Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/10/firefox-56-last-stop-before-quantum/

by DiabloD3 • 9 years ago

156 187 9 years ago

hacks.mozilla.org

maxpert• 9 years ago

Nice to see FF picking up momentum again. I don't want to use Chrome because I don't trust Google with my data (using Chromium right now). Can't wait to switch back, once it's GA.

Diederich• 9 years ago

Honest question: does Chrome share any data with Google, assuming you turn the right switches off?

DarkCrusader2• 9 years ago

assuming you turn the right switches off

That's the problem. I shouldn't have to find the switches in the first place. Plus they constantly keep shuffling the settings around(on other google apps and android too) and I can never find the ones I am looking for.

DavideNL2• 9 years ago

Chromium also sends data back to Google... unless you use Ungoogled-chromium, but the latter has the issue of not being up to date (= missing recent security updates).

deltaprotocol• 9 years ago

Or Inox https://github.com/gcarq/inox-patchset

mozoldie3• 9 years ago

I would love to see some evidence for this. The privacy policy contradicts you, hence I would treat this as FUD in absence of actual evidence: https://www.google.com/chrome/browser/privacy/index.html#ser...

(Just make sure you don't sign chromium into your google account. If you sign into your firefox account in firefox, then data is also uploaded, albeit in an encrypted format.)

pricechild• 9 years ago

I've been following https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/Firefox56AddonW...

It's surprised me the amount some people rely on addons for their workflow and the amount of effort they will be going through to resist this change come 57.

For my usage, I've found Firefox Klar/Focus (which I believe already include the speed improvements from 57+?) on Android and have been extremely impressed.

hadrien012• 9 years ago

Unfortunately that's also where I'll stop during at least a few months after Firefox 57 is released. Quantum is ultra fast, but my extensions are more important. Greasemonkey and Stylish, for example, have equivalent WebExtensions, but they're not as polished. Same with DownThemAll.

I think WebExtensions should have matured a bit longer, with Quantum, electrolysis, and Photon being made available for all with the old extensions.

cyphar• 9 years ago

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.

andrepd3• 9 years ago

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.

metalliqaz2• 9 years ago

Oh shit. I had not been following this and I didn't know that DownThemAll wasn't going to work. Now I'm sad :(

tincholio• 9 years ago

At least for the time being, you can use legacy extensions, by enabling the right option [1] in about:config.

[1] extensions.legacy.enabled -> true

C0DEHERO• 9 years ago

The problem is that electrolysis alone already kept breaking hundreds of addons, so that wouldn't have worked. The only way to prevent breakage, from what I've gathered, would have been to just keep Firefox like it is and not go on with Quantum, which really wouldn't have been great either. And of course, with more users testing WebExtension addons, those new addons hsould mature a lot faster than before.

Vinnl5• 9 years ago

which I believe already include the speed improvements from 57+?

Interestingly Firefox Focus uses WebKit (/Blink?), since that's what Android's webview provides. Firefox for Android should get the improvements around version 58 or 59.

Also good to note, for people planning to stick with an older Firefox for as long as they can: Firefox 52 is an Extended Support Release, and as such will actually be actively supported until June next year. This will give WebExtensions some extra time to mature for more use cases: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/

mozoldie3• 9 years ago

Yes, Focus uses WebView. On newer Android versions it's actually provided directly by Chrome (Android 6+ IIRC), on older Android's (Android 5) it's a separate package that's still built from the same sources. (Android 4 is more complicated but also not supported by Focus for that reason.)

51Cards5• 9 years ago

I'll be doing the same, staying on 56 for quite awhile. This transition has been very poorly managed by Mozilla. I understand the advantages to Quantum but they have left a very large percentage of their extension developers hanging. Web Extensions is not mature enough for many of the large extensions to be ported but despite that they are proceeding with this transition anyhow.

If I was an affected extension developer I would be walking away now. My user base is about to crumble and the best I can do is maybe offer a pale version of my extension in the new system along with a bunch of excuses out of my control. If perhaps WE does get the features I need, why go to the work to re-write? My users will be long gone.

Quantum is great, don't get me wrong. But the new APIs are too immature to be shutting down a huge number of mature extensions and the users that rely on them. It really makes me question the leadership decisions happening at Mozilla in general.

damnyou3• 9 years ago

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

digi_owl6• 9 years ago

Speaking of pale, i guess there is always Pale Moon...

opencl• 9 years ago

Not sure if you're aware of the Extended Support Release of FF but it seems better than staying on 56: Firefox 52 ESR will continue getting security patches up through June 2018.

beezle• 9 years ago

I suspect I'll be on 56 for a very long time as well. I ran on nightlies for many, many years but that ended at 57. At a bare minimum, noScript must be shown to be fully and consistently functional. But I have quite a few other extensions that appear to have been dead ended - self-destructing cookies and session manager are just two.

