|
I think the idea is that they're dropping XUL in favor of HTML (hence the oblique reference to browser.html), which would still let you gently caress up the UI however you like. It's slightly less convenient than XUL overlays, but most of the other nice poo poo from XUL is already a part of HTML now.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
They better update OverbiteFF to handle whatever new restrictions come down the line. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I think the idea is that they're dropping XUL in favor of HTML (hence the oblique reference to browser.html), which would still let you gently caress up the UI however you like. It's slightly less convenient than XUL overlays, but most of the other nice poo poo from XUL is already a part of HTML now. Not necessarily browser.html, but they are planning to replace XUL with HTML, and losing XUL is no great loss beyond that it breaks all sorts of existing things. It's the move away from XPCOM that's limiting, as the replacement is explicitly supposed to be much more locked down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
In case it's useful to anyone, here are my uBlock Origin filter subscriptions. EasyList/EasyPrivacy/FanBoy's List are combined at the bottom, and the other disabled subscriptions are duplicated in other lists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
There's a dev blog article (not the main blog article of course) that says that Classic Theme Restorer will be one of the addons that will be impossible in the new world order. So really there's no reason at all to use Firefox anymore. I hope this is the straw that breaks the camel's back and leads to a fork, but that didn't happen in 4.0 so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:There's a dev blog article (not the main blog article of course) that says that Classic Theme Restorer will be one of the addons that will be impossible in the new world order. gently caress no that's what I was worried about 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:There's a dev blog article (not the main blog article of course) that says that Classic Theme Restorer will be one of the addons that will be impossible in the new world order. Wouldn't it be possible to at least recreate some of what Classic Theme Restorer does with HTML (whenever enough of XUL is replaced with it, of course)? On another note, at what point is Mozilla going to stop trying to be Chrome and accept that they won't be getting the #2 status back? They've chased the Chrome target for years now and all they've done is make poor decisions and hemorrhage market share. I can understand wanting to gate off access to the inner parts of the browser from add-ons, but they turned off the ability to get some semblance of the old user interface back just from simple button/toolbar rearranging like several versions ago. They can't possibly be dumb enough to ride this into the grave. zetamind2000 fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 08:27
|
|
|
I have a great idea! Let's kill off the single most popular add-on which is the only thing keeping a significant part of our userbase from jumping ship to one of our derivatives that doesn't pander as hard to the least technical users! I'm all for making a more secure browser and making it easier for new users to adapt, but look at Opera now. It went from a small but dedicated set of users, which included myself, to basically nothing; if you gut the core appeal of a browser it doesn't matter if it keeps the same name, it's dead. I'm sure some, probably many, functions in classic theme restorer will be possible, but it only takes a few new frustrations to drive me to a new browser in hopes of greener pastures. Or devs who can leave good enough alone, or provide options to go back to good enough when they can't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:There's a dev blog article (not the main blog article of course) that says that Classic Theme Restorer will be one of the addons that will be impossible in the new world order. gently caress that noise. Time for someone to whip out Fireforx.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
Christ guys, add-ons aren't dead, Firefox is just transitioning to a new high-performance add-on API. Overall jank and performance issues caused by add-ons have been the top complaints about Firefox, and this will address both of those.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 09:03
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Christ guys, add-ons aren't dead, Firefox is just transitioning to a new high-performance add-on API. Overall jank and performance issues caused by add-ons have been the top complaints about Firefox, and this will address both of those. Chrome has a high performance add-on API. The lack of flexibility is why I can't see myself using it except as a last resort. It remains to be seen how much customization will be lost, since I don't expect them to lock it down as much as Chrome is by design. Extensions really can't touch much of the UI of Chrome because it's all native code where I don't expect Firefox to be locked down that much. On the other hand if I were willing to give up a lot of customization for performance I'd already be using Chrome. My changes to Firefox are rather minor - I expect most will remain possible - the biggest ones being removing australis, minimizing tab width to fit more tabs, and unloading inactive tabs. That third one might break, even if only temporarily, as Firefox moves to separate processes per tab if they don't code APIs specifically to handle it, and without that I won't be able to run Firefox with my 16GB of RAM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Christ guys, add-ons aren't dead, Firefox is just transitioning to a new high-performance add-on API. Overall jank and performance issues caused by add-ons have been the top complaints about Firefox, and this will address both of those. Except they explicitly said the change will limit what addons can do so you're summarizing it by leaving out the thing people are complaining about? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Keep in mind CTR is a very, very broad add-on that touches a lot of things. It's not at all surprising that part of it is breaking but I don't think even Mozilla is dumb enough to make what it's doing, by and large, impossible. Oh I forgot about Newsfox.  Google reader. That's also another one pretty likely to get killed and I would be absolutely livid to have to jump to another RSS reader again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
