howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

General discussion and chat (archived)
RexyDallas

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by RexyDallas » 2018-02-26, 23:03

I agree that they disrespected add-on developers, and especially the theme developers. Their excuse for dropping themes is that they have to constantly be updated. Same is said for add-ons. Yet they are the ones who constantly overhaul their browser. They switched to the hack known as e10s, and just as add-on developers were getting caught up with that change, they remove add-on support altogether. Safety is also an excuse unless you pander to dumb people who actually believes they have anyone but them-self to blame if they install an untrustworthy add-on. Oh wait, they already forced add-ons to be signed, so that excuse makes no sense! By using that excuse for removing so many features, Mozilla is only marginally better than those people.
Last edited by RexyDallas on 2018-02-26, 23:13, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Sajadi
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1226
Joined: 2013-04-19, 00:46

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Sajadi » 2018-02-26, 23:25

RexyDallas wrote:I agree that they disrespected add-on developers, and especially the theme developers. Their excuse for dropping themes is that they have to constantly be updated. Same is said for add-ons. Yet they are the ones who constantly overhaul their browser. They switched to the hack known as e10s, and just as add-on developers were getting caught up with that change, they remove add-on support altogether. Safety is also an excuse unless you pander to dumb people who actually believes they have anyone but them-self to blame if they install an untrustworthy add-on. Oh wait, they already forced add-ons to be signed, so that excuse makes no sense! By using that excuse for removing so many features, Mozilla is only marginally better than those people.
Exactly right dear Sir :thumbup:

No one hates the old Mozilla - These guys would have offered their hearts and soul for the community. The new guys give a rats ass about the user and it's need.

Mozilla new is the perfect showcase that money indeed corrupts everything. And who has to suffer... the ones who believed in that guys and have been thinking "That developer is different than the rest"!

What those guys - who dare to call themselves Mozilla today - are actually doing is some kind of corpse abuse of intellectual property of long gone other developers - Riding the train of something which they neither understand or respect.
Last edited by Sajadi on 2018-02-26, 23:30, edited 3 times in total.

Thehandyman1957

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Thehandyman1957 » 2018-02-27, 01:00

Sajadi wrote:What those guys - who dare to call themselves Mozilla today - are actually doing is some kind of corpse abuse of intellectual property of long gone other developers - Riding the train of something which they neither understand or respect.
Exactly what I think. Well said. ;)

jd2066
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 10
Joined: 2018-02-25, 14:30

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by jd2066 » 2018-02-27, 10:53

RexyDallas wrote:I agree that they disrespected add-on developers, and especially the theme developers. Their excuse for dropping themes is that they have to constantly be updated. Same is said for add-ons. Yet they are the ones who constantly overhaul their browser. They switched to the hack known as e10s, and just as add-on developers were getting caught up with that change, they remove add-on support altogether. Safety is also an excuse unless you pander to dumb people who actually believes they have anyone but them-self to blame if they install an untrustworthy add-on. Oh wait, they already forced add-ons to be signed, so that excuse makes no sense! By using that excuse for removing so many features, Mozilla is only marginally better than those people.
I will agree that Mozilla did disrespect add-on developers who created whole themes for the browser and add-on developers that created XUL-based extensions that used APIs that will or cannot be recreated as WebExtensions APIs.
Also that Mozilla disrespected the users of the add-ons those developers created by making it not possible for those users to use the add-ons they wanted to use.

However, I don't think e10s (Multi-Process Support) was a hack, it was a fundamental change to the Gecko rendering engine that changed how Content (Web Pages in Tabs, Popups, etc) and User Interface (Menubar, Toolbar, Tabbar, Sidebars and other elements built using XUL) functioned.
Without e10s (Multi-Process Support) enabled (which I think you can still disable in Firefox 57 via about:config preference), the Gecko Rendering Engine used exactly 1 Firefox process for all loaded Content and the User Interface.

It is a good change and I can say that with many tabs open that e10s does appear to improve the performance of Firefox by quite a lot.
However, it is harder for XUL add-ons to function when e10s feature is active.
Thus Mozilla had two approaches to deals with this:
1. Their initial approach of adding compatibility Javascript functions to allow XUL based add-ons to continue working with e10s (Multi-Process) active.
This approach was a hack in various ways that did not completely allow all XUL based add-ons to function anymore.
2. The second approach of just getting rid of support for XUL based add-ons altogether and using a more limited Javascript only API called WebExtensions.