I think mozilla failed to understand that extensions were the prime differentiator and that a faster Chrome is far down the list of requirements.

madmax1082• 9 years ago

For people who are uber concerned about keeping v56 without losing your extensions as part of the 57 update, you can turn off auto update for Firefox:

Go to about:preferences In Firefox Updates choose "Never Check for Updates"

Breathe easy!

I know this is not recommended, but I love my XUL based extensions a little too much (Tab Groups primary among those) to give them up so easily.

moosingin3space5• 9 years ago

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.

GeekyBear• 9 years ago

I have (sadly) taken this step.

I'm also saddened that a transition with such a large change in functionality for end users didn't warrant syncing up with a Long Term Support version.

There's going to be a bit of a waiting game to see which extensions get ported and with what percentage of their original functionality retained.

Then it will be decision time.

gruez• 9 years ago

By 'as long as possible', I mean well beyond when Firefox 56 is officially supported; I hope to keep using it until it actively breaks or is too alarmingly insecure for me.

or you know, use ESR and get 6 more months of support/bugfixes.

digi_owl6• 9 years ago

I know how he feels. Been sitting on 45 for ages now because of their hamfisted move to GTK3.

As for Focus/Klar, it is just a shell. The engine used is webview, and the oldest supported Android is 5.0 (because of an API and because that was when Webview was made updateable outside of Android proper).

wyldfire• 9 years ago

Firefox Quantum’s new engine uses 30% less memory than Chrome

This is a pretty appealing claim. I'm ashamed to admit that one thing that might keep me on Chrome is the trove of passwords in my sync'd up account. But I'll definitely give Quantum a test drive.

tmzt2• 9 years ago

You can export passwords from Google:

https://www.ghacks.net/2017/07/10/google-chrome-password-exp...

It may also be possible through the data portability site.

You can also see them by going to https://passwords.google.com

Vinnl5• 9 years ago

And also good to know is that Firefox can do syncing just fine.

akerro• 9 years ago

Firefox Quantum’s new engine uses 30% less memory than Chrome

This is probably because 70% of addons go away, there are no replacements of very low quality replacements for most of addons I use daily.

mtgx• 9 years ago

I think they compared both browsers with zero add-ons.

dchuk• 9 years ago

I was like that a few months back, but then I started using 1password to centralize all my passwords (and for security obviously). Makes switching browsers much easier, especially because (I think) Firefox doesn't use OSX's Keychain.

FruityFaiz• 9 years ago

Same here, I have both Firefox nightly and safari but I tend to use safari more still...

Aeolos2• 9 years ago

There is one thing that stops me from using Safari (or Chrome/Opera) on Mac OS: the lack of middle-click autoscrolling.

Firefox lets me do a triple-finger tap and then scroll a page smoothly at a consistent pace. This is wonderful for reading sites such as HN without getting RSI from doing the same motion again and again.

pault• 9 years ago

I switched to the beta a few days ago and it's crazy fast. I only use ublock origin so I don't miss any extensions, but I'm definitely not switching back.

CoffeeDregs• 9 years ago

Agreed. I switched to Nightly and it's completely stable and completely noticeably faster.

satysin4• 9 years ago

I'm ashamed to admit that one thing that might keep me on Chrome is the trove of passwords in my sync'd up account.

I was the same until a few days ago when I finally took the time to switch to a real password manager. A HN'er recommended Bitwarden[0] and I have to say it was pretty painless and I am much happier knowing my passwords are with a third party (not that I have any real issue with Google but I did worry about having all my eggs in one basket as such).

I haven't paid for Bitwarden yet but I plan to providing it doesn't have a massive failure in the next couple of weeks. Looks like it will easily be worth the $10/year though.

Another added bonus is that their Android app is very decent as well and so far has worked with all my apps as well which is handy and not something I had thought much about in the past. Makes life that little bit easier although I don't have to enter app passwords much in Android it is nice to have the option now.

But back to Firefox - I checked out Nightly when it hit 57 a while back and was extremely impressed. It felt like a whole new browser. Not sure if I will switch from Chrome just yet but I am excited for the future of Firefox again.

