] means that they were already discussed and accepted.
They might be discussing details and proper ways to implement it but the decision has been made to somehow incorporate the requested functionality.
You have no idea how hard it was to maintain the old addon system news.ycombinator.com
An extremely large part of existing addons can be ported with existing apis. Even more will be possible once they flesh out the remaining requests.
Surprisingly enough, the list of requests apis that were discussed and denied is actually shorter.
bugzilla.mozilla.org
Julian Young
>do a bunch of shit behind the scenes with DD devs, never announce anything to the public.
>One day just kill everyone's addons then say it's their own fault for not following the developer mailing lists
Jaxon Hall
DTA is a good use case.
Carter Allen
But alas, he never approached Mozilla and instead just sperged out in his blog about a migration that was announced two years prior.
Elijah Hall
He did, multiple times, they just said no.
Same with TreestyleTabs which doesn't work properly after FF57 and won't ever work properly again, since the FF devs decided they actively dislike the idea of tabs being exposed at all
Also they've discussed several times, the removal of tabs altogether - since 'new media' doesn't need them
William Martinez
List of things that DTA can no longer do:
>write to arbitrary locations in the file system (will very likely become possible as a part of the planned filesystem api)
>create multiple connections to download the same file
That's it.
>Same with TreestyleTabs which doesn't work properly after FF57 and won't ever work properly again
TST is already ported with exactly the same functionality. The only issue is that it can't hide the tab bar yet bugzilla.mozilla.org
Easton Stewart
>news.ycombinator.com
>14. realize that you still have accidentally broken some add-ons and people are (rightfully) unhappy because "Firefox broke my add-on";
>Let's break all addons instead.
This is bullshit.
Why are they putting out a new system without it being capable of replacing the old one in a complete and appropiate way while the old one was working OK without much work being put in it?
I hate this fucking excusism.
>Even more will be possible once they flesh out the remaining requests.
They should be here from day 0 releasing the system as the only way.
>An extremely large part of existing addons can be ported with existing apis.
No, they can't. At least not without missing important key features.
NoScript for example - I predict this - will not disable JS as it did in the past. It will block JS. Just like uBlock and uMatrix. And just like every addon in chromium/chrome.
This is a huge difference.
And the list goes on and on.
Moving from the old API which used to be "do whatever you want, you can do it all" to the new "you ned our permission" API is taking away the single most important feature of FF:
adaptability
In the past everyone who was shouting "they are making a chrome-clone" was wrong. Everything could be changed.
Now, this is not the case anymore.
Ian Nguyen
Multiple connections is one of the key features.
Also it is very important to keep in mind that the new way of having "addon pages" instead of real windows that behave same as every window on your platform/OS is VERY STUPID.
David Wilson
>while the old one was working OK without much work being put in it
>without much work being put in it
Did you even read the fucking post? Firefox was almost impossible to improve without breaking some addon. A lot of work was put into maintaining compatibiliy.
Do a few searches on bugzilla and you'll see countless bugs for "change x breaks addon y, we need to fix that"
The new system makes it very easy to change the internals without breaking anything.
>They should be here from day 0 releasing the system as the only way.
Then they'd be maintaining two addon systems in parallel and probably wouldn't be done before the end of the current decade.
I wish they scrapped xpcom addons four years ago.
>NoScript for example - I predict this - will not disable JS as it did in the past
I don't use noscript so I'm not really well informed but this looks pretty good bugzilla.mozilla.org
Also pic related.
Again, the old addon api was the single biggest reason why Firefox stagnated as much as it did.
Brandon Sanchez
>Why are they putting out a new system without it being capable of replacing the old one in a complete and appropiate way
Because one of the things they're trying to do with Firefox is to make it safer and sandbox every single part of it.
You can't have every single feature XUL addons had without making it impossible to sandbox and/or very insecure by design.
>while the old one was working OK without much work being put in it?
XUL addons worked "OK" in the same way Flash pages worked "OK."
They used to depend on the browser, but now Mozilla can freely rewrite the entire thing without having to deal with 9001 bug reports consisting on "muh add-on doesn't wurk anymur FIX IT."
>They should be here from day 0 releasing the system as the only way.
Maybe, but they're coming.
>No, they can't. At least not without missing important key features.
Yes, they can.
>NoScript for example - I predict this - will not disable JS as it did in the past. It will block JS.
