Firefox - More fire and fewer cancer warnings than California

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Firefox - More fire and fewer cancer warnings than California

«‹›360 »

Klyith: Aug 3, 2007; GBS Pledge Week

Its Coke posted:

The problem is that this won't work if C: isn't the main drive of the host system or if Firefox is installed in a different directory, and it also gets weird with extensions sometimes. So I'm looking for other ideas on how to accomplish this.

Why not just put firefox on the thumbdrive too?

# ? Sep 24, 2019 21:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 14:40

Avenging Dentist: Oct 1, 2005; oh my god is that a circular saw that does not go in my mouth aaaaagh

Its Coke posted:

Does anyone have recommendations for making Firefox profiles portable? I tried the Firefox Portable app and that was garbage, but I figured out a way to do it with the regular installed app.

This is a bad idea. Unless you can 100% guarantee that every installation of Firefox you use will be the same version, you're basically asking to end up with a profile that gets upgraded to version N+1, then refuses to load on a version N install. While you can get around this with a command-line option to allow newer profiles on old installs, there's a reason Firefox doesn't allow that by default: there's no actual guarantee that the new profile is compatible with the old version. (In theory, Mozilla could write profile-downgrade code, but that's more work for a niche scenario and would probably require you to downgrade via the newer Firefox install, making it not-very-useful anyway.)

As Klyith says, the best solution for this (X/Y problem aside) would be to carry Firefox on the thumbdrive too.

# ? Sep 24, 2019 21:24

nielsm: Jun 1, 2009

A normal system-wide install of Firefox will register it in the App Paths key in registry. I believe that means you can just use "start firefox.exe -Profile ..." in your batch file, and it will look up the path to the unqualified name. You have to use the "start" command for that to work.

If you want to check if it's installed, you can do something like this:

code:

reg query "HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\firefox.exe" > NUL
if errorlevel 1 goto notinstalled
start firefox.exe -Profile "%~dp0profile2"
goto :EOF
:notinstalled
echo No Firefox here
pause

# ? Sep 24, 2019 21:27

Its Coke: Oct 29, 2018

doctorfrog posted:

Curious what makes Portable Firefox garbage. I�ve used it on and off for years.

It's garbage specifically for using multiple profiles. If you have only one profile it's fine

Avenging Dentist posted:

This is a bad idea. Unless you can 100% guarantee that every installation of Firefox you use will be the same version, you're basically asking to end up with a profile that gets upgraded to version N+1, then refuses to load on a version N install. While you can get around this with a command-line option to allow newer profiles on old installs, there's a reason Firefox doesn't allow that by default: there's no actual guarantee that the new profile is compatible with the old version. (In theory, Mozilla could write profile-downgrade code, but that's more work for a niche scenario and would probably require you to downgrade via the newer Firefox install, making it not-very-useful anyway.)

As Klyith says, the best solution for this (X/Y problem aside) would be to carry Firefox on the thumbdrive too.

Couldn't I just always keep Firefox updated?

Klyith posted:

Why not just put firefox on the thumbdrive too?

I thought Firefox wasn't portable. Isn't that the whole point of Portable Firefox?

# ? Sep 24, 2019 21:57

Avenging Dentist: Oct 1, 2005; oh my god is that a circular saw that does not go in my mouth aaaaagh

Its Coke posted:

Couldn't I just always keep Firefox updated?

Assuming you can install stuff on all the machines, sure. But in that case, I'd probably just install my favorite Dropbox clone and sync my profiles that way.

# ? Sep 24, 2019 22:19

CatHorse: Jan 5, 2008

Its Coke posted:

It's garbage specifically for using multiple profiles. If you have only one profile it's fine

You can keep multiple versions of portable firefox. One for each profile.

# ? Sep 25, 2019 02:07

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

SIGSEGV posted:

I remember that they already did that long ago and then walked it back when it turned out that the devs were burning out and that security, QA and users were also suffering. If they are lucky, they can learn from their mistakes twice.

Learn? What is learn? Is that in about :config or about :support or about :profile or one of the sub-sub-sub menus?