Basically, WebExtensions are the equivalent of a Greasemoney User Script that runs on a web page to change functions in the web page, only besides working on Web Pages, they can also affect the Firefox User Interface and hook into some Firefox Navigation APIs for what they do.

It's very similar in available functionality to add-on developers and users that was available with the Internet Explorer 6 add-on API, the primary difference being that Internet Explorer 6 add-ons where written in C/C++, and HTML pages that were configured via Registry Entries.
The C/C++ part could use Navigation APIs, add a dynamic toolbar of custom elements and I think add some specific Menu Bar items that ran C/C++ functions.
The Registry Part could add static Menu Bar items, Context Menu Items and Toolbar Buttons that ran specific HTML pages with Javascript in them to work.

A year of so before Internet Explorer 7 was released, Microsoft's Online Services division released a version of the MSN Toolbar that used a custom dynamic toolbar along with the various Navigation APIs to give Tab Browsing support to Internet Explorer 6.
It was a pretty nifty hack at the time (I used for a short period of time before Internet Explorer 7 was released and I decided to switch from Internet Explorer to Mozilla Firefox (I think to a 1.x version, could have been a 2.x version).

I was not happy with how the user interface and the browser itself worked in the early 0.x versions of Firefox.

I did/do like the original of name of Phoenix better then Firefox because of the meaning behind that name as Wikipedia explains here:
It was originally titled Phoenix, which carried the implication of the mythical firebird that rose triumphantly from the ashes of its dead predecessor, in this case from the "ashes" of Netscape Navigator after it had been killed off by Microsoft Internet Explorer in the "First browser war".
I think that is pretty cool but Phoenix Technologies Ltd found in 1979 that creates BIOS/UEFI firmware for motherboards to use had a trademark on the name Phoenix so the project was renamed to Firebird to avoid that.
Shortly thereafter it was renamed to Firefox when the developers of Firebird, the open source SQL Database software pointed out that, it could be confusing to have two open source projects named Firebird which in retrospect, I don't know why Mozilla didn't make sure that no other open source product was named Firebird before picking that name but that is what they did.

As a product and brand name, I don't any of the users that Firefox was targeted to would confuse it with the Phoenix Technologies firmware developers.
I don't think Phoenix Technologies Ltd ever gave their opinion on the use of the name (For it or Against It) so I think Mozilla wanted a name they could legally trademark and use as a legally protected brand name.

Of which, use of that legally protected brand name ended up being a big priority for Mozilla in the years that followed.

I started using Gentoo Linux in 2005 or so and at some point a few years later whenever I compiled a new of Firefox via Portage*, it would always and still does to this day tell me each time:
You are enabling official branding. You may not redistribute this build to any users on your network or the internet. Doing so puts yourself into a legal problem with Mozilla Foundation
You can disable it by emerging [Firefox Version Here] _with_ the bindist USE-flag
As I'm only compiling the program for my own use, that is not a problem but it is a bit unusual**.

* Portage is a Package Manager that compiles software from the source code before installing it except for some specific exceptions like:
1. No source code available so a binary must be installed
This includes things such as the NVIDIA Graphics Card drivers, Adobe Flash Player (NPAPI version for Firefox, PPAPI version for Chromium and Google Chrome), The Widevine Content Decryption Module (For Chromium and Google Chrome) and Sun Java.
2. The product uses an interpreted language like PHP and doesn't need to be compiled.
3. For programs like Firefox, Chromium and OpenOffice that could take days to compile on older hardware have a binary package available to use instead.

** I just did a search for packages with the bindist use flag and it appears there are 7 more with the same issue.
Those being mariadb, openssl, qtnetwork, freetype, mesa, openssh, socat.
The list is both shorter and longer then I expected it to be.
Last edited by jd2066 on 2018-02-27, 11:14, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Sajadi
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1226
Joined: 2013-04-19, 00:46

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Sajadi » 2018-02-27, 11:13

jd2066 wrote:Basically, WebExtensions are the equivalent of a Greasemoney User Script that runs on a web page to change functions in the web page, only besides working on Web Pages, they can also affect the Firefox User Interface and hook into some Firefox Navigation APIs for what they do.

As a product and brand name, I don't any of the users that Firefox was targeted to would confuse it with the Phoenix Technologies firmware developers. I don't think Phoenix Technologies Ltd ever gave their opinion on the use of the name (For it or Against It) so I think Mozilla wanted a name they could legally trademark and use as a legally protected brand name.
2) When we talk about "branding" here - naming is not meant. That term here is in direct relation to a certain recognization mark. May it be a special icon or an UI which can't be modified because it is the very definition of the product in question. That is what Mozilla wants to do. Everyone who takes a look at Firefox should say "Hey, it is Firefox!" - and such a goal excludes much control over the UI from the user side. If they still would allow in the future, the branding concept would be rendered useless.