[0]https://bitwarden.com

NikolaeVarius2• 9 years ago

I like bitwarden at a high level, but there are tons of things that feel extremely janky with it.

Also for some reason, Firefox keeps complaining that bitwarden is freezing its UI thread.

smnrchrds• 9 years ago

I would like to switch to Bitwarden, but I don't know how I can assure I can trust them with all my passwords. Are any of the founders well-known security experts? Has the service been recommended by respected security researchers?

I am not a security expert, so I cannot assert their trustworthiness myself. I know that you can run your own server. But even then, without auditing the code, configuring a firewall, and checking network logs, I cannot assure the server and the clients do not call home. And all of those solutions are both prohibitively time-consuming and way out of my area of expertise.

How did you decide Bitwarden was trustworthy? How can I stop worrying and give them my passwords already?

milcron2• 9 years ago

BitWarden is new to me, thanks for recommending it! Always good to see new open-source password managers. There are already enough proprietary ones.

kej2• 9 years ago

Firefox will offer to import those (along with bookmarks) when you start it up, and it offers its own syncing service as well. I switched about a month ago and it's been pretty seamless.

gkya• 9 years ago

Sending tabs and syncing bookmarks is especially useful. Find sth. nice to read on the PC but have to leave, send the tab(s) to your phone. Stupid registration form, bad mobile site, sth. to copy or paste from: send it to your laptop.

Also, a bit off topic, but the Tab Queue thing in Firefox for Android is incredibly awesome. I have some newsletters that I follow, hit the links, they're queued in Firefox, and I stay in my (K-9) mail app. When I've gonr through all the newsletters, I switch to FF, and all my pages are there.

xinyhn• 9 years ago

Might be looking into bitwarden myself as lastpass as of this post does not support firefox 57.

lkbm• 9 years ago

This has been a constant annoyance for me for a few weeks (since I switched to Nightly), but for what it's worth, Lastpass says they'll have a WebExtension version out by the time Firefox 57 is officially released (2017-11-14).

infogulch• 9 years ago

I also switched to nightly for the speed and immediately started missing LastPass. I switched to bitwarden after eyeing it for a while on recommendation of someone from HN and I'm pretty happy with it.

atonse3• 9 years ago

Is there a long term plan from Mozilla to implement declarative and built-in (native-speed) content blockers like Safari?

Would love to not have to use an extension to do this.

Vinnl5• 9 years ago

That's actually there in Private Browsing (and I think you can enable it for regular browsing using about:config? But you'll have to search for that yourself), and Firefox Focus includes that by default as well I think.

I believe they're not including it for regular Firefox by default because they don't want to piss off the content industry as long as there aren't enough viable alternative business models.

JoshMnem3• 9 years ago

It's already in Firefox Developer Edition.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/developer/

atonse3• 9 years ago

I have developer edition. I don't see it. Is it just like Safari's where you can get extensions that provide content blocking lists?

binaryapparatus3• 9 years ago

I will badly miss vimperator. Yeah 56.0 works smoothly but without ability to use keyboard only that's hollow victory for me.

Typing this in vim after viewing hackers news in w3m shows how desperate I am.

sametmax• 9 years ago

It's so niche i don't think they will bother.

Vinnl5• 9 years ago

I'm not sure what features of Vimperator you're using, but if it's only about being able to navigate through your keyboard only, try Vimium-FF: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimium-ff/?sr...

binaryapparatus3• 9 years ago

I will take a look, thanks. I am using basic set of open, tabnew, follow, bmark. Proper follow hint is very important.

Also the ability to redefine keys since I use colemak.

I was briefly trying chrome and cVim did seem promising but I prefer firefox.

Edit: I had to try it immediately and it looks very promising, thanks. Covers all the basic stuff I need.

always_good• 9 years ago

There are all sorts of issues with Vimium.

For instance, doesn't work on non-website pages, often have to cmd-w when x doesn't work completely defeating the extension to begin with. No d vs D to close prev/next tab, or p vs P. No temporary pass-thru, just whitelists.

Anyone who thinks Vimium is anywhere nearly as polished as Vimperator probably never used the latter much. Though not sure if it's to do with API limits vs general lack of polish.

But since Chrome never had a single solution as good as Pentadactyl/Vimperator, must be an API thing which means we're a bit screwed.

clouddrover• 9 years ago

There are various proposals for keyboard shortcut APIs to support extensions like Vimperator. Here's one:

https://github.com/Koushien/keyboard-shortcut-api

It's too late for it (or something like it) to be in Firefox 57, but it seems likely a future Firefox will have this capability.

earenndil3• 9 years ago

Try qutebrowser?