# ? Sep 25, 2019 05:01

Its Coke: Oct 29, 2018

MikusR posted:

You can keep multiple versions of portable firefox. One for each profile.

I'd rather not because each one is 400 MB even without profile data. That would fill up a thumb drive quickly.

# ? Oct 7, 2019 22:34

astral: Apr 26, 2004

You could just make different shortcuts for your portable Firefox that each specifies a different on-usb-drive profile directory.

# ? Oct 7, 2019 23:15

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Its Coke posted:

I'd rather not because each one is 400 MB even without profile data. That would fill up a thumb drive quickly.

You might want to upgrade to a modern one, man. These days you get 128 gb for $17.

# ? Oct 7, 2019 23:57

Fashionable Jorts: Jan 18, 2010; Maybe if I'm busy it could keep me from you

You can buy a two-terabyte thumb drive for like $40. I doubt you'll need more than five thousand profiles.

# ? Oct 8, 2019 00:29

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Fashionable Jorts posted:

You can buy a two-terabyte thumb drive for like $40.

Say what? Link?

# ? Oct 8, 2019 08:31

orcane: Jun 13, 2012; Fun Shoe

They're probably "2 TB" but even on the 128 GB mentioned above you can fit over 300 profiles :haw:

# ? Oct 8, 2019 09:03

Hed: Mar 31, 2004; Fun Shoe

Love Firefox and now use it on my Mac.

Is there any add-on that will make the in-page search work like Safari? That is, slightly blur the rest of the page with the exception of the found hits.

I really like the shortcut keys for searching links and text on Firefox but that's one thing Safari does that really helps me.

# ? Oct 8, 2019 16:02

Megillah Gorilla: Sep 22, 2003; If only all of life's problems could be solved by smoking a professor of ancient evil texts.; Bread Liar

FRINGE posted:

Say what? Link?

Never heard about these either.

poo poo, I remember backing up all my poo poo one CD at a time. Goddamn, my NAS is only 2TB.

Megillah Gorilla fucked around with this message at 16:45 on Oct 8, 2019

# ? Oct 8, 2019 16:42

Sereri: Sep 30, 2008; awwwrigami

Slightly over $40 though

# ? Oct 8, 2019 17:28

doctorfrog: Mar 14, 2007; Great.

Megillah Gorilla posted:

Never heard about these either.

poo poo, I remember backing up all my poo poo one CD at a time. Goddamn, my NAS is only 2TB.

Same. Still got 'em, though they're probably full of those little pinholes now.

Now that I think about it, I used to keep stuff on Zip drives. One for documents, one for "assorted pictures from newsgroups."

# ? Oct 8, 2019 17:34

Fashionable Jorts: Jan 18, 2010; Maybe if I'm busy it could keep me from you

FRINGE posted:

Say what? Link?

I was doing a casual glance out of curiosity, and looking into it with more scrutiny it seems like the cheap ones are trash. For a good 2TB you're looking at over a hundred bucks. Still, USB drives are abundant, they sell 64gb at 7-11s now.

# ? Oct 8, 2019 20:45

Powered Descent: Jul 13, 2008; We haven't had that spirit here since 1969.

Fashionable Jorts posted:

I was doing a casual glance out of curiosity, and looking into it with more scrutiny it seems like the cheap ones are trash.

A few years ago a coworker came in all proud of the "one terabyte" USB drive he'd gotten from China for unbelievably cheap. We laughed at him and loaded up a program to test it. Its memory started overwriting itself after (I think) 512 megs.

# ? Oct 8, 2019 21:07

fishmech: Jul 16, 2006; by VideoGames; Salad Prong

Doesn't look like it's been mentioned but, DownThemAll is finally back with a Firefox 57+ compatible version

# ? Oct 8, 2019 22:44

BlankSystemDaemon: Mar 13, 2009

Holy poo poo piss, yes!

# ? Oct 8, 2019 22:50

Wheany: Mar 17, 2006; Spinya^{ha^{ha^haha}ha}ha_{ha_{ha_haha}ha}ha!; Doctor Rope

Was there some change to the "remember last save folder per domain" setting in some recent update? Because it doesn't seem to do it anymore.