It's almost as if when software gets really popular and you fix the complaints some people have, you'll create complaints from others, because people have varied, sometimes diametrically opposed preferences. No. That can't be it, it's just Mozilla is dumb and/or out to get me and this wouldn't happen if I made a browser, which I won't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:I have a great idea! Let's kill off the single most popular add-on which is the only thing keeping a significant part of our userbase from jumping ship to one of our derivatives that doesn't pander as hard to the least technical users! I predict this will do next to nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:I have a great idea! Let's kill off the single most popular add-on which is the only thing keeping a significant part of our userbase from jumping ship to one of our derivatives that doesn't pander as hard to the least technical users!  I don't think they are going to kill ABP. In fact uBlock Origin, which is a better replacement, was ported from Chrome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Read posted:Except they explicitly said the change will limit what addons can do so you're summarizing it by leaving out the thing people are complaining about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Read posted:Except they explicitly said the change will limit what addons can do so you're summarizing it by leaving out the thing people are complaining about? http://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2015/08/mozilla-sets-plan-to-dump-firefox-add-ons-move-to-chrome-like-extensions/ 'Current Firefox add-ins can intimately intertwine themselves with the inner workings of the browser using an API called XPCOM. With Electrolysis, that's not easily possible: the add-ins will operate in a separate process from the main Firefox shell, so can no longer wrap themselves around the browser's internals.' oh no a more stable browser what a travesty
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Generic Monk posted:oh no a more stable browser what a travesty At the cost of customizability, yes it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Alereon posted:Christ guys, add-ons aren't dead, Firefox is just transitioning to a new high-performance add-on API. Overall jank and performance issues caused by add-ons have been the top complaints about Firefox, and this will address both of those. I know that, and I understand why it's happening, I just don't like them killing the ability to change the UI while doing it. And this goes well back to before they announced this, either, if Mozilla wasn't slowly killing off the ability to customize the way Firefox looks add-ons like CTR wouldn't be necessary in the first place. It's their browser and they can release however they like, but there should at least be an option to move things around so it doesn't look like a copy of Chrome all the time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
m2pt5 posted:At the cost of customizability, yes it is. Alereon posted:They specifically said they would be working with add-on authors to extend the WebExtensions API to support the needed functionality, so it's silly to freak out about the death of add-ons before we have a feature-complete API. This is not going to be a quick transition so add-on authors have plenty of time to modify their add-ons or petition Mozilla to add features as-needed. xamphear fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
I dunno man, upgrading to Windows 10 and trying out Edge once it supports addons sounds like a less bad time to me than using Chrome for more than 15 minutes. What browsers are there even that aren't just reskinned Chrome anymore? At first I always figured that if Firefox got bad enough I could always fall back to Opera, but welp...
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Geemer posted:I dunno man, upgrading to Windows 10 and trying out Edge once it supports addons sounds like a less bad time to me than using Chrome for more than 15 minutes. Opera went full re-skinned Chrome and completely ruined its appeal. You could argue that Opera was bloated but you barely even needed extensions based on how much it provided from the get-go and how much customization you had. After it turned into a Chrome skin with absolutely no features of its own its user base tanked. I'm not sure about now but for years the Opera 12 user base was larger than the combined user base of all the post-Chrome versions. Grim Up North posted:I don't think they are going to kill ABP. In fact uBlock Origin, which is a better replacement, was ported from Chrome. Huh, I was going off the mistaken impression, not sure from where, that CTR was the most popular add-on, or highest rated, or something. Welp, my mistake. Core point still holds; I know a fair number of people who are relying on CTR to keep their Firefox experience somewhat consistent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Those of you that you CTR - what exactly about the current look of FF don't you like? I really like the improvements and simplifications over the last 5-10 versions they've made to the UI.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:Those of you that you CTR - what exactly about the current look of FF don't you like? I really like the improvements and simplifications over the last 5-10 versions they've made to the UI.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:Those of you that you CTR - what exactly about the current look of FF don't you like? I really like the improvements and simplifications over the last 5-10 versions they've made to the UI. I use CTR but to be clear it's not because I think the default look of FF is bad, I just have my own preferences. I'm certainly not advocating my Firefox be the default. That being said I like very minimal browser chrome and square, flush tabs. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:Those of you that you CTR - what exactly about the current look of FF don't you like? I really like the improvements and simplifications over the last 5-10 versions they've made to the UI. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Broadly speaking, tabs on top and the way the status bar pops up and goes away in the bottom left area are the two biggest "problems" I have with modern FF and the things I most consistently try to revert. Although I can totally understand why they changed those things, I don't understand why they aren't left in as options for reversion, or why it's so hard and janky to get them back with addons. I am totally comfortable with the vertical space those elements take up on the screens I use, the benefit you get from thinning is outweighed, in my case, by not liking how a UI element pops in and out of view (for the status bar, and it's also incidentally nice to have a place to stick some other buttons), and conceptually having a problem with tabs on top and finding it more inconvenient to click on tabs that are farther away. Also gently caress putting the reload button in the address bar, whose stupid idea was that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:Those of you that you CTR - what