1) Webextensions will never have the same function spectrum as compared with XUL - Mozilla has different goals, see point 2 first.

Is that understandable? Mozilla's new direction will exclude user interaction with the UI to the most part, with only some minor changes possible. And that is the core substance of their "branding policy" which they have adopted from Google Chrome.

And that leads us towards that Mozilla has exchanged their advanced users for the most simple users around, which neiter would want UI customization or complex add-ons, as that would be seen as bloat.

Funny is - at the same time most of those users are fans of privacy disaster tools like Facebook, Twitter or Discord and Whatsapp which are the very example of stuff being bloated :lol:

Technology... good and fine! But that is really not the main point of all the changes done by Mozilla. First, the change of visions and goals is what happens, which leads us then to the technological aspect of the whole mess. It is not the other way around. You have to understand that 8-)

All that was decided more or less already before the very first big chance was upcoming in Firefox 29 with Australis, at least concept-wise.
Last edited by Sajadi on 2018-02-27, 11:26, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Isengrim
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1325
Joined: 2015-09-08, 22:54
Location: 127.0.0.1
Contact:

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Isengrim » 2018-02-27, 11:22

jd2066 wrote:It is a good change and I can say that with many tabs open that e10s does appear to improve the performance of Firefox by quite a lot.
Not necessarily.
a.k.a. Ascrod
Linux Mint 19.3 Cinnamon (64-bit), Debian Bullseye (64-bit), Windows 7 (64-bit)
"As long as there is someone who will appreciate the work involved in the creation, the effort is time well spent." ~ Tetsuzou Kamadani, Cave Story

jd2066
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 10
Joined: 2018-02-25, 14:30

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by jd2066 » 2018-02-27, 11:26

Sajadi wrote: 2) When we talk about "branding" here - naming is not meant. That term here is in direct relation to a certain recognization mark. May it be a special icon or an UI which can't be modified because it is the very definition of the product in question. That is what Mozilla wants to do. Everyone who takes a look at Firefox should say "Hey, it is Firefox!" - and such a goal excludes much control over the UI from the user side. If they still would allow in the future, the branding concept would be rendered useless.

1) Webextensions will never have the same function spectrum as compared with XUL - Mozilla has different goals, see point 2 first.

Is that understandable? Mozilla's new direction will exclude user interaction with the UI to the most part, with only some minor changes possible. And that is the core substance of their "branding policy" which they have adopted from Google Chrome.
Right, so you mean branding like how "Microsoft Windows" is a brand and and Microsoft wants everyone to know that Windows is used whenever they see it.

I didn't even realize that could be Mozilla's goal but that would make sense as a way to explain why Mozilla has slowing been making it's look harder to change.

As for WebExtensions, I'm aware that Mozilla has different goals with the WebExtensions system then the old system but I thought that it was a possibility that Mozilla would make it more powerful.

However, I think there is a good chance that you are right as that logically fits the pattern of what Mozilla has done.

User avatar
Sajadi
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1226
Joined: 2013-04-19, 00:46

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Sajadi » 2018-02-27, 11:29

jd2066 wrote:Right, so you mean branding like how "Microsoft Windows" is a brand and and Microsoft wants everyone to know that Windows is used whenever they see it.

I didn't even realize that could be Mozilla's goal but that would make sense as a way to explain why Mozilla has slowing been making it's look harder to change.

As for WebExtensions, I'm aware that Mozilla has different goals with the WebExtensions system then the old system but I thought that it was a possibility that Mozilla would make it more powerful.

However, I think there is a good chance that you are right as that logically fits the pattern of what Mozilla has done.
Now you got it, great :) And that is all what has happened and is going to happen. As said, they make we's more powerful, but they still will have a very limited impact rate UI-wise. It will be perhaps as powerful as they plan for their new theming system, which is still WORLDS apart from full themes and is not satisfying enthusiasts at all.

