|
Gorilla Salad posted:It's handy for selecting the specific search engine you want. I keep them separate personally but check out browser.urlbar.oneOffSearches
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:It's handy for selecting the specific search engine you want. you can access those with keywords
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Or a single mouseclick 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:you can access those with keywords
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Malloc Voidstar posted:which are more complicated and also I've run into bugs with those (trying to change a keyword's URL and it just ignored it) Yep. I had to download a GUI SQL editor and manually edit places.sqlite to unfuck my keywords at some point. I couldn't edit or change certain ones, and some would linger around after deleting the bookmark and not let me create a new one using the same old keyword. And then there's the fact that for a span of a year or two, they would break keyword priority in the URL bar every other major release. So you'd type "bar" and instead of going to your keyword for that string, it would just autocomplete a random url starting with those letters. And then it would work again. And then it wouldn't. Then it would... I still swear by keywords and prefer them to the search bar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Twitch ads seem to be going through ublock origin, i wonder if they've learned how to just bypass any adblocker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:Twitch ads seem to be going through ublock origin, i wonder if they've learned how to just bypass any adblocker. afaik the ads are integrated in the stream now, so there's no discerning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
mike12345 posted:afaik the ads are integrated in the stream now, so there's no discerning. An ominous look into the near future of youtube.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
Has anyone had trouble with Gmail javascript lagging the hell out of Firefox lately? Never used to happen, doesn't happen on any other browser from what I can tell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:Has anyone had trouble with Gmail javascript lagging the hell out of Firefox lately? Never used to happen, doesn't happen on any other browser from what I can tell. Nope, and I have it open all day. Anything in particular to provoke it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Yeah, me too. (app tab.) Just seem to chug the CPU when I tab into it oftentimes lately. Maybe since the last FF update. But if other people don't then it might just be my profile.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Variables I have that might possibly save me from a bug: Ublock Origin (which perhaps most people itt have) and signed out of hangouts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
oh cool firefox 55 is ou-- welp, back up your session first in case it gets wiped i guess lol edit: it installed 55 again after the first update, combined with my session backup means it worked out fine edit: but now it only reloads restored tabs if you switch to them, switch away, then switch back again edit: with 6 content processes it feels great besides the garbage problem of above though, so there's that Malloc Voidstar fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Aug 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Not even Mozilla's own goddamn Add-on Compatibility Reporter is "Compatible with Firefox 57+", what kind of lovely clown show is this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Geemer posted:Not even Mozilla's own goddamn Add-on Compatibility Reporter is "Compatible with Firefox 57+", what kind of lovely clown show is this? That tool has no relevance for 57, so why would it be compatible?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:That tool has no relevance for 57, so why would it be compatible? Please do not bring logic into this thread, today is complain day, bring complaints.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Im_Special posted:Please do not bring logic into this thread, today is complain day, bring complaints. Firefox 55 is just too fast and being able to set the number of processes from the options menu is very useful. Wait, I think I hosed this up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:That tool has no relevance for 57, so why would it be compatible? That said if an extension breaks between Firefox versions in the WebExtensions world it'll probably be obvious (and maybe purposeful due to API changes)
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Malloc Voidstar posted:ACR dates back to 2009, it's not for reporting if something works with 57+ but if something is broken after an update. Right, thanks for elaborating on my comment. One of the benefits of WebExtensions is that it should be possible, for the most part, to keep add-ons compatible longer because the API is less tightly-coupled with Firefox's core. You're much less likely to end up with subtle bustage when a new version of Firefox releases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Right, thanks for elaborating on my comment. One of the benefits of WebExtensions is that it should be possible, for the most part, to keep add-ons compatible longer because the API is less tightly-coupled with Firefox's core. You're much less likely to end up with subtle bustage when a new version of Firefox releases. OTOH I have two extensions that have been essentially unchanged since version 3, and had a third that was 100% unchanged until the change to require signing. I used to hand-edit the XPI to change the version compatibility numbers. all of them work(ed) perfectly. It's like, what is even the point of an API if you're not going to maintain it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