You're 100 % wrong. Read his blog instead of spreading FUD.
>Just like uBlock and uMatrix. And just like every addon in chromium/chrome.
WebExtenaions in Firefox are NOT the same as in Chrome. Mozilla took WebExtensions and modified it. They did this to make it easier for Chrome add-on developers (90 % of them) to port their shit over, but it was heavily modified anyway.
If it was the same API, every Chrome add-on could be installed directly with no porting needed.
>In the past everyone who was shouting "they are making a chrome-clone" was wrong. Everything could be changed.
>Now, this is not the case anymore.
It is. Firefox can still be modified through .css. Firefox doesn't make 100 connections to Google servers per second, Firefox has been actively making efforts to reduce user tracking online (59 will block canvas out of the box, for instance), Firefox has a saner approach to multiprocess, Firefox is being completely rewritten, etc.
Lucas Martinez
>TST is already ported with exactly the same functionality. The only issue is that it can't hide the tab bar yet
What about the bug ugly "Tree style tab" box that the top of the side bar. Also not being able to hide the original tabs bar is a pretty big issue.
Matthew Bell
>Why are they putting out a new system without it being capable of replacing the old one in a complete and appropiate way while the old one was working OK without much work being put in it?
I'd rather have no extensions than a browser 3x slower than the competition.
>do a bunch of shit behind the scenes with DD devs, never announce anything to the public.
lol? Nightly has been bitching about old addons for so long that I'd find it incredible for an addon dev to not have heard about it.
Isaac Long
Still way slower than chrome. Just use chrome instead.
Aiden Rodriguez
They literally broke everything to achieve this.
They should not have called it FF anymore.
I can actually see that it was difficult in the past. But seriously: This is not the solution.
You cannot say: "Here is your browser, do whatever you want".
Then after you get problems with this say: "Just kidding - your lifetime spent on this was wasted"
>Also pic related.
He literally says that he is using CSPs. His actual statement is that he will "control scripting execution" as opposed to his old way of just fucking disableing JS on a domain bases.
This is a serious fuck up IMO as there is a distinct difference between blocking and deactivating.
Easton Howard
>You can't have every single feature XUL addons had without making it impossible to sandbox and/or very insecure by design.
Don't sandbox it then. These features were pure gold in a world becoming more and more obsessed with googles shit and monoweb.
>They used to depend on the browser, but now Mozilla can freely rewrite the entire thing without having to deal with 9001 bug ...
Don't call it FF then if you want to rewrite "the entire thing"
>Maybe, but they're coming.
Here is the timeline:
up until 11/2017 -> Do whatever you want
from 11/2017 on -> Do whatever we allow you to do
future -> "We will add capabilities back, promise"
>You're 100 % wrong. Read his blog instead of spreading FUD.
I am VERY sure that I am not wrong on this particular predicition. I read every single WebExtension API spec. There is no way to turn JS off. He will only block JS. This turns NoScript into another uMatrix clone.
>If it was the same API, every Chrome add-on could be installed directly with no porting needed.
I never said I was. I said that it will miss this API just as they do in chrome.
>It is. Firefox can still be modified through .css.
You cannot add stuff via css. You can hide everything that is there and you can style it. But you cannot modify it. Also "modify through css" is stupid in itself.
>Firefox doesn't make 100 connections to Google servers per second
about:addons says otherwise
>Firefox has been actively making efforts to reduce user tracking online
by adding cliq shit...
>Firefox has a saner approach to multiprocess
This is true! I actually totally agree with this.
However: This does not need WebExtension only.
>Firefox is being completely rewritten
Nice, keep on doing this. But do not remove stuff premature.
2 years ahead was premature.
FF and Chrome are not competing if they are almost the same. They are competing while they are different. Addons in FF were THE MAJOR difference.
Ethan Carter
>Addons in FF were THE MAJOR difference.
And it's been proven by how they lost all their marketshare that the majority of users care about speed.
Ryder Watson
But it was not slow at all. Some fucking benchmarks said it was slow. But it really was not. I do use both, FF and chromium and I also used Opera in the past. They allare about as fast as the other. It is pure bullshit.
Chrome only spread because it was included on so many installers on Windows in the past.
Google used it's power to push it. This is the only reason that users installed it.
FF will not gain more marketshare through this stupid move of alienating its (addon-)developing users.