Enough to make simple users be amazed, but power users and enthusiasts will be still utterly frustrated, as they are no longer the target of Mozilla new.
Last edited by Sajadi on 2018-02-27, 11:30, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
gracious1
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 891
Joined: 2016-05-15, 05:00
Location: humid upstate NY

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by gracious1 » 2018-02-28, 04:37

Sajadi wrote:They want a well and instantly recognized surface without the danger that the user could screw things up, and others who see that then be turned away from potentially deciding to use Firefox.
So what exactly is Mozilla afraid a user might do? How would a user "screw things up" and discourage someone else? An ugly theme? Moving around the toolbars? Not sure I have ever really understand this.
20 July 1969 🌗 Apollo 11 🌓 "One small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." 🚀

User avatar
Sajadi
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1226
Joined: 2013-04-19, 00:46

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Sajadi » 2018-02-28, 06:40

gracious1 wrote:So what exactly is Mozilla afraid a user might do? How would a user "screw things up" and discourage someone else? An ugly theme? Moving around the toolbars? Not sure I have ever really understand this.
Mozilla's reasoning as with most things today is: "If Google Chrome has it too, it can only be of use, so let's adopt it" - They are the typical cheerleader developer today, with Google their utter role-model in everything. When you are that dependent on someone else opinion that it hinders you from making own and unique decisions, how can anyone take guys like that serious 8-)
Last edited by Sajadi on 2018-02-28, 06:41, edited 1 time in total.

jd2066
Moongazer
Moongazer
Posts: 10
Joined: 2018-02-25, 14:30

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by jd2066 » 2018-02-28, 10:20

gracious1 wrote:So what exactly is Mozilla afraid a user might do? How would a user "screw things up" and discourage someone else? An ugly theme? Moving around the toolbars? Not sure I have ever really understand this.
It's not that the user would screw things up, it's that the look and function of the browser is different at all.
A good example is Microsoft Windows.
Just open the Display Properties Appearance options in Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 10.
The appearance control panel in Windows 3.1 had a few options to control the size and color of application Windows.
In Windows 95, this was expanded a bit as Windows 95 had a lot of new UI elements that could be changed like what the taskbar looked like.
In Windows XP, Microsoft added support for Visual Styles and including a new style with very limited options.
You could not change the Visual Style at all because the code in uxtheme.dll checked for a Microsoft Signature in the Visual Style before applying it.
The classic look was still an option but not the default or preferred.
In Windows Vista, the classic appearance option was made harder to find and use.
In Windows 10, the classic appearance options are gone entirely and you can only pick one color that will apply to all UI elements and nothing else.
Microsoft wants all users of Windows to have the same look and feel no matter what computer they use.
They want a consistent look that a person will see no matter what computer they are using so your Windows computer at home, at work and elsewhere always looks and works the same.
Anyone that sees a computer with Windows on it will instantly know that it's Microsoft Windows just as when they see the Golden Arches of McDonalds that it's a McDonalds that they see.
Sajadi wrote:Mozilla's reasoning as with most things today is: "If Google Chrome has it too, it can only be of use, so let's adopt it"
In this case, I don't think that Mozilla is copying Google Chrome.
I think Mozilla wants Firefox to look as different as Google Chrome as possible so that their Tabbed Browser that supports WebExtensions APIs will stand out from Google Chrome, Opera, Microsoft Edge and so on.
It's a bit ironic in a way as many of the changes they borrowed from Google Chrome like curved tabs, no status bar, etc. at the reason that Firefox looks a lot like Google Chrome.
If they didn't try to make the UI match Google Chromes UI then they wouldn't need to change their UI now to make the browser not look like most other browsers.
Last edited by jd2066 on 2018-02-28, 10:32, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Moonraker
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1878
Joined: 2015-09-30, 23:02
Location: uk.

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Moonraker » 2018-02-28, 10:38

Well what does a browser interface look like.?
Tabs,search bar interface buttons.They pretty much all consist of this ,so saying one looks like the other is odd.
user of multiple puppy linuxes..upup,fossapup.scpup,xenialpup..... :thumbup:

Pale moon 29.4.1

User avatar
Night Wing
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 5151
Joined: 2011-10-03, 10:19
Location: Piney Woods of Southeast Texas, USA

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Night Wing » 2018-02-28, 12:41

When Firefox with Australis came out in version 29.0, Firefox did look like Google Chrome. Now, with the advent of Quantum in Firefox 57, I find Firefox (to me) now looks a lot like the windows Edge browser instead of Chrome.
Linux Mint 21.3 (Virginia) Xfce w/ Linux Pale Moon, Linux Waterfox, Linux SeaLion, Linux Firefox
MX Linux 23.2 (Libretto) Xfce w/ Linux Pale Moon, Linux Waterfox, Linux SeaLion, Linux Firefox
Linux Debian 12.5 (Bookworm) Xfce w/ Linux Pale Moon, Linux Waterfox, Linux SeaLion, Linux Firefox

User avatar
Moonraker
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1878
Joined: 2015-09-30, 23:02
Location: uk.

