Firefox 63.0 Available With WebExtensions On Linux Now Run In Their Own Process

[M@GOid]

Problem is, the feature was only being used by something like 0.01% of their users... so keeping it was increasing the memory usage and slowing things down for almost every single one of their users. It's a wonder they didn't drop it years ago...

If is not being used, is not increasing memory or slowing things down... Or you can see that putting it outside will do that, but just slight. The problem is when you start collecting plugins, because you are trying to retaining functions the devs are trowing out. And you will see that becoming a problem.

To me this whole affair is just the old case where the person responsible for this or that code is not available anymore, so the other developers, to get hid of the increased load, tell users that removing things are for security/stability, so they do not have to deal with users like myself whining.

But mark my words, this is just the first step to remove the live bookmark functionality, just as Chrome did. So Firefox users in the future can expect to have a crippled live feed experience as bad as the Chrome users are having right now.

[Vistaus]

apt-mark hold firefox

And how would one do that on other distros? I mean: it's nice that you're trying to help, but this is a more general Linux community, so it would be nice if you could also think outside of the Debian-based box, or so to speak.

[Vistaus]

Which already exists: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...don/livemarks/

And it's good to use because...? If this was a GNOME article and the statement was "but we provide an extension", everyone would've gone nuts.

[Vistaus]

Software freedom is a matter of licensing and access to the source code. It doesn't mean that the software must necessarily support a particular option, although I agree that forced updates inherently suck. But at any rate both Firefox and Chromium respect Stallman's Four Freedoms while Chrome doesn't at all.

As far as functionalities go, Firefox has the Containers, which, for me, are THE killer feature that AFAIK no other browser has. On the other hand, in the latest release of Chrome, Google finally dropped all pretence to care about user's privacy and personal preferences. Another issue I see with Chrome is that it's slowly but surely becoming the new IE6, with a growing list of web applications that are designed.to only work in Chrome, and Chrome being designed to keep it that way.

Well, at least Chrome keeps updating itself, unlike IE6 which was superseded by IE7. So Chrome is becoming IE6-like, but it will never be exactly like IE6 because of the constant updates.

[onicsis]

And how would one do that on other distros? I mean: it's nice that you're trying to help, but this is a more general Linux community, so it would be nice if you could also think outside of the Debian-based box, or so to speak.

It dependends, from distribution to distribution. For Redhat/Fedora it's a concept called versionlocking(added to yum/dnf via plugin), wich allows to protect packages from being updated to newer versions.
To lock a packages at current version
#yum versionlock package

[onicsis]

Well, at least Chrome keeps updating itself, unlike IE6 which was superseded by IE7. So Chrome is becoming IE6-like, but it will never be exactly like IE6 because of the constant updates.

At least it is based on a opensource version having various forks like Vivaldi, Brave or Falkon browser.

[Nocifer]

Congratulations to Firefox's developers for making it the Windows 10 of browsers.

Microsoft removing the option for users to completely disable updates was one of their better (even if controversial) decisions in Windows 10.

Welcome to a plethora of toolbars, popups, notifications reminding you to upgrade to the latest version.

Having optional updates means all that crap you mentioned. Having silent, mandatory automatic updates means exactly the opposite: no prompts, no pop-ups, no nothing; just the update process being performed after the next restart.

What if the latest version is crap and I don't want it ?

If an app you use is not up to your standards, complain to the devs and/or change the app. It's not like it will cost you anything. Or even better, since this is open source: fork it and go do your own thing. On the other hand, using a version from two years ago because you find it "better" is at least lazy on your part.

What if Microsoft buys Firefox and I don't want it ?

Same as above.

I wonder how do the stupid developers think about the following use case: ...

They're probably thinking "freezing updates for a browser is an extremely bad idea, so there can't possibly be anyone out there stupid enough to do it".

Helpful guys here... please don't remind me that there are still possible to do this by editing some text files in some location.
I don't have the time to jump through hoops on each Firefox install to make it obey my decisions. I don't have time for this crap.

So in other words, you have enough time to go and whine on random internet forums about something, yet you don't have enough time to do what is required to fix that something, even if the fix is as simple a thing as toggling a couple of flags in about:config. How very mature of you.