PhantomGremlin• 9 years ago

NoScript is identified as a "legacy" extension. But it's the only one I use or care about. Hopefully it will be rewritten to work properly?

To me, NoScript is sine qua non. It's the primary differentiating factor between Firefox and other browsers.

binaryapparatus3• 9 years ago

There is javascript.enabled key in about:config that _seems_ to be working as expected but setting it manually every time is a chore.

moosingin3space5• 9 years ago

NoScript isn't about bluntly disabling JavaScript. It's a set of tools for managing what scripts can do and what scripts run.

ReidZB• 9 years ago

It's being migrated: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/08/01/noscripts-migrati...

There's also uMatrix as a replacement.

wtallis• 9 years ago

uMatrix isn't a replacement for NoScript. uMatrix lets you do some javascript blocking, but has none of the other features of NoScript. Several of those features are not available from anything other than NoScript. Eg. I haven't seen any other content blocker implement anything like NoScript's surrogate scripts feature.

moosingin3space5• 9 years ago

NoScript's author works on the Mozilla Security Group. As a result, this particular extension was one that was strongly pushed. The author will be releasing a WebExtensions version in time for 57. He maintains the legacy version for the benefit of Tor Browser (based on 52ESR) so there is no chance for breakage before Tor Browser moves to 59ESR.

onewhonknocks• 9 years ago

I need to be able to use Tab Groups, so I won't be going to 57+.

leeoniya• 9 years ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/6rpglw/firefox_57_...

analogic2• 9 years ago

In case anyone listening, plz no quantum till replacement for: tab groups, hiding horizontal tab bar when using tree style/tab center, and hiding window title bar under MATE, that as far as I can tell is only possible with hide caption title bar plus addon.

Pretty sure all being worked on and excited for >>speed>> but I'm scarred this transition gonna be really annoying.

StavrosK2• 9 years ago

I feel your pain, but I think your position of "please don't release new versions until you have compatibility with the plugins I, specifically, use" might be a tad unreasonable.

baby• 9 years ago

Tree Style Tabs have become amazingly slow, this upgrade is a downgrade for me :/

DavideNL2• 9 years ago

I wish they would finally fix the annoying pinch-to-zoom which doesn't work properly like in Safari and Chrome...

(If you zoom on a site with text and images in Firefox the page layout gets messed up which makes it impossible to read...)

digi_owl6• 9 years ago

Best i can tell, they have basically hooked that up to the text scaling rather than anything like what you find on phones.

saberworks8• 9 years ago

Frustrated by the new "screenshots" tool. The "save" button automatically uploads your screenshot up to mozilla servers. The "download" button saves it to your computer. It seems completely backwards. The "save" button should save it to my computer (there's no reason call something a "download" when it's already local). The "download" button should be replaced with an "upload & share" button that sends it to mozilla's servers. Also somewhere it claimed it could screenshot the entire page, but I can't figure out how to actually do that.

I'm also might not upgrade to quantum because I will lose my status bar (status 4 evar addon). I don't understand how people browse the web but can't see where links are taking them. Showing me where the link points when I hover the mouse over it is something so fundamental to browsing I just can't figure out why it was ever removed. I think by default it eventually shows up in a tiny popup but it doesn't show the full link and the delay is infuriating.

romanovcode• 9 years ago

Hopefully someone from Mozilla reads this and takes notes. I completely agree with you on this one.

gcp• 9 years ago

File a bug.

digi_owl6• 9 years ago

I would not get my hopes up on the second part. Mozilla seems to be living in a "we know better" bubble these days, alongside Gnome and certain other big name FOSS projects...

rtpg• 9 years ago

was super shocked when the button uploaded to the servers.

The straightforward way most people use screenshots nowadays is to paste in Slack/Messenger/Google doc. Seems like a no-brainer for the default to be "copy to clipboard", but instead it's "upload to servers with no indication of this on the first click".

StevePerkins• 9 years ago

On your second point, I'm running the 57 beta and am not sure what you're talking about.

