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

General discussion and chat (archived)
User avatar
mr tribute
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 332
Joined: 2016-03-19, 23:24

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

Unread post by mr tribute » 2018-02-23, 20:49

This isn't important but according to StatCounter Firefox tops out at 32,21 % (November 2009).

2009:
http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-marke ... dwide/2009

2010:
http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-marke ... dwide/2010

:coffee: :geek:

nana2

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

Unread post by nana2 » 2018-02-23, 22:47

Quite some time ago I read on Mozillazine a post by a moderator? who claimed that the Firefox guys who determine how Fx will turn out, are using CHROME. Well, if you can't beat them, join them!! :thumbdown:

IMO, HTG has turned into trash, they are Chrome lovers and promote(d) it whenever they can. Many years ago I used to visit them every day for their articles which were sometimes useful. Not anymore....... :thumbdown:

My Pale Moon is the fastest, snappiest browser I use compared to IE11, Waterfox and FX ESR. And most importantly, ALL my extensions work great in PM. :D :D

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 » 2018-02-23, 22:53

Quite some time ago I read on Mozillazine a post by a moderator? who claimed that the Firefox guys who determine how Fx will turn out, are using CHROME. Well, if you can't beat them, join them!! :thumbdown:
Large number of chrome developers were in fact mozilla developers before.
user of multiple puppy linuxes..upup,fossapup.scpup,xenialpup..... :thumbup:

Pale moon 29.4.1

RJARRRPCGP
Lunatic
Lunatic
Posts: 400
Joined: 2015-06-22, 19:48
Location: USA (North Springfield, Vermont)
Contact:

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

Unread post by RJARRRPCGP » 2018-02-24, 00:34

Swibbz wrote: I could be reading some site, and all of a sudden, the site* just randomly crashes for no reason.
*-browser

Sounds like Midori, LOL.

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 » 2018-02-24, 16:06

More reasons to NOT use Firefox :mrgreen:

https://twitter.com/mozilla/status/966029134001557504
Off-topic:
Not saying a little bit thinking before speaking is bad, but what we have today is way too much abused in a negative way by all the correction zealots out there who can not/who refuse to acknowledge that to say "i like something more than" is not equal with saying "I hate it" - Anyway, with something like that Mozilla truly joins the side of anti-freedom and anti-free-speech - Not worthy for a real Open Source project!
Last edited by Sajadi on 2018-02-24, 16:15, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
TwoTankAmin
Keeps coming back
Keeps coming back
Posts: 777
Joined: 2014-07-23, 13:56
Location: New York

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

Unread post by TwoTankAmin » 2018-02-24, 18:21

Or maybe they were really close to 50%? I suppose it depends whose Stats one uses,

Image
The above chart is from a marketwatch.com article by Quentin Fottrell: Firefox was bleeding users long before boycott Published: Apr 1, 2014
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/firefox-was-bleeding-users-long-before-boycott-2014-04-01

But even if we work with a maximum share of 33%, that is still pretty huge and their loss of users was still very major.

I have never visited the howtogeek.com site or even knew it existed before this thread. So what they might think or say is meaningless to me.but it would not surprise me if that site has fewer subscribers or regular readers than there are users of Pale Moon. Perhaps somebody should write an article on why not to visit their site? :lol:

I have not used IE since 6.0, FireFox since ver. 28. I have never used Chrome and would not even let in onto my machine. I have used P M for about 3.5 years and do not have a backup browser on my PC.
“No one has ever become poor by giving.” Anonymous
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”" Daniel Patrick Moynihan
"The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it." Neil DeGrasse Tyson

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 » 2018-02-24, 21:02

Moonraker wrote:Large number of chrome developers were in fact mozilla developers before.
I'm curious about this. Source?
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

User avatar
ron_1
Moon Magic practitioner
Moon Magic practitioner
Posts: 2852
Joined: 2012-06-28, 01:20

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

Unread post by ron_1 » 2018-02-24, 21:31

Off-topic:
The same author wrote a piece about not using Chrome alternatives about a year ago. However in this old article he did make a few exceptions unlike the FF alternative article.

https://www.howtogeek.com/108384/6-alternative-browsers-based-on-google-chrome/

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 » 2018-02-24, 23:55

In "both" articles, read the comments after the article and you'll find most people are NOT agreeing with this guy's opinions when it comes to his viewpoint on browsers.
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

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 » 2018-02-25, 03:03

I actually wrote a courteous (but rather stern) email to the editor about factual inaccuracies in this article. It turns out that How-To Geek has an email address for "feedback" and corrections.

https://www.howtogeek.com/contact/

I got into an argument with a couple of guys at a Linux User Group earlier, and they asserted the claims in the article. I had no idea where they came from until I found this article.