When I first started using Firefox, I didn't like it, but now I've gotten used to it.

# ? Oct 9, 2019 18:17

Fangs404: Dec 20, 2004; I time bomb.

fishmech posted:

Doesn't look like it's been mentioned but, DownThemAll is finally back with a Firefox 57+ compatible version

drat, that's huge.

# ? Oct 10, 2019 05:37

zetamind2000: Nov 6, 2007; ~~I'm an alien.~~

fishmech posted:

Doesn't look like it's been mentioned but, DownThemAll is finally back with a Firefox 57+ compatible version

Wow, unless I'm wrong that was one of the big add-ons that wasn't going to be ported/rewritten to be a webextension so it's pretty insane to see that it actually happened. What are the other big add-ons left that haven't been brought over yet?

# ? Oct 10, 2019 05:43

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

Fashionable Jorts posted:

I was doing a casual glance out of curiosity, and looking into it with more scrutiny it seems like the cheap ones are trash. For a good 2TB you're looking at over a hundred bucks. Still, USB drives are abundant, they sell 64gb at 7-11s now.

Ive got plenty of 128's. I want this mythical 2TB for almost free!

Those kingstons are like a thousand bux. No-name 1T's are like a hundred.

# ? Oct 10, 2019 07:33

Klyith: Aug 3, 2007; GBS Pledge Week

overmind2000 posted:

Wow, unless I'm wrong that was one of the big add-ons that wasn't going to be ported/rewritten to be a webextension so it's pretty insane to see that it actually happened. What are the other big add-ons left that haven't been brought over yet?

Findbar-Tweak and all the other stuff by that guy.

# ? Oct 10, 2019 14:23

BlankSystemDaemon: Mar 13, 2009

In hindsight, I do wonder how things would've turned out had Mozilla further refined everything to the point that it's reached today (where it can supply most of the functionality that XUL offered), instead of forcing developers and users to switch before it was fully mature (but "good enough" for browsing and basic add-ons).
Not that it makes any lick of difference, but FreeBSD still and Firefox previously has gotten me used to expecting POLA - so it was kind of a rough awakening, even if I stuck it out (long ago I decided never to use Chromium, partly because they rejected Robert Watsons capabilities sandboxing patches for it, and partly because back then Flash was still around and Chromium couldn't block ads in Flash whereas Firefox could).

# ? Oct 10, 2019 15:32

isndl: May 2, 2012; I WON A CONTEST IN TG AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS CUSTOM TITLE

D. Ebdrup posted:

In hindsight, I do wonder how things would've turned out had Mozilla further refined everything to the point that it's reached today (where it can supply most of the functionality that XUL offered), instead of forcing developers and users to switch before it was fully mature (but "good enough" for browsing and basic add-ons).

Firefox would have been bleeding market share as people continued to complain about how slow and bloated it was, probably. The addonpocalpse sucked but the performance improvements were a big deal.

# ? Oct 10, 2019 16:08

BlankSystemDaemon: Mar 13, 2009

isndl posted:

Firefox would have been bleeding market share as people continued to complain about how slow and bloated it was, probably. The addonpocalpse sucked but the performance improvements were a big deal.

True.
Performance improvements aren't done, either. Next major version of SpiderMonkey should have big improvements to the JavaScript engine (supposedly making it faster than V8 in Chromium?)

# ? Oct 10, 2019 16:44

Avenging Dentist: Oct 1, 2005; oh my god is that a circular saw that does not go in my mouth aaaaagh

For 57, there were pretty much three options: just rip the band-aid off and deal with the fact that add-ons will be in a rough spot for a while, accept that many performance improvements will be impossible to make while maintaining add-on compatibility, or spend the next few years gradually breaking XUL add-ons as you improve performance throughout Firefox (likely breaking many add-ons repeatedly as different areas in Firefox get changed).

As an example of why this is such a problem, when XUL add-ons were supported Firefox wasn't even able to change the markup for the tab bar, since it'd break compatibility with add-ons that expected the tabs to have a certain XUL structure. Remember those curvy tabs? All that poo poo was done with ::before and ::after pseudo-elements so that the XUL didn't have to change. I looked at the CSS once and it melted my brain.