I will just ditch Firefox from both my computer and my parents computers and I will probably install ungoogled Chromium until something better comes along.

Good riddance. And please, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Then I hope some day your government will force you to eat broccoli every day. Because broccoli is healthy and reduces the risks of spreading viruses. And if you don't like broccoli, five big boys will come to you and show you how much you like broccoli. Because that seems like a totally legit solution to your government.

If you don't eat your veggies, you put yourself at risk of having bad health. If you don't update your browser and/or your OS and/or your other apps, you put ME at risk of MY computer getting infected with crap and/or MY inbox getting spammed with other crap. So in this case, I fully endorse those five big boys coming to you and showing you the marvel that is updating your stuff. If you don't want to update, then you can use your own internet - but please stay away from mine.

To me this whole affair is just the old case where the person responsible for this or that code is not available anymore, so the other developers, to get hid of the increased load, tell users that removing things are for security/stability, so they do not have to deal with users like myself whining.

Well, you said it. This is open source, it's not like these guys are getting paid to develop stuff for you or me or anyone else. So if the developer who's responsible for some feature leaves, and there is no other to take their place, then it only makes sense to remove that feature because sooner or later it WILL become a security vulnerability. And even if there is a (very valid) argument to be made here that removing features is generally not a good thing, in this case we're talking about a very simple feature that is used by a fraction of a fraction of the user base, so not only will it not be missed, but its functionality can be (and has already been) easily replicated by an addon to be used by anyone who WILL miss it. If you don't like to use addons in a browser specifically known for its use of addons, that's really not the browser's problem.

And how would one do that on other distros? I mean: it's nice that you're trying to help, but this is a more general Linux community, so it would be nice if you could also think outside of the Debian-based box, or so to speak.

Well, the only thing you really need to know is that it CAN be done on pretty much every package manager out there. For more info, just Google it. It's not like you can expect others to list the exact command for every distribution.

And it's good to use because...? If this was a GNOME article and the statement was "but we provide an extension", everyone would've gone nuts.

Indeed. And that's because using extensions to provide major features for the user-facing part of an OS (i.e., a "desktop environment") is a completely different thing than using extensions to provide minor features for a web browser. We're talking apples and oranges here.

Well, at least Chrome keeps updating itself, unlike IE6 which was superseded by IE7. So Chrome is becoming IE6-like, but it will never be exactly like IE6 because of the constant updates.

The issue remains though: to develop an app for the Web, one must not only strive to conform to the standards but also provide separate, specific instructions for Chrome's quirks, just like one used to provide specific instructions for IE6's quirks. And we're not in 2001 anymore, this crap is happening right as we speak, in 2018. And it's all because Google has seemingly decided to become the next Microsoft.

[finalzone]

If is not being used, is not increasing memory or slowing things down... Or you can see that putting it outside will do that, but just slight. The problem is when you start collecting plugins, because you are trying to retaining functions the devs are trowing out. And you will see that becoming a problem.

Keyword: plugin. You have the control to customize your software yet still complain one function easily installable is not part of the core.

To me this whole affair is just the old case where the person responsible for this or that code is not available anymore, so the other developers, to get hid of the increased load, tell users that removing things are for security/stability, so they do not have to deal with users like myself whining.

Which one do you prefer: keeping bit-rot codes i.e. unmaintained add-on leading to major vulnerability or removing it until someone take over to actively maintain it.

[onicsis]

The issue remains though: to develop an app for the Web, one must not only strive to conform to the standards but also provide separate, specific instructions for Chrome's quirks, just like one used to provide specific instructions for IE6's quirks. And we're not in 2001 anymore, this crap is happening right as we speak, in 2018. And it's all because Google has seemingly decided to become the next Microsoft.

What Chrome quirks?

[OMTDesign]

According to OMG Ubuntu, thumbnail previews will now be shown when switching tabs.

The Ctrl + Tab shortcut for switching between open tabs will show thumbnail previews of each open tab by default for new profiles. Existing users can choose to enable this from the about: preferences page.

Was this not the case for other Firefox users? I have seen this functionality enabled by default since September.