It's true that there is no "always on" status bar at the bottom. However, when I hover over a link, its URL does appear in the bottom-left corner. Exact same behavior as Chrome.

saberworks8• 9 years ago

Thanks to you and others for pointing this out. I've been using status 4 evar addon since they removed the status bar. I think the original behavior when they removed the status bar was to have a tooltip popup with the URL, but looks like it has changed since then. Does it popup immediately or is it like the tooltip where you have to hover for a couple of seconds before it shows up? I'll try removing my addon to check. Note that the addon allows me to configure how long the delay is (current setting=0ms) and how long it stays there after I move my mouse.

phireal2• 9 years ago

Showing me where the link points when I hover the mouse over it is something so fundamental to browsing I just can't figure out why it was ever removed

Firefox 57 (and maybe previous versions, I can't remember) pops up a "temporary status bar" (for lack of a better phrase) with the link destination in it when you hover on a link (https://imgur.com/a/Vo7AZ).

rightos• 9 years ago

and maybe previous versions, I can't remember

Yes, this has been the way it's done for a very long time. It's such a basic feature that I don't think there was ever a version of Firefox without this feature in one form or another.

DerfNet2• 9 years ago

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.

Aeolos2• 9 years ago

Because that allows you to capture a complete, scrollable website as a single png image. OS tools only let you capture the currently viewable area.

saberworks8• 9 years ago

Well, once you learn the backwards behavior of the buttons, nothing will get sent to mozilla (click "download" and not "save"). I thought it would be cool to save the entire page, even the parts that aren't in view (difficult with operating-system screenshot tools). (I couldn't figure out how to make this work.) And yes, you can right-click on the screenshot button and remove it from the toolbar (I don't think this would disable the entire feature, maybe there's a keyboard shortcut to activate it as well).

AdmiralAsshat3• 9 years ago

If you consider Firefox Screenshots from the perspective of a Support tool, this makes alot of sense. Customer wants to file a support ticket or bug report, needs to include a screenshot. Screenshot taken, they paste the link into the ticket, done. They never leave the browser.

Outside of the browser, fire up the screenshot tool, crop whatever you want to show, save it, upload it to imgur or website of choice, attach or paste it.

I would liken the tool to Fedora's amazing fpaste tool, which you invoke via the following:

    foo | fpaste

fpaste takes the output of the `foo` command, sends it to a log file, automatically uploads it to a fedora server, and returns a minified URL that can be copied and pasted to the developer. It is an amazing tool, provided you know what it's doing.

fpaste also takes several safety precautions such as static URLs that delete themselves after 24 hours.

So I can see Screenshots being very useful for that purpose. It just needs to be better about disclosing what it's doing.

krzyk• 9 years ago

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, (just next to the start and pocket icons).

metalliqaz2• 9 years ago

Thank you for pointing this out. This is a bug IMHO. No security-focused browser to do that.

thatcat• 9 years ago

it could screenshot the entire page

I saw that too, but it seems the only way to do it is the old ctrl+shift+i and use the dev screen shot tool after enabling it in the toolbox. This method does always save locally though.

hellbanner• 9 years ago

Screenshots, what.. ? Is this even if you're not signed into Mozilla?

I remember recent HN submissions about Mozilla sharing information with Google...

ianbicking2• 9 years ago

Hi, Screenshots developer here –

We've gotten similar feedback about the Save and Download buttons, we added the cloud icon in part to make that clearer. I feel like there's a ticket about it as well, but I not able to find it. We're planning on adding a Copy button, and we'll probably do some user research on the buttons generally to make sure the choice is clear.

We did have a full page screenshot feature, but it didn't make the cut for Firefox 56. It's back in Firefox 57.

If you have any issues or feedback on Screenshots, we track most of our work in GitHub and welcome new issues there: https://github.com/mozilla-services/screenshots

saberworks8• 9 years ago

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 two. The "save" button is the only button with any color (the others are black & white). Also note that the current "save" feature (which uploads the screenshot to mozilla servers) actually does the opposite of saving them because after 2 weeks they will be deleted.

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? And when they hit "save" in microsoft word or whatever, they think the document is going to microsoft servers?

"Save" means put it in my local storage.

"Download" means copy some file from a remote server onto my local storage.

"Upload" means copy it from my local storage to a remote server.

I also just realized that clicking the "save" button clobbers whatever is in my clipboard.

https://screenshots.firefox.com/oFTVibyVnGx7LPAl/news.ycombi...

pasbesoin• 9 years ago

I'm on Ubuntu on a Thinkpad that has the trackpad disabled. Plain Jane Microsoft wired USB mouse plugged in.

I use the right-click/context menu a fair amount. Since FF screenshots was added, it gets triggered frequently when I'm popping the right/click menu on a page -- without my making any click after the right-click to open the context menu. And with the trackpad disabled and using a mouse with a physical button and a rather distinct click, I can say this with considerable confidence.