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 » 2018-02-25, 15:31

I have followed How-To Geek since shortly after it started (I think around 2006 or 2007) when it was just articles explaining how to do things on the then new Windows Vista Operating System.
Sometime after that, I think around 2012 or so, it seemed like more opinion based articles that were not always correct were posted instead of the more useful How-To articles.
The majority of the opinion articles with incorrect information like this one were seem to be written by Chris Hoffman.
Why this seems to be the case, I'm not sure as there are many non-opinion based articles written by Chris Hoffman too that are factually correct.
There are some opinion based articles from Chris Hoffman that are based on actual facts but that doesn't seem to happen a lot of the time.
Speaking of Chris Hoffman, I checked out his twitter profile and saw a tweet with a link to this article with the tweet saying this:
Chris Hoffman wrote:I’m going to get a lot of hate for this post, but it’s true. People shouldn’t use Firefox forks or Chrome forks. Stick to the original for the fastest security updates.
It appears that Chris doesn't like browser forks, maybe he is not aware of the fact that Firefox was a fork too.

Before the creation of Firefox, the Mozilla codebase was created to replace Netscape Communicator and like Netscape Communicator, it included the browser Netscape Navigator, an email/news client and an HTML Editor.
Someone at Mozilla decided to create a standalone product for web browsing called Firefox, later they decided to create a standalone email/news client called Thunderbird, some users still preferred the original Mozilla Suite of Apps so that was available via the Seamonkey product.

If I wanted to 'Stick to the original', then I guess I should just use Seamoney as due to Firefox being a fork, I'm not using the original product either if I use Firefox.

Of course, it's all ridiculous as they are all good options, if I want to use Seamonkey, Firefox, Waterfox, Pale Moon, Basilisk or all of them at the same time (This would not really be practical though it can be handy sometimes to use multiple browsers at the same time for different tasks), I can do so.

I can understand a recommendation to not use a fork like Waterfox or Basilisk as there are slower updates and they could be less reliable due either a small team (I think Waterfox is just person) or in development without a stable release (like Basilisk).

However, he should not be telling people what to use or not, it should be up to the user to decide what to use based on what the user feels is the best option.

It seems like years ago, the How-To Geek article on this topic would be an informative article listing explaining the correct information about all the forks and let the reader decide if they are interesting in using one.

How-To Geek is or at least was a place that let users know how to do things that weren't the recommended option but gave you the information anyway because some of the non-recommended options are better in various ways.
Stuff like registry hacks and programs that change the behavior of something in Windows that are not recommend, guides on rooting Android devices and so on.

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 » 2018-02-25, 18:01

Isengrim wrote:
Moonraker wrote:Large number of chrome developers were in fact mozilla developers before.
I'm curious about this. Source?
just search the history of both products.Also check out the credits in chrome itself.Large number of former mozilla employees in there.
V8 javascript engine....?.Guess who gave the world javascript..?...none other than mr brendan eich,Google owes a huge debt of gratitude to mozilla.
user of multiple puppy linuxes..upup,fossapup.scpup,xenialpup..... :thumbup:

Pale moon 29.4.1

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 » 2018-02-25, 18:05

jd2066 wrote:How-To Geek is or at least was a place that let users know how to do things that weren't the recommended option but gave you the information anyway because some of the non-recommended options are better in various ways.
Stuff like registry hacks and programs that change the behavior of something in Windows that are not recommend, guides on rooting Android devices and so on.
Mozilla and all the rest of the die hard supporters, who would use Firefox even if Mozilla would decide to just fork Chromium and be done with it are simply getting desperate. The more Mozilla stumbles, the more the hate against alternatives is rising which offer something unique instead of more of the same old boring standards which Chrome has invented.

And for all this Mozilla is to blame. Their hunger to absorb the Chrome user base has lead them to abandon visions, morality and all what separated them from the rest of the competition.

Basically guys like that article creator should blame Mozilla for all what happens. It is not the fault of Pale Moon, or other browsers like Vivaldi - the fault lies simply 100% with Mozilla - who tries since years to become something they never have been in the first place instead of staying something unique and cool - and then everyone of the die hard supporters and Mozilla cries out loud and blames the rest of the field.

