Linux Waterfox Browser Has Bugs/Errors In It

[Night Wing]

My backup browser to linux Pale Moon has been linux Waterfox for a few years. However, the new linux G6.0 for Waterfox series went through five betas before the official release of (G6.0).

When the G6.0 version was released, it had two glaring bugs/errors in it. The first happened when I extracted the named "waterfox" folder from the downloaded tarball.

All the linux versions which came before, when I clicked on "Extract here", the named "waterfox" folder was extracted. In the folder, there are 55 files making up Waterfox.

However, in the new G6.0 version, the "waterfox" folder was NOT extracted. What was extracted was the 55 files which made up Waterfox, but not the folder named "waterfox". This meant I had to create a folder named "waterfox", open the folder and then drag those 55 files in it for me to use what I do with linux Watefox correctly since I do not install Waterfox in Mint or MX Linux to run and use it.

The second bug/error was Waterfox was NOT following the default settings for Tabs in Settings. When a bookmark favorite was clicked on, instead of opening up in the same tab as the site before it, a new tab was opened. So if I clicked on five bookmark favorites, Waterfox created five new tabs.

I even went into "about:config" to try and change that behavior, but no matter what I changed, Waterfox would not adhere to the default settings. Other people besides me noticed these two bugs/errors.

One would think after going through five betas for G6.0 someone at Waterfox would have run across these two BIG glaring bugs/errors. Well, linux Waterfox G6.0.1 was released which fixed the "Tabs" issue, but the extracted named "waterfox" folder is still NOT fixed. As before, the named "waterfox" folder is not extracted. But the 55 files are instead.

For this reason I have removed linux Waterfox from all of my four computers (2 desktop towers, 2 laptops) running Linux Mint and MX Linux which totals 6 solid state hard drives. I needed a new backup browser for linux Pale Moon so I chose the linux Mercury browser, version115.3.0esr since there are no bugs in it and it is very close to both linux Waterfox and linux Firefox in looks, feesl and how it acts.

[andyprough]

However, in the new G6.0 version, the "waterfox" folder was NOT extracted. What was extracted was the 55 files which made up Waterfox, but not the folder named "waterfox". This meant I had to create a folder named "waterfox", open the folder and then drag those 55 files in it for me to use what I do with linux Watefox correctly" since I do not install Waterfox in Mint or MX Linux to run and use it.

I tried downloading it, and yeah, that is a bit of an odd way to create the tarball. If someone unpacked that tarball in a Downloads folder where they already had a bunch of files, it would create a confusing mess.

It's not a bug that inhibits the browser's functionality, but it's probably not the best way to pack and distribute the tarball.

Edit: I see that this version of Waterfox is using Cloudflare for DNS resolution by default - that's a choice I would not like based on privacy grounds. Bing is the default search engine - another privacy problem.

On first opening the browser, it's making a lot of network connections to Firefox, Mozilla, Bing and Cloudflare. Like about 25 of them. Seems a bit much.

[Night Wing]

However, in the new G6.0 version, the "waterfox" folder was NOT extracted. What was extracted was the 55 files which made up Waterfox, but not the folder named "waterfox". This meant I had to create a folder named "waterfox", open the folder and then drag those 55 files in it for me to use what I do with linux Watefox correctly" since I do not install Waterfox in Mint or MX Linux to run and use it.

I tried downloading it, and yeah, that is a bit of an odd way to create the tarball. If someone unpacked that tarball in a Downloads folder where they already had a bunch of files, it would create a confusing mess.

On all four of my computers, with my poor eyesight, I have no icons on the Desktop on any of my computers. I download all things to my Desktop so I can find them quickly. Since I have poor eyesight, the folders size in pixels is large too which makes things easier for me to see.

Since the two HP desktop towers are connected to an external 32" monitor, it is not that much of a big deal to create the "waterfox" folder, open it and then drag those 55 files in it.

But my two HP laptop computers are 14" computers (dv4-5113cl, dv4-5213cl) which are easy to transport if I need to travel overnight some place or stay a few days. The 14" viewing screens means there is not a lot of viewing space for my poor eye sight.

So those 55 extracted files take up a lot of viewing area on a 14" screen. And when I created the "waterfox" folder, opened it up to drag those 55 files in there; some of those files were "behind" the content window for the opened "waterfox" folder. Which means I had to move the opened context window around to a different place on the screen to see those files which were hidden and then drag the rest of those files into the folder.

If this is not a bug and this is the "new" way to treat the tarball; in my opinion, this is a dumb decision. If it is a bug, I will wait for the next linux Waterfox G6.0.2 version and see if this bug, if it is a bug, has been fixed. If it isn't a bug and this is the new "normal" for the extracted "waterfox" folder, then I will stick to the Mercury browser to be the backup browser to Pale Moon from here on out.

[andyprough]

So those 55 extracted files take up a lot of viewing area on a 14" screen. And when I created the "waterfox" folder, opened it up to drag those 55 files in there; some of those files were "behind" the content window for the opened "waterfox" folder. Which means I had to move the opened context window around to a different place on the screen to see those files which were hidden and then drag the rest of those files into the folder.