The problem is that the old XPCOM APIs were at the wrong level of abstraction, so that in order to maintain compatibility with add-ons, Firefox devs were heavily restricted in the changes they could make. With WebExtensions, there's a greater degree of separation, making it much easier to change Firefox itself in ways that help performance (or whatever) without necessitating a change to the public APIs. Notably, when they made curvy tabs in Firefox, they had to ensure that they didn't actually change the XUL elements that built the tabs; otherwise, it would have broken a lot of add-ons that relied on them being structured in a particular way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
What's the best way of backing up and restoring my session in case the 55 update mucks it up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
isndl posted:What's the best way of backing up and restoring my session in case the 55 update mucks it up? to restore, exit firefox and overwrite sessionstore.js with previous.js or recovery.js from that folder it writes those on every save so ensure you back them up before upgrading firefox
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
I backed up my profile and installed Nightly. Just to play around with it; see how fast it is, see what the state of extensions is... But I'm not sure I'm getting an accurate picture. A handful are marked with the yellow LEGACY tag, but they still load and some work (some don't). Does Nightly allow mixing of legacy and webextensions or something?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Yes, I believe you can still use XPCOM extensions on nightly. However, there are no guarantees that they'll be compatible with the API changes, since 57 removes a lot of old XPCOM APIs that add-on authors may have relied on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
So is it time to talk about which fork of Firefox to migrate to if we want to keep our old XUL addons? I'm kinda sad about leaving Firefox behind but I tried a couple other browsers these days (Chrome, Vivaldi, etc.) and my workflow is very much tied to certain addons and most importantly the ability to modify the interface via CSS. Plus, I dislike non-GDI font rendering. I think I may be slightly retarded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Backyarr posted:So is it time to talk about which fork of Firefox to migrate to if we want to keep our old XUL addons? There's no feasible way for long. No niche fork has the manpower and expertise to keep the browser safe once firefox's codebase changed significantly and they can't just backport their patches anymore. The question you'll have to answer for yourself is whether or not you are okay with using an unsafe browser to keep those extensions running.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
Running Developer Edition would probably work for a while, but maybe that won't allow XPCOM add-ons. At minimum, any XPCOM add-on should be convertible to a WebExtension Experiment, which will run in Dev Edition and Nightly. Experiments let you do anything XPCOM add-ons can, but they're primarily designed to provide a place to test out new WebExtension APIs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Running Developer Edition would probably work for a while, but maybe that won't allow XPCOM add-ons. At minimum, any XPCOM add-on should be convertible to a WebExtension Experiment, which will run in Dev Edition and Nightly. Experiments let you do anything XPCOM add-ons can, but they're primarily designed to provide a place to test out new WebExtension APIs. Getting a WebExtension approved will require a commitment from Mozilla to maintain it going forward as the underlying technology changes. They're not going to commit to maintain the hundreds or thousands of hooks used by something like CTR, and if there's a "rounded tabs" 2 they're sure as hell not going to implement all the hooks needed to revert the change or give users the control they want. This also means that addons that do something new are going to need to argue their case to Mozilla, and if it's some kind of niche addon that needs a lot of work from Mozilla I can easily predict how that will go. Maybe it'll be better than the equivalents for Chrome, with Google only chasing a theoretical ideal "average user," but a lot of addons just are not going to be possible going forward. I bet this is part of the reason they're extending an olive branch in the form of square tabs again, because they know forcing rounded tabs on people without any options would incite enough of their power users that they might actually make a viable fork. It's just pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:I bet this is part of the reason they're extending an olive branch in the form of square tabs again, because they know forcing rounded tabs on people without any options would incite enough of their power users that they might actually make a viable fork. It's just pathetic. This sounds just about right for the new Mozilla. I really don't get what happened to turn the project from a power-user's dream to today's pitiful state. And they just keep making GBS threads on the users that made the browser wildly popular (once upon a time at least) with every new decision  Isn't Firefox still built on the work of volunteer programmers? As far as I can tell, lots of devs are still enraged with the whole WebExtensions thing. What's keeping them (other than the mozilla.org infrastructure, I guess) from saying "gently caress Mozilla Corp and their dumbass decisions" and just forking Foxilla?