So, then I have to to hit the escape key to kill the FF screenshot functionality. Which is becoming muscle memory, at this point.

kaishiro• 9 years ago

I too found this dialog to have bizarre choices for function and iconography. My main gripe with it is that there are now two "Save" actions in Firefox that have completely different functionality (Save a page vs Save a screenshot). I found this to be a very odd choice.

pix64• 9 years ago

I was pretty pissed it automatically uploaded the image. "Save" refers to saving to your local machine. "Upload" means uploading to a remote server. Fix the damn button.

jtoledo• 9 years ago

I've tried Developer's Edition, but gave up when I saw that Vimperator would not work on it.

AdmiralAsshat3• 9 years ago

In most cases, the upgrade to Firefox Quantum will be painless. Most popular add-ons will update to the new APIs before the release of Firefox Quantum, and Firefox will suggest replacements inside about:addons for those that don’t.

Suggestion WebExtension replacements is brilliant. There's already multiple crowd-sourced lists on Reddit's r/Firefox basically for this purpose.

rollcat• 9 years ago

Hangouts calls still not working :(

Very stupid reason to keep Chromium around...

kibwen• 9 years ago

Firefox can't do anything about that, it's Google's decision to only support Hangouts in Chrome.

51Cards5• 9 years ago

Tab Mix Plus, DownloadThemAll, RightToClick, Status-4-Evar... all regularly used by me, none migrated yet. Not to mention the loss of Classic Theme Restorer's control over the UI highly disappoints me. I really really dislike being locked into the "Chrome Style" UI. I've disliked it since Chrome was released.

actionscripted• 9 years ago

I'm using Nightly (v58a) and you can customize the UI a lot more than in the current release (v56).

You can move back/forward and refresh, auto-hide certain buttons like downloads, add items to the "overflow" menu, toggle full/compact mode, toggle title bar, toggle a "grab" space...there are a lot of options.

They've also added proper support for light and dark icons for plugins. So now buttons like 1Password don't stand out with a dark theme.

To me it feels like a return to the level of customization I'd gotten used to in older versions of Firefox. And FWIW, this is what mine looks like: https://i.imgur.com/seJZeg6.png

kirillkh3• 9 years ago

Is it now possible to make the title bar blue when the window is active and grey when it's not? The lack of this feature (that once used to be the norm) is one of the most painful things for me.

plopz• 9 years ago

Is it possible to make it look like this? https://i.imgur.com/sA8za0B.png

jd33• 9 years ago

What you just described is literally nothing like the level of low-level customization that past releases of the Mozilla Suite/Firefox had to offer. Not only can extensions no longer modify any of the browser XUL/chrome://, you can't even install Complete Themes that previous let you control the layout of every single browser css element.

It's like Mozilla is deliberately committing corporate suicide with these hasty feature removals.

kirillkh3• 9 years ago

For me it's DownThemAll, EdgeWise, GMail Notifier, Session Manager, Status-4-Evar, SuperStop. Not upgrading until at least most of them are ported.

Sammi2• 9 years ago

Read the news for DownloadThemAll: http://www.downthemall.net/

It's coming. He has started. You can help by becoming a patron.

earenndil3• 9 years ago

There is things we could do with blob: “files” to support segmented downloads and proper resuming and a ton of other things, but browser support right now looks fragile at best…

Woah!! I didn't think it was possible but...download acceleration post 57?

k__3• 9 years ago

The Quantum performance is amazing.

But I cant get my nightly to remember my logins.

zakk2• 9 years ago

The Quantum performance is amazing.

Agreed! I am astonished, and I switched back to FF after many, many years.

But I cant get my nightly to remember my logins.

Quantum is in beta now, did you try that?

k__3• 9 years ago

Isnt it part of FF nightly?

schwarze_pest2• 9 years ago

But I cant get my nightly to remember my logins.

Do you mean 'restore previous session'? It was moved from the start page to library and now to the hamburger menu. :/

k__3• 9 years ago

I don't know really.

I found a config option that said something like "delete cookies when firefox is closed" I changed this to "No", but somehow it didn't stay.

kirillkh3• 9 years ago

Since there are so many of us who decided to stick with Firefox 56... wouldn't it be nice if Mozilla declared 56 as ESR release, so that when the time comes we were not forced to downgrade to the much slower FF 52? Also, I've seen it mentioned that you can't even downgrade without losing all your settings.

CurtMonash• 9 years ago

My big concern is add-ons.

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.

earenndil3• 9 years ago

cookie culler

What about cookie autodelete?

Firefox 56: Last Stop Before Quantum

Related Stories