That is utterly pathetic! Mozilla has lost the right to call itself Open Source - All they do is putting this wonderful and pure term into the mud!
Last edited by Sajadi on 2018-02-25, 18:06, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
hujan86
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 194
Joined: 2017-09-27, 06:50

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

Unread post by hujan86 » 2018-02-26, 04:42

No matter what the intentions of the author are, clearly he's an outsider with zero knowledge of what Pale Moon is about and pretending to be the wise guy. Not even friends and family can convince me to switch to Chrome, let alone this bozo's article.
Last edited by hujan86 on 2018-02-26, 04:45, edited 1 time in total.
Avatar's Source: yereverluvinuncleber

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 » 2018-02-26, 14:25

Sajadi wrote:That is utterly pathetic! Mozilla has lost the right to call itself Open Source - All they do is putting this wonderful and pure term into the mud!
That doesn't make sense.
Open Source just literally refers the software being Open Source.
Mozilla's codebase is Open Source, that is true regardless of bad decisions they make as long as the codebase is available for anyone to fork and change whenever they want to.
The only way that would change is if Mozilla switched to only making proprietary closed source software but they have not done that.

The Google hosted product Chromium is also Open Source and it's the released Google Chrome browser that is closed source.

Google Chrome is created by building the Chromium codebase and adding a few proprietary components including proprietary video codecs to play HTML5 video using those, proprietary Widevine DRM to play HTML5 video with EME, Adobe Flash Player for the few sites that still require it, Google Services API Keys (Chromium can not talk to Google Services like browser sync with API keys, forks of Chromium like the current Opera browser either need to create their own Google Service API keys via the Google Developers Web Site or change the code to access their own services instead of Google's Services).

Should any should user want to use Chromium with or without some or all of those proprietary features, there are builds available for Windows and Mac OS X at https://chromium.woolyss.com/ that can be used.

If you didn't use any web sites that have HTML5 video using H264 codecs and/or EME DRM, use Adobe Flash and don't want to sync your data with Google Services then a vanilla build of Chromium would likely work just fine but that isn't the case for most people.

The reason Firefox can be distributed without proprietary components is because when a new Firefox profile is created, it automatically downloads Cisco's OpenH264 decoder plugin and the Google Winewine DRM Plugin so H264 videos can be played can EME can be used.
Cisco's OpenH264 decoder is somewhat weird combination of open source and closed source at the same time, the source code for OpenH264 is available but you have to use the binary created by Cisco to use it, you cannot actually compile the code yourself for use in an application.
The reason for this is because Cisco pays MPEG LA licensing royalties for the binary distribution and lets anyone use it as a plugin in their open source software.
If Mozilla were to build the OpenH264 code themselves then they would need to pay the MPEG LA licensing royalties which would be prohibitively expensive for the relatively small Mozilla to pay.
Companies like Microsoft, Google, Apple, Samsung, etc. have the money to pay the MPEG LA licensing royalties to allow users using their software and hardware to view H264 encoded videos.
This applies to the MPEG2 format used on DVDs too, Microsoft had to pay MPEG LA licensing royalties for each copy of Windows Vista and 7 Edition that included a DVD Decoder.
Due to many computers not even having optical drives and the popularity of streaming services, the DVD Decoder was removed in Windows 8 as it wasn't worth the cost anymore.

Of course the obvious solution is for open source video codecs to be used for web browsers, optical media, etc. and for all the streaming sites to deliver video in those open source video codecs without the requirement of EME to be used.
As noted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in this blog post, DRM is technologically bankrupt as it's easily broken and everyone supporting DRM knows this but legally in the U.S. and some other countries, working around a DRM system is illegal so it doesn't actually need to work for the goal of preventing users from accessing content in ways those using DRM do not allow.

From what I recall about Mozilla's thoughts on video codecs and DRM were to just use open source video codecs only and not support EME at all but were unable to do that after big companies like Google and Netflix decided to use proprietary video codecs and DRM systems because then Firefox would be the only major web browser that lacked the ability to play videos from popular services and that would certainly reduce the popularity of FIrefox for many users.

In summery, Mozilla has made some mistakes and some components that it uses are not open source but it's not possible to make a purely open source browser, get people to use it and to make money doing so.

If Mozilla does not update Firefox to match the features available in other major web browsers and doesn't make money from search deals, possibility the Cliqz deeal (I can't find anything that says if the Cliqz involved an exchange of money or not so I could be incorrect on that), brand deals, etc. then the Mozilla Foundation could end up in a situation where they do not have the funds to operating anymore.

If that were to happen then there would no new releases of Firefox, Thunderbird or Seamonkey and Firefox forks like Waterfox and Pale Moon would not have new code available to use from the Mozilla codebase.