Jeremiah Flores
>slower!!!!1
The difference is milliseconds unless you bog down FF with shitty addons and never close the browser, and then it's your fault.
This has been true since you started repeating this nonsense years ago.
Anybody bringing up speed is misinformed or a shill.
Brody Murphy
>But it was not slow at all.
At the start yes but it definitely used to get slow when you had a long session without restarting. I remember doing a shift f2 restart once a day because my scrolling would be literally a second behind my input and twitch videos would be dropping half their frames.
Brody Watson
Your extension data is probably still there, you can install 56.* manually and most addons should run properly. But if they don't, they're probably fucked up to the point where you'll have to recreate your profile and reinstall them.
But Firefox will update silently in the background unless you explicitly tell it not to. Create a user.js in your profile directory (same directory as prefs.js) and put the following in there:
// Don't update addons
user_pref("extensions.update.autoUpdateDefault", false);
user_pref("extensions.update.enabled", false);
// Don't update Firefox
user_pref("app.update.auto", false);
user_pref("app.update.service.enabled", false);
// "If set to true, the Update Service will present no UI for any event."
user_pref("app.update.silent", false);
user_pref("app.update.checkInstallTime", false);
user_pref("app.update.enabled", false);
user_pref("services.blocklist.update_enabled", false);
Go do add-ons manager and double-check if "Update Add-Ons Automatically" checkmark is unchecked, it tends to enable itself when you don't need it.
Ian Bailey
So we are losing everything that was beautiful about FF in the past because some people needed to restart the browser "once a day"?
My hate is gone.
I am sad. Everything that is left is sad.
Wyatt Hall
>So we are losing everything that was beautiful about FF in the past because some people needed to restart the browser "once a day"?
I think it's worth it. The old theme was garbage, it runs faster now, and no useful addons have been lost. All the hipsters can go to palemoon like they've been doing for the past few years.
Connor Hall
Oh fuck off you had an insane amount of time to prepare.
Henry Bailey
obligatory not the person you're replying to, and don't get me wrong I don't think firefox used be slow, but it's objectively true that addons that were written by awful programmers, even if they were popular addons, would shit up the browser profile contaminating the rest of the browser and the only "solution" to this problem was to create a new clean profile every few months, and even then severely problematic addons would still severely affect browser performance on a clean profile adding lag anywhere from startup times to page loading times
one of the things that got me to switch from adblock plus to ublock early on was that abp added .5 seconds to the startup time according to the health report where ublock didn't have this problem which was a significant one for me as I frequently close and reopen the browser, and other times when I have tried to install addons like useragent switchers or addons that control cookies they've severely affected performance in some way that I never bothered installing them, I never found a good useragent switcher but the most popular one I tried added a very noticeable delay to page loading times which mysteriously only appears when the addon is enabled and goes away when it's disabled (with browser restarts in-between)
I get that firefox is losing its charm by going down this route and arguably it's losing the only good thing about it and I'm going to miss things like downthemall as a result, but part of what made firefox so shit in the first place was the fact it wasn't multiprocess compatible and had awful performance as a result and there were no security features like sandboxing to speak of, it's hard to call firefox a privacy conscious browser when it's significantly worse when it comes to security over something like chrome, at least now we get a somewhat decently performing browser that still had custom stylesheets and who knows, there might be some hope for some better addon apis in the future
Dylan Perry
do tree style tabs and downthemall work yet? not updating until they do.
Anthony Campbell
>Don't sandbox it then. These features were pure gold in a world becoming more and more obsessed with google...
This has nothing to do with Google. XUL addons were insanely insecure. They could fuck up the browser and even your file system. They could download/execute scripts. They had total access to your machine. It's bad design and even Microsoft stopped doing this.
>Don't call it FF then if you want to rewrite "the entire thing"
They have to, though. The engines FF uses are close to 20 years old now. 20 years of patches upon patches, that's bad for a myriad of reasons.
>I am VERY sure that I am not wrong on this particular predicition. I read every single WebExtension API spec...
Read Mozilla's documentation, it's not the same. Even then, the NoScript dev has already stated several times that the WebEx version does a lot of things better than the old one, and that there will be only a missing feature.
>about:addons says otherwise
That's FUD. Those google URLs are settings for safebrowsing. If you disable those two options on Settings, then no connection to Google is ever made.
>by adding cliq shit...