Yes, if you were going to continue to try to use Waterfox, you would need to create the waterfox folder on your desktop first, and then download the Waterfox tarball directly into that folder, and then unpack the tarball inside the folder. Otherwise it will be all kinds of a huge mess like you've run into.

[Night Wing]

Yes, if you were going to continue to try to use Waterfox, you would need to create the waterfox folder on your desktop first, and then download the Waterfox tarball directly into that folder, and then unpack the tarball inside the folder. Otherwise it will be all kinds of a huge mess like you've run into.

At the link below you will see all five of the G6.0 "betas" for linux Waterfox before the G6.0 was publicly released.

https://www.waterfox.net/en-US/docs/releases/

And you can see the "powers that be" noticed the errors in Tabs and fixed them in G6.0.1 at the link below. You can read about them in the heading of "Changes".

https://www.waterfox.net/en-US/docs/releases/G6.0.1/

With five beta versions, I cannot believe no one noticed the tabs or noticed how the extraction from the tarball was a huge mess. I'm not even a power user and I noticed it immediately when I did the extraction from the tarball and when I also clicked on a few of my bookmarks from the Bookmarks Toolbar in Waterfox.

If this is the "new way" Waterfox is going to be the default from now on tarball wise, then me and linux Waterfox will part company. This looks to me like, "Change for the sake of change" if you get my drift.

[moonbat]

"Change for the sake of change" if you get my drift.

That's the mantra of modern end user software development
I can see it with new PM users who are accustomed to the abuse from ChromeZilla of having disrupting or extension breaking changes with every new version and wrongly assuming that Pale Moon is the same, decide to disable updates.

[athenian200]

I would say the functionality difference in how bookmarks and tabs behaved was a legitimate bug that absolutely should have been fixed and was.

But I think your issue with how the Waterfox tarball extracts is... umm, honestly more of a nitpick than an actual bug? I do sympathize with why it's a big problem for you because you rely on a GUI interface to extract files and you have poor eyesight, but calling it a "huge bug" and uninstalling a whole browser over it seems a little extreme.

I'd just like you to consider the perspective of the average Linux user/developer, putting your own experience to the side for a moment. Most Linux users extract things using terminal commands, and the sequence for dealing with this situation would go something like...

Code: Select all

cd ~/Downloads
mkdir waterfox-G6.0.1
tar -jxf waterfox-G6.0.1.tar.bz2 -C waterfox-G6.0.1

And if they just extracted it to the root of Downloads, then normally there isn't anything else in there other than folders, and it's fairly easy to remove categories of files with "rm" until there's only a handful left.

Even among the ones who run GUIs, most of them either have normal eyesight, or would be able to adjust to simply remembering to create a folder and extracting the file from within it after the first time it happened. Alternatively, I think you can even pick which folder you extract into from most GUI file archiving utilities, so you could in theory extract it over your existing waterfox folder now that you know this can happen. Even if the files get dumped in the wrong place by the GUI initially, you can just ignore those "extra" files temporarily and try extracting the archive a second time to the correct location, you don't have to fumble around grabbing every single file that got extracted and putting it into the correct folder with your mouse. You can worry about clean up later and extract the files again into the correct folder, accounting for the change in archive behavior.

Should you really have to adjust to a random change that might well have been an accident? No, but it also seems like such a small thing to regard as a deal-breaker, because someone else who was creating their own folders for Waterfox might have been annoyed with the way it was defaulting to creating a folder named "waterfox" and asked for it to just extract in a "simpler" fashion, it's all a matter of personal preference. Linux is pretty rough around the edges, some sharp corners like this should be expected when using a less popular program on an alternative operating system.

The sad thing is... I dislike Waterfox for other reasons and don't even use it, but I find your reason for uninstalling it so unreasonable I feel like I have to say something in defense of the developers of a program I don't even particularly like that much. Heck, I don't even like Linux myself because of the lack of polish. I don't even know why I care. LOL. I guess I'm just imagining how I would feel if someone told me they didn't want to use a program I worked on because of something unrelated to the actual functionality of the program...

All that said, I really do hope they fix it for you, and that you don't have to stop using the browser over this, but I also think if you want to be a Linux user using programs that aren't the most popular, you kinda need to learn to let the small stuff slide... or stick to the applications that come with your distro and avoid downloading rough tarballs, because the stuff included with or specifically packaged for your distro will tend to be the most polished stuff. When you go outside of that, you are kind of taking responsibility for going into rougher territory. That's how I see it, anyway.

[Kris_88]

@Night Wing
This is just a way to reaffirm your commitment to the Pale Moon and thank the developers. There may also be a lack of communication...
In general, people are strange creatures...

[athenian200]

@Night Wing
This is just a way to reaffirm your commitment to the Pale Moon and thank the developers. There may also be a lack of communication...
In general, people are strange creatures...

Ohh! Wait, if that was his intention, then it went right over my head... I mean, I kinda see how it could be now that you pointed it out, but before I was just focusing in on the technical details of the problem he described and how big a deal it actually was rather than thinking about the context of him complaining about Waterfox here rather than on their bug tracker.