It sucks but without money available to support the development, hosting and services needed by an open source project, it's not possible to have an open source project in the first place.

There is no open source project with significant resource needs for development like Mozilla's projects or even the Linux kernel that I'm aware of that can be done without a sizable amount of money being available to support the development of the open source project and unless the developers of the project are billionaires, they will likely need corporate backers for the project to work.

I don't use Pale Moon a lot as my primary browser but it does seem like a good project, I'm not sure if it fall into the category of significant resource needs or not.
I don't know how Moonchild Software has the funds to support the project.
I would assume that the resources required for it are small enough that the developers can afford to so but I'm not sure.
Last edited by jd2066 on 2018-02-26, 14:30, edited 1 time 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, 15:38

jd2066 wrote:If Mozilla does not update Firefox to match the features available in other major web browser
There is still a difference between adopting webstandards (which is a good thing) and throwing away all their own past selling points (more configuration and customization features in a direct comparison to for example Chrome) to gather a totally different target user group and suddenly valuing branding concepts higher than openess.

What Mozilla has done and is doing goes WAY beyond in keeping the browser compatible to webstandards. They replace their advanced user base against Chrome/Edge/Safari user - and they have not the tiniest bit of respect of their old userbase, theme or add-on developers. And they do it because numbers are more important than user needs for them. That has been different in the past. The user was the main focus and not the competition. But Mozilla wants to battle Google Chrome no matter what, and if that means to abandon customizability and features, Mozilla is willing to do so.

You can expect commercial projects being that ruthless. But for a so called FOSS project.. that is a total different... unique... negative... level! Mozilla always had the chance to make it that way that simple and advanced users can have an even browsing experience, but that is not good enough for them anymore in their quest of market share domination. Yes, they dream of being number 1!

So, no, Mozilla pulls still a ton of disgrace over Open Source. And it is in their own hands to make it stop. As long as they are a total sell-out, they earn the blame for doing so. It has been Mozilla's own decision. Sure, they do not like what they get back for it. But still - facts are facts, what has done has been done, and that are the reactions Mozilla gets back.

And only really blind people are not willing to realize that old Mozilla has changed and what we have today can not at all be compared with past Mozilla, which had self-respect, for which competition domination or branding stuff was of minor or no importance, a past Mozilla which had high visions and great goals.

Mozilla today is just another Google or Opera or Microsoft - and that is really a high leveled downfall.

And for that reason i use Pale Moon - as Pale Moon still has all this high ideals what Mozilla once had. And i am pretty sure not alone in that opinion, Mozilla has lost tons of users since they started to radically change themselves. Does not matter if they now use Qupzilla, Vivaldi or Pale Moon or Brave - What all that ones have in common that those users prefer still a great vision and high goals over just pure numbers counting.

Mainstream has no place for geek features or geek needs. And all what Mozilla wants today is being mainstream. That can't be denied as it is visible no matter from which angle you are looking at it.
Last edited by Sajadi on 2018-02-26, 16:00, edited 14 times in total.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35474
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 » 2018-02-26, 17:11

I think the difference here is looking at Open Source as a technical term versus Open Source as a philosophy. You're both right in your points, just seeing it from different angles.

Keep in mind that you can make something Open Source, but if undocumented and/or driven with constant churn making working with the source impossible in a practical sense, it can be just as obscure and unusable as closed source. Technically Open Source, but not following the Open Source philosophy.
Of course it's possible to take the Mozilla or Chromium source and spin your own, but it will be (very) difficult to maintain as a single developer beyond going from one snapshot. In addition, Mozilla does treat volunteer developers as (unpaid) employees because what ends up in mozilla-central is entirely dictated by the corporate direction of MozCo.
"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 » 2018-02-26, 17:41

Moonchild wrote:I think the difference here is looking at Open Source as a technical term versus Open Source as a philosophy.
And here is exactly the IMPORTANT point :) I actually look at it always in the philosophical way - as the technology aspect - the code know-how itself - is nothing i would be able to grasp. Next time i remember to make it clear that i can only look at things from this kind of perspective :D

Anyway, without the philosophical aspect, without a good reasonable ideology and visions and goals behind, if you only care today for numbers and even higher numbers, code itself - no matter how sophisticated becomes only second important, as the major review becomes a negative one.
Last edited by Sajadi on 2018-02-26, 17:42, 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 » 2018-02-26, 17:55

Sajadi wrote:[Mozilla is] throwing away all their own past selling points [of] more configuration and customization features [then other browsers have]

[...]