Cliqz is a German search engine. The change was publicly documented, trivial to disable and part of an experiment that already ended.
>However: This does not need WebExtension only.
Yes and no. XUL addons could play well with multi process, but never did. Some of them (like Random Agent Spoofer) just couldn't.
Juan Diaz
stop using noscript - problem solved
Nathaniel Davis
>updating firefox since the SJWs took over
Caleb Garcia
>half of my addons not working anymore
>all the shit I've deactivated is back
>crap design
Yah nah I'm switching to palemoon.
Benjamin Cruz
Switch to Brave.
Been using Brave since Firefox decided to ditch xul addons. Never looked back.
Brody Baker
userChrome.css
#TabsToolbar, #sidebar-header { visibility: collapse !important; }
solves both
Camden Torres
>update to Firefox 57 pls
>if you used ad-blocking in the past versions like most people do you will not see a single performance difference, but if you don't use ad-blocker you will notice performance improvement!
>oh and most of your addons won't work and our shitty chrome.css workaround for customization has half the features that you were capable of implementing before because CSS alone is a pile of shit
>we are totally not trying to be an inferior version of Chrome
KEK
Move to WaterFox lads.
Jose Garcia
waterfox and any other firefox fork sooner or later have to change to quantum as well unless they want to completely abandon security updates.
Nathan Edwards
Brave has even less extensions, less UI customization, less control over the browser period with lack of about:config and speeds are the same for me. No thanks
Jackson Davis
>non ironically using Brave
Jordan Parker
b-but muh sjws
Noah Gutierrez
They have their own security measures that Firefox lacks and which are made by more competent devs than the Mozilla startup kiddies that are left at Mozilla after everyone competent either went away or got sacked.
So i'm not bothered by that, in fact it would be good if they avoided Mozilla's "security" implementation which is a bunch of gonorrhea code, and instead continued making their own implementation.
Joshua Price
XUL is vulnerable as shit. It wiill always be less secure and slower than quantum.
Carter Ramirez
Quantum has proven itself to have no performance gain whatsoever except when ad-blocking is disabled,
and you can't prove that XUL as implemented in WaterFox is more vulnerable than FireCuck Quantum Diarrhea because you don't know shit about coding or security to make any valid arguments, so your replies are worthless stench with even less value than shitposting.
Samuel James
I'm surprised with the smoothness new version of Firefox, but I installed Waterfox for when I definitely need to use my comfy XUL extensions.
Jace Cook
Quantum is more responsive. Its noticeable when using.
One of the reasons why firefox moved away from xul was because its a security nightmare. If you say that waterfoxs xul implementation is more secure than they would have to be limiting functionality which defeats the purpose.
Connor Sullivan
how to set a local html file as newtab?
new tab override doesn't work anymore, is the only solution hosting the file in a local webserver?
I made a basic home page for my mom so she just have to click on a big icon to read mails (she literally use 6 websites and is quite old), now she is going to be confused when opening a new tab
I could host the file on a rpi, a waste of resources though
John Anderson
Also, what dev is going to want to cotinue fixing new bugs with every waterfox update? There is a limited amount of devs that would want to continue support for an even smaller userbase and continually fix new bugs to keep it working.
Brayden Perry
>Quantum is more responsive.
It isn't, and the argument is stacked against you by numbers of people reporting that it isn't unless ad blockers and no script are turned off which is something no sane person does.
>One of the reasons why firefox moved away from xul was because its a security nightmare.
Because Mozilla lost any capable coders that knew what they were doing, stopped patching and working with XUL, and moved onto a buzzword project.
Much like Userstyles lost the competent dev, the new management switched to a "new web design for new times" because they don't know shit about dealing with the old one, and now everyone is moving away from Stylish while their website is a broken pile of shit in all fucking irony.
Try again m8. Waterfox is more secure than Quantum, because the devs there are actually competent.
Unless you have tangible code arugments, you should fuck off with your incompetent shilling.
Isaac Reyes
I wonder if Tabs api will drop in 2018. Also 57 leaks memory all over the place
Anthony Torres
>waaah my new laptop doesn't have a floppy drive/dvd rom
Camden Robinson
Quantum is faster for me. I trust myself more than strangers.
Quantum implemented sandboxed tabs. Thats just one improvement. Can you provide tangible code arguments to prove waterfoxs xul is more secure than quantum? if not you should fuck off with your shilling.