[frostknight]

Waterfox used to have quality to it. Prior to webextensions, it was actually a decent web browser.

But once webextensions was their new base, everything hit the fan. It was almost like he no longer cared anymore about it.

Sad... it is.

Librewolf is better just as a heads up. Although, I cannot use it currently because dbus is still required in it.

Which is a massive pain in the ass.

[Night Wing]

@ athenian200

You say most linux users use the Terminal to install their browsers of choice. I imagine they do it this way because they "install" their linux browsers in the distro of their choice since they are most likely power users.

But I am not a power user. You have been on this forum long enough to know my linux Pale Moon is "not" installed in either Mint or MX Linux. I found a different way and I prefer that different way. My Waterfox was not installed (it is now been deleted), my Mercury is not installed, my SeaLion is not installed.

And if I want to delete an older version of linux Pale Moon, I go into the Thunar file manager, go to where I placed the extracted Pale Moon folder, then left click to highlight it. Then under Edit in the Menu Bar of Thunar, when the drop down context windows opens, I left click on Delete and the Pale Moon browser is gone.

Like you said, if one uses the Terminal to install Pale Moon, then they would most likely use the Terminal to uninstall Pale Moon. People like myself consider using the Terminal the "hard way". By using GUI windows to achieve what I want, I consider that the "easy way". So why would I want to choose the hard way when the easy way is better for people like me? Logic wise, the easy way is the better choice.

Also, I've seen many posts on the Pale Moon forums site who say they have installed linux Pale Moon using the Terminal and it won't run when they click on the Pale Moon launcher icon. I think you have seen those posts too. Then they ask what are they doing wrong. They will spend lots of time beating their heads against the wall trying to use the Terminal to fix Pale Moon to get it to run. Conversely, they will probably encounter a hard time uninstalling Pale Moon using the Terminal as well.

Getting back on topic.

If one downloads the tarballs for Pale Moon, Mercury, SeaLion, Basilisk, etc; when you right click on their tarballs, then left click on Extract here", the result is the named folder of the browser is extracted. It has been this way for basically all linux browsers for many years going to back to January of 2014 when I first used linux Pale Moon.

Waterfox used to do it this way, but I have a bad feeling Waterfox now wants it's users to use a different way for the tarball. For me, I like the old way of doing things which means; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" just for the sake of change. So if linux Waterfox wants me to change, I will not change. I will take a look at version G6.0.2 (when it is released in the coming months) to see if the old way is back or if the new way is now the default way.

[athenian200]

Like you said, if one uses the Terminal to install Pale Moon, then they would most likely use the Terminal to uninstall Pale Moon. People like myself consider using the Terminal the "hard way". By using GUI windows to achieve what I want, I consider that the "easy way". So why would I want to choose the hard way when the easy way is better for people like me? Logic wise, the easy way is the better choice.

Right, my point wasn't that you needed to use the Terminal, but rather than I would think even with a GUI, there would be ways to work around this. Anyway, it's kind of a moot point because Waterfox as a browser really is kind of awful, and regardless of why you chose to stop using it, it's probably for the best. My brain is just in a weird place because I've been getting a lot of criticism as a developer myself recently and some wires got crossed.

If one downloads the tarballs for Pale Moon, Mercury, SeaLion, Basilisk, etc; when you right click on their tarballs, then left click on Extract here", the result is the named folder of the browser is extracted. It has been this way for basically all linux browsers for many years going to back to January of 2014 when I first used linux Pale Moon.

Waterfox used to do it this way, but I have a bad feeling Waterfox now wants it's users to use a different way for the tarball. For me, I like the old way of doing things which means; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" just for the sake of change. So if linux Waterfox wants me to change, I will not change. I will take a look at version G6.0.2 (when it is released in the coming months) to see if the old way is back or if the new way is now the default way.

Well, I am understanding the context a little better now. You're seeing this as something that almost every other fork of Firefox has gotten right, which Waterfox in particular has now gotten wrong, and something that's universal enough across forks that you think they would have deliberately had to try to mess it up rather than it being an oversight or anything like that.

So it's less that you can't figure out how to work around the issue by doing something like creating a folder or using the GUI extractor to point to a deeper folder so the files don't spill all over the desktop from now on, and more that you see it as a sign of bad things to come to the point that you don't even want to bother seeing what they do next?

I guess that's a little more understandable, even if I still find this to be a particularly weird hill to die on. I mean, honestly I already disliked Waterfox because to me it just seems like a hacked-up Firefox that doesn't really have much to recommend it over straight Firefox other than a few privacy features (that I honestly don't care very much about). It doesn't have any of the cool stuff like NPAPI or XUL extensions, it's full of Rust, and basically... there's just not much of a point in using it. So even if I don't particularly get why this was your breaking point, I guess given all the other things wrong with the project I would probably have to say you made the right call, even if I will probably never understand for the life of me why this was the straw that broke the camel's back and why you tolerated all the other issues with Waterfox up to now, ever since they abandoned the original codebase and started going in the wrong direction... but honestly, it shouldn't matter to me what reason it is, because ultimately I agree with you on the point