[Mozilla doesn't have] the tiniest bit of respect [for] their old userbase, theme or add-on developers.

Mozilla today is just another Google or Opera or Microsoft - and that is really a high leveled downfall
I'm not sure, that Mozilla is being disrespectful of their users and add-on developers.
Yes, once they switched to a rapid release schedule, add-on developers had to work harder to keep their add-tons working in new versions of Firefox, theme support was pretty much removed entirely in favor of a more limited persona feature that only supported a few color changes with a background image in the toolbar area, asked add-on developers to update their add-ons to support the multi-process feature only to then somewhat quickly decided that add-on developers should instead rewrite their add-ins in a new WebExtensions based system, then only gave those developers a few months prior to the release of Firefox 57 to do the rewrite resulting in Extensions with less functionality then before making the users of those add-ins unhappy but uh, in theory the changes are better in in many ways then before.

Should the new WebExtensions system actually end up being improved and many add-ins use it to create add-ins with functions similar the old ones then the add-on developers and users will have a more stable API, that will not brake when a new version of Firefox is released because the add-ons don't depend on XUL based APIs that change with each new version of Firefox.

Their actions do seem to support the idea that Mozilla has been disrespectful of their users and add-on developers but maybe things will get better as the new WebExtensions based system is improved.

As someone that currently uses a lot of XUL based Extensions, like Tab Mix Plus and Scrapbook X, I hope that either Mozilla can get WebExtensions based system improved soon or I will have to keep using Waterfox, which is a problem because the Waterfox team is mainly just one person so I'm not sure he can actually keep Waterfox maintained as well once Mozilla stops supporting XUL based add-on entirely after the support for Firefox 52 ESR ends in a few months.

I like some of the changes added in the more recent Firefox 56 codebase so I don't really want to use Pale Moon as my primary browser either.

I'm very concerned about the state of the Mozilla codebase and if a WebExtensions based system can really replace the older XUL based system but I want to believe that Mozilla is doing the right thing and not just being disrespectful of the wishes of their users and add-on developers.

I have been a fan of Mozilla ever I first used used Firefox and then Thunderbird too in part because of all the control they offered over Internet Explorer 6 and Outlook Express 6.

It would be pretty disappointing, if Mozilla's own actions caused a downfall that led to their own demise.

Also regardles of their recent actions, I don't think that are as bad as Microsoft and Google yet.

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, 18:27

jd2066 wrote:Should the new WebExtensions system actually end up being improved
They will be improved, but the user will only have limited control over UI elements anymore, no matter what Mozilla will do. Their UI is now a branding, a so called selling-point over which Mozilla wants to be defined and Mozilla wants to decide what the user is allowed to do - "Our UI, our way". If you do not believe me, ask Moonchild for example. As suggested, join on IRC where you can talk to the developer in person, much better as writing here endless texts ;)

Mozilla's most important point today is branding protection. 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.

Also, do you really expect Chrome users switching if something like that would still exist? Of course not, the first thing simple users would scream is "Bloat!" - and then "Get it out of the browser or i will not use it!" So, as target user base is changed, it makes zero sense for Mozilla to keep a wide array of user control over the UI as it would scare away potential future users of their chosen new user group.

That is the major point why the UI is locked. Bonus point is also no maintenance is needed anymore, but that is only seen as the bonus on top of the cake by Mozilla. Anyway, it should be logical if you target simple users, that you remove everything which is not wanted or needed by them, as their needs and reactions to such existing features are not compatible with geeks needs and reactions.

And to come back once again shortly to the term security: XUL is insecure is no good argument. If you REALLY care about something and value something, you can fix it ALWAYS if you are interested in doing so. Nothing was holding Mozilla back from locking the UI customization features more away so simple users would not find it easily and would not mess up things beyond repair (at least in their limited way of understanding things), nothing was holding them actually back to fix security issues.

Also Web-Extensions can be abused, Google store had cases and Mozilla store too if i remember correctly - If you WANT to abuse something, you find ALWAYS a way :D

But as they wanted mainstream technology inside their browser to target mainstream users, that what you guys have in Firefox now is the only logical outcome!

Believe it, it is actually THAT simple 8-)

Still unsure? https://www.ghacks.net/2018/02/26/mozil ... irefox-60/ :D
Appster said on February 26, 2018 at 9:20 am
Reply

Not even Google goes so far. I quote from the article:

> Google Chrome includes an option to list and remove individual cookies, still.
Simple users don't need, so lets hide it or make it difficult or remove it :D
Last edited by Sajadi on 2018-02-26, 20:39, edited 8 times in total.

Locked