exactly about the current look of FF don't you like? I really like the improvements and simplifications over the last 5-10 versions they've made to the UI. Sometimes it's just not liking change for the sake of change, especially in regards to appearance, sometimes whatever improvements were introduced don't outweigh the cost of adapting to the change, and sometimes you need to fix regressions because the devs don't really care about the long tail of power users and their wants. For me I do not use the UI forward/back/go/refresh buttons because I have those on my mouse or hit enter. I have hundreds of tabs and CTR makes it easiest to make them compact and stylish hides the arrows because I scroll with my mouse. Despite that I like having a small menu button in the upper left because I can move my mouse onto it one motion from anywhere on the screen, even if I don't use it very much. e: Most of this should still be possible going forward, but "most" is a very, very different beast from "all." It was surprisingly petty things that got me to originally choose pre-Chrome Opera over Chrome, like not resizing images on new tabs. Never mind that Opera eventually introduced that without an option to revert to the old behaviour and I had to override images.css to fix it. Desuwa fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Assuming that Firefox's UI moves from XUL to HTML (and not to native widgets), I think you should be able to gently caress with the UI in any way you like, provided there's an API to inject scripts into the UI process. All an add-on developer will have to do is execute a script to change the DOM, and presto, you've got your bespoke, artisanal Firefox UI. It might be harder to play nice with other add-ons, but it's not like that's easy with XUL either. My guess is that the process will be fairly similar to what you have to do to support restartless extensions today (read: inject DOM elements manually instead of using XUL overlays). Other stuff, like protocol handlers (e.g. for Gopher or FTP) could be a problem, but you might be able to use something like Service Workers for that. Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Adding to the CTR chat: The hamburger menu button is a gigantic piece of poo poo and getting rid of it is my main reason to use CTR. Also getting the reload button out of the address bar and splitting it and the stop button to two separate buttons instead of the hybrid that never appears to be in the state I want it in when I reach for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Desuwa posted:Chrome has a high performance add-on API. The lack of flexibility is why I can't see myself using it except as a last resort. Agree with this entirely. The users Firefox still has are the technical people who use these low-level extensions. I'd be using Chrome if the extensions worked better (and the ram usage wasn't a joke). I personally rely on vimperator, and there's no chance I'll keep using Firefox if it's not possible to re-implement with the new API. On a separate note, I feel like a lot of Mozilla's budget is spent on irrelevant bullshit. I can't believe they're using the majority of donations to actually pay programmers who work on Firefox. $300 million a year income was the last number I saw. There are entire OS projects with an order of magnitude less funding. I doubt they have even 100 full time devs working on Firefox. From their site and the stuff I hear in the media, they seem to think they're a successful San Francisco startup, rather than an open source project. It must cost an amazing amount of money to run swank offices in 30 countries and be based in SF. That while *still* only having Firefox on one mobile platform, and not even being a good citizen there: FF on Android doesn't follow material design guidelines and doesn't even use the platform's zoom shortcut, 3+ years after it was introduced. (Android native zoom gesture is double tap, hold and slide up/down. FF mobile is still using an iOS pinch zoom for some reason). Also, FF on Android is still clunky and much less responsive than Chrome. Firefox OS is a complete dead end and a waste of time: doing everything in web apps adds more overhead, the opposite of what you want for a low-end phone for developing countries. Other than that it's just android, and they've already proven they can't write a browser for that platform competently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Not following material design guidelines is a vitally one of the few good things Firefox for Android has going for it, actually. Of course that doesn't mean the UI isn't janky as hell, but whatever. The other good thing it has is not being Chrome or stock Android browser, and the ability to use ublock.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
wooger posted:(Android native zoom gesture is double tap, hold and slide up/down. FF mobile is still using an iOS pinch zoom for some reason). I've been using Android for 6 years and i don't think I've ever used this supposed "native zoom gesture".
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
It's pretty handy when you're using your phone one-handed. Which, to be fair, is becoming less and less likely as phones get bigger.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Fangs404 posted:Those of you that you CTR - what exactly about the current look of FF don't you like? I really like the improvements and simplifications over the last 5-10 versions they've made to the UI. It's already been mentioned but I too like flush, square tabs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I've been using Android for 6 years and i don't think I've ever used this supposed "native zoom gesture". It took me five months to figure out why zooming on Android was so loving difficult and inconsistent. I bet it's because of a patent or some dumb poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I've been using Android for 6 years and i don't think I've ever used this supposed "native zoom gesture". Hmm, maybe you're not a power user? Do you not ever zoom, or you're using some other method? Works in every other app but FF. Has done since ICS at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Generic Monk posted:oh no a more stable browser what a travesty I use Nightly and have like 20 addons installed, and FF crashes something like once a week for me. When that happens, I have to wait all of two minutes for it to restart. Stability is a complete non-issue for me, so why would I be happy about sacrificing functionality for it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
wooger posted:Hmm, maybe you're not a power user? Do you not ever zoom, or you're using some other method? Every app I've ever used, pinch to zoom works just fine, and if it doesn't it's some legacy app that still uses onscreen +/- buttons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2015 02:04
|
|