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:Getting a WebExtension approved will require a commitment from Mozilla to maintain it going forward as the underlying technology changes. What relevance does this have to what I said? You don't need to get approval to run a WebExtension Experiment on Developer Edition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Backyarr posted:So is it time to talk about which fork of Firefox to migrate to if we want to keep our old XUL addons? One option if you want to keep addons working for as long as possible is to switch to the 52 ESR; it's supported until around June 2018 (6 months past the 57 release target).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Running Developer Edition would probably work for a while, but maybe that won't allow XPCOM add-ons. At minimum, any XPCOM add-on should be convertible to a WebExtension Experiment, which will run in Dev Edition and Nightly. Experiments let you do anything XPCOM add-ons can, but they're primarily designed to provide a place to test out new WebExtension APIs. Just to confirm all this, Andy McKay of Mozilla posted an update on XPCOM add-ons: they're disabled by default on Nightly starting tomorrow, but there's a pref you can toggle to allow them. That pref will continue to work on Nightly and Developer Edition in the future (as well as unbranded builds), but not on Beta or Release. The rule of thumb is that XPCOM extensions will be usable on any build where you can run unsigned extensions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Met48 posted:One option if you want to keep addons working for as long as possible is to switch to the 52 ESR; it's supported until around June 2018 (6 months past the 57 release target). This is the one I'm doing. I'm hoping that by next June, the extensionpocalypse will have settled down into something usable again. And if not, well, Pale Moon is still a thing. The only reason I'm not using it now is that embedded twitter video doesn't work, which makes reading the politics threads here on the forums a little annoying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:What relevance does this have to what I said? You don't need to get approval to run a WebExtension Experiment on Developer Edition. You'll need to get it approved to keep it though, otherwise you can expect breaking changes as Mozilla actively moves away from their legacy technologies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Firefox 55.0.1 is out. Supposedly fixes the session restore bug. (FF still doesn't load restored tabs until I either switch to them twice or manually refresh) edit: Firefox 55.0.1 just wiped my session edit: Looks like it only wipes my old session. So I just have to manually open all my tabs in FF 55.0.1 instead of restoring a backup. Cool, that's not inconvenient at all edit: it wipes all but one tab every time I load Firefox. I guess it's time to start a new profile and see if it's still hosed edit: Refresh seems to have fixed it, now I just need to re-add all my addons. So, uh, try this I guess if you have the same issue Malloc Voidstar fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Backyarr posted:This sounds just about right for the new Mozilla. I really don't get what happened to turn the project from a power-user's dream to today's pitiful state. And they just keep making GBS threads on the users that made the browser wildly popular (once upon a time at least) with every new decision
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
Klyith posted:OTOH I have two extensions that have been essentially unchanged since version 3, and had a third that was 100% unchanged until the change to require signing. I used to hand-edit the XPI to change the version compatibility numbers. all of them work(ed) perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
[quote="“Backyarr”" post="“475218198”"] This sounds just about right for the new Mozilla. I really don’t get what happened to turn the project from a power-user’s dream to today’s pitiful state. And they just keep making GBS threads on the users that made the browser wildly popular (once upon a time at least) with every new decision [/quote] It hasn’t been wildly popular since the days when it was a faster and lighter weight alternative to IE. In fact I’d say Firefox is in the position it’s is now in no small part due to bloating out and appealing to ‘power users’ Don’t get me wrong I think it’s too late for them to change tack and become more Chromelike (because they lost their normal users to Chrome and Safari years ago) but I can see where they’re coming from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
dissss posted:Don’t get me wrong I think it’s too late for them to change tack and become more Chromelike (because they lost their normal users to Chrome and Safari years ago) but I can see where they’re coming from. Not being "Chromelike" is the exact reason a lot of people use Firefox, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 21:36
|
|