# ? Oct 10, 2019 16:56

Klyith: Aug 3, 2007; GBS Pledge Week

D. Ebdrup posted:

In hindsight, I do wonder how things would've turned out had Mozilla further refined everything to the point that it's reached today (where it can supply most of the functionality that XUL offered), instead of forcing developers and users to switch before it was fully mature (but "good enough" for browsing and basic add-ons).

The big sin wasn't moving to webextensions before they had all the extra API additions to cover old functionality. It was forcing addon authors to re-write XUL extensions for multiprocess compatibility, then saying they were gonna abandon XUL a few months later.

Trying to keep XUL limping along as changing architecture underneath it made it worse and worse was a negative. If they'd planned their roadmap better they would have moved to webextensions sooner.

# ? Oct 10, 2019 17:24

Nth Doctor: Sep 7, 2010; Darkrai used Dream Eater!
It's super effective!

overmind2000 posted:

Wow, unless I'm wrong that was one of the big add-ons that wasn't going to be ported/rewritten to be a webextension so it's pretty insane to see that it actually happened. What are the other big add-ons left that haven't been brought over yet?

Tab Mix Plus :smith:

# ? Oct 10, 2019 17:54

astral: Apr 26, 2004

Avenging Dentist posted:

spend the next few years gradually breaking XUL add-ons as you improve performance throughout Firefox (likely breaking many add-ons repeatedly as different areas in Firefox get changed).

This is what a lot of people were expecting - something that would let them migrate from XUL little-by-little. And, honestly, this would've been easier on many add-on developers than what Firefox actually did.

Klyith posted:

The big sin wasn't moving to webextensions before they had all the extra API additions to cover old functionality. It was forcing addon authors to re-write XUL extensions for multiprocess compatibility, then saying they were gonna abandon XUL a few months later.

This was super-annoying.

quote:

Trying to keep XUL limping along as changing architecture underneath it made it worse and worse was a negative. If they'd planned their roadmap better they would have moved to webextensions sooner.

Yeah, if it was just one big migration that would've been OK too - especially if full functionality was there from the get-go.

# ? Oct 10, 2019 18:30

Avenging Dentist: Oct 1, 2005; oh my god is that a circular saw that does not go in my mouth aaaaagh

astral posted:

This is what a lot of people were expecting - something that would let them migrate from XUL little-by-little. And, honestly, this would've been easier on many add-on developers than what Firefox actually did.

This is roughly what's been happening in Thunderbird land, and let me just tell you, it's really loving bad.

# ? Oct 10, 2019 18:35

BlankSystemDaemon: Mar 13, 2009

Klyith posted:

The big sin wasn't moving to webextensions before they had all the extra API additions to cover old functionality. It was forcing addon authors to re-write XUL extensions for multiprocess compatibility, then saying they were gonna abandon XUL a few months later.

Trying to keep XUL limping along as changing architecture underneath it made it worse and worse was a negative. If they'd planned their roadmap better they would have moved to webextensions sooner.

Ah, you're spot on - I'd forgotten about that particular part.

# ? Oct 10, 2019 19:23

Fashionable Jorts: Jan 18, 2010; Maybe if I'm busy it could keep me from you

Nth Doctor posted:

Tab Mix Plus

I pour one out for tab mix plus every time I start my computer.

# ? Oct 12, 2019 18:28

BlankSystemDaemon: Mar 13, 2009

I just remembered that I really miss the addon-bar that used to be in Firefox, which would default to being at the bottom of Firefox's UI - so the awesome-bar takes up the entire area next to the burger menu.

# ? Oct 12, 2019 21:12

astral: Apr 26, 2004

D. Ebdrup posted:

I just remembered that I really miss the addon-bar that used to be in Firefox, which would default to being at the bottom of Firefox's UI - so the awesome-bar takes up the entire area next to the burger menu.

Good ol' status bar.

# ? Oct 13, 2019 01:02