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Moonraker » 2018-02-28, 12:45

Customisation has totally left the firefox shores.It just offers personas just like most other browsers particularly chromium based browsers and vivaldi is just an application slapped on top of blink.
As far as im concerned seamonkey and qupzilla are the only other 2 browsers which allow full complete make overs.
user of multiple puppy linuxes..upup,fossapup.scpup,xenialpup..... :thumbup:

Pale moon 29.4.1

Thehandyman1957

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Thehandyman1957 » 2018-02-28, 14:32

jd2066 wrote:In Windows 10, the classic appearance options are gone entirely and you can only pick one color that will apply to all UI elements and nothing else.
Yup, and that's why W10 sucks too. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35481
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Moonchild » 2018-02-28, 14:52

Moonraker wrote:Customisation has totally left the firefox shores.It just offers personas just like most other browsers.
And what is a Persona? Is it a theme? Hell no, despite calling it "lightweight themes".

All a persona is is a toolbar background and one choice of text color to make sure you can still read labels, and that is only an option because determining that automatically is programmatically extremely hard if not impossible.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
Sajadi
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1226
Joined: 2013-04-19, 00:46

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Sajadi » 2018-02-28, 16:13

Moonchild wrote:All a persona is is a toolbar background and one choice of text color to make sure you can still read labels, and that is only an option because determining that automatically is programmatically extremely hard if not impossible.
What is good enough for the Chrome user base, is for Mozilla more then enough for ALL Firefox users, no matter how different their needs are :lol:
Last edited by Sajadi on 2018-02-28, 16:13, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35481
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Moonchild » 2018-02-28, 19:53

Sajadi wrote:
Moonchild wrote:All a persona is is a toolbar background and one choice of text color to make sure you can still read labels, and that is only an option because determining that automatically is programmatically extremely hard if not impossible.
What is good enough for the Chrome user base, is for Mozilla more then enough for ALL Firefox users, no matter how different their needs are :lol:
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
Sajadi
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1226
Joined: 2013-04-19, 00:46

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by Sajadi » 2018-02-28, 20:32

Moonchild wrote:That has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I said.
Sorry Perhaps i should not have used a quotation, my fault ;) But i think with the reasoning guess i am not totally wrong.

Anyway.. I have seen a post on Mozillazine where it was said that right now Chrome has compared to the Firefox "themes" even more advanced possibilities in that direction ;)

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=14791276&sid=c46c411ef3f76ce3fea5dbcf2ae17e85#p14791276

Beaten by Chrome.. That truly would suck :D
Last edited by Sajadi on 2018-02-28, 20:34, edited 2 times in total.

klipkyle
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
Posts: 27
Joined: 2018-01-28, 23:11

Re: howtogeek.com, update why you shouldnt use waterfox pale-moon or basilisk

Unread post by klipkyle » 2018-03-01, 05:18

jd2066 wrote:Microsoft wants all users of Windows to have the same look and feel no matter what computer they use.
They want a consistent look that a person will see no matter what computer they are using so your Windows computer at home, at work and elsewhere always looks and works the same.
Anyone that sees a computer with Windows on it will instantly know that it's Microsoft Windows just as when they see the Golden Arches of McDonalds that it's a McDonalds that they see.
I think it's ironic that right now in 2018, there is very little UI consistency on Windows (as well as non-Windows platforms) despite the huge push for a "consistent look." Even the caption bars are drawn differently. (Good example: Microsoft Office versus native Windows 10 caption bars)

10 years ago, every mainstream application had a standard set of menus (File, Edit, etc, Help) and toolbars. Any application that tried to devise its own paradigm was considered a weird snowflake.

Now, every application has its own standards (3-bar menu button, custom widget look, etc), and any application that sticks to a traditional menu/toolbar paradigm (such as Pale Moon) is considered a dinosaur that should be retired because it's not "mobile."

Try walking someone through an application over the phone nowadays. It's a royal pain. There is no widely accepted terminology for what is displayed on the screen. Compare this to 10 years ago. If the person on the other side was reasonably competent 10 years ago, you could describe the exact logical location of each item.

Somehow this regression is considered progress.

Locked