Tyler Cooper
>delete Firefox and profiles for a clean install
>install 56 with the addons that are supported by 57
>do the same with 57
>no performance difference whatsoever
I now understand why it's called Quantum.
The performance increase both exists and doesn't exist; it exists on propaganda articles and graphs but doesn't exist in real life.
The sad thing is that I had to waste so much time on validating this for myself.
Hunter Foster
Weird, I noticed it is more snappy. Its only going to get better to once servo is fully implemented.
Gavin Scott
>Quantum is faster for me.
And not faster for the majority of people.
I trust the majority compared to a shill.
Also the burden of proof for patched and managed XUL being less secure than Quantum is on you since you started the question. You start and I'll follow.
Of course you won't start because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about while I know that it makes sense for XUL to lose security when nobody is actually managing it or knows how to code it in a dev team, like Mozilla for instance who lost all competent coders and now have to act like Quantum is the shits (which it ain't).
It's not the first time Mozilla hyped something which ended up being a scam.
Jackson Cook
source for their planned filesystem api? Please give me fucking hope
Jeremiah Sullivan
the fuck are you talking about? xul by design is less secure you retard.
Michael Hughes
show me legit numbers of people saying quantum isnt faster. and not a poll done on Sup Forums. A poll from a legit source.
Gavin Nelson
XUL by design is as secure as the coders working with it are competent to patch and implement properly.
Prove that XUL is by design less secure.
I'll wait for the next 100 fucking years for your stupidity.
This is the key point. You don't know shitall about coding so "by design" is the buzzword which works with idiots such as yourself by devs who actually mean "we don't know shit, so it's by design".
Gavin Wright
>and not a poll done on Sup Forums. A poll from a legit source.
>doesn't name a single viable source to parse
>because there is no source when he knows all will shit on his butthurt Quantum shilling
KEK
Camden Diaz
xul gives access to the entire browser. it even gives access to your filesystem. its not isolated.
If you know coding so well show me how quantum is less secure.
still waiting. As far as I'm concerned you got your numbers from a bunch of autists and trolls on a site you cant trust half the people.
Angel Garcia
>Prove that XUL is by design less secure.
XUL addons can execute programs in your PC. XUL addons can read/write any file in your filesyste. XUL addons, therefore, can download and run scripts in your PC.
They can also modify anything in about:config, intercept any incoming/outcoming traffic, etc.
What's more: Waterfox devs in their contrarianism allow unsigned addons to run as well as NPAPI extensions.
So yeah, Waterfox is way more vulnerable than Firefox is.
>muh SJW dindu dindu programmers diversity hires XDDDD
The fact that you can't come with a single argument to back up your shit and instead resort to buzzwords and name calling proves that you know jack shit of the topic at hand, so please go to /trash/, where you belong.
Benjamin Ward
>xul gives access to the entire browser. it even gives access to your filesystem.
It gives access only if it is unpatched and not managed properly, which is a job competent coders do well. Get the fuck out with your stupidity.
Just admit that you are one of those stupid idiots who only parrot what was said to them by 3rd parties rather than by their own understanding which you obviously have none of otherwise you would have given your burden of proof.
>still waiting
I'm still waiting for what you consider a valid source. You know i'll do a poll there, which is why you are now playacting being asleep and blind because you are afraid of slapping yourself in the face.
What a fucking fraud. Get the fuck out, this site doesn't need your low IQ fucking it up worse than it already is.
Benjamin Richardson
>XUL addons can execute programs in your PC. XUL addons can read/write any file in your filesyste. XUL addons, therefore, can download and run scripts in your PC.
>XUL addons can do what most programs installed on your computer can when they are allowed to do so
You might as well argue that we shouldn't be using a computer connected to the Internet at all.
Are you really this stupid? Don't answer, it was rhetorical.
Jace Collins
You know jack shit if you really think waterfox has better security. Waterfox definitely has worse security practice by even allowing xul.
So when you say quantum isnt fast for the majority of people, where did you base that off of?
It makes more vulnerable, hence less secure you retard.
Jason Thomas
>XUL addons can execute programs in your PC.
developer.mozilla.org
Ayden Torres
The only issue I'm having with Firefox 57 is that Sup Forums x seems to occasionally fail to disable the native Sup Forums scripts and it causes issues with things like some things (quote backlinks, etc) appearing twice, and also causes image expansion to not work correctly. But this is fixed by refreshing the page and isn't too big of a deal.
Aiden Rogers
>It makes more vulnerable, hence less secure you retard.
Now when XUL is not allowed to make those actions, which is actually a manageable function.
It doesn't make it any less secure than having Firefox itself installed on my computer, a browser known for being run by incompetent devs in the past few years.
Worst of all, you still don't understand how coding works and don't have any proof, and are still avoiding giving me what you consider a valid source to slap your ass with some facts.
Know what's the most hilarious thing in this whole argument
>you are unironically a stupid fuck who doesn't know how to manage his addons and doesn't know how to sandbox them
Hilarious. And you are talking about security? Get the fuck out.
Wyatt Sullivan
Holy shit.
Charles Reyes
Quantum shills status: ass broken
Matthew James
...
Dominic Hernandez
...
Jonathan Lewis
When addons are updated manually once a month, and you check the comments for the updates between the last time you updated and now to assure yourself that no malicious shit has been done by the dev or a dev change happened, that's called security. Takes 5 minutes once a month.
When you allow automatic updates, and depend on buzzwords such as "muh webextension" to keep you secure, and you therefore lose track of what's happening to your addons, then no webextension buzzwords will save you from what happened with Stylish on Chrome when a new dev took over and implemented spying and analytics into the addon code.
Some people are too stupid to comprehend this.
Security doesn't come from code, it comes from your head, and when you think code is a replacement for you head you have already lost it you stupid motherfucker.
Leo Thompson
just downgrade to ESR or change to Waterfox, still works fine...
Ryder Johnson
...
Benjamin Flores
How is waterfox more secure, specifically? I dont care who wrote the code. I mean what parts of the software make it more secure. I mean surely you can give specific details since you are so sure of yourself.
Also this >So when you say quantumisnt fast for the majority of people, where did you base that off of?
Tyler Powell
>IceCat is now available for Windows
Well i'll be damned. Someone actually recognized what a sham the Mozilla Quantum bullshit would become and struck while the iron was hot, 2 months before it happened.
I know what to move to now.
Caleb Jackson
IceCat follows ESR. When ESR switches to Quantum so they will.
Kayden White
>GNU neckbeards
>people who actually know their shit when it comes to security and code and hate pretty much everything about Chromium
>moving onto Quantum Sham
Provide official statement or get the fuck out kiddie.
Kevin Robinson
Addons aside, is it worth upgrading to 57?
I'm on 52.4 ESR btw
Elijah Myers
I talked about regular development schedule. You are the one claiming they will deviate from it.
Samuel Gonzalez
Nope. Almost no performance gain that's worth losing addons over, and as far as security bonuses go
There are none to speak of.
Consider IceCat or Chromium based shit that are run by skilled devs at least.
Forget about Firefox since it is run by scammers now.
Ethan Scott
You claimed something that deviates from the GNU team philosophy, either validate it first or get the fuck out.
Aaron Campbell
GNU team philosophy had no problems with Australis as well. You are confusing it with luddite gtard philosophy.
Leo Watson
Yes, download an old version from their archives. A much better option is not to use absolute dogshit addons.
Brayden Anderson
Australis was nothing but an updated interface, except IceWeasel retained customizability features while Firefox sacked them.
That's not a comparison no matter how much shit you stained it with while pulling it out of your ass.
Adrian Carter
Australis is only an updated interface, Quantum is only an updated platform.
You may retrofit changed to a level that suits your argument, doesn't change anything.
Blake Gonzalez
bump
Kayden Wood
Quantum is not chromium you fucktard.
Asher Lopez
Australis is an interface which impacted nothing and retained customizability.
Quantum is a sham run by talentless hacks who have nothing on the IceCat devs when it comes to coding skill.
Changes a lot actually. The future will tell.
Julian Cook
>all useful addons
>it's still slow
What was the point?
Jordan Cooper
>Firefox trying to take Chrome extension while sacrificing their own
>Quantum is not Chromium
You are right, Chromium is actually run by talented devs and not idiots, that's the difference.
Jordan Gray
>I'm an autist
Okay, stop posting.
Jayden Baker
>i'm buttblasted
I know you are child.
There's a van outside to help you with your booty so you can become fixed.
Grayson Cruz
do you really not understand the benefits of what firefox is doing? This is definitely the right move. Not everything is final either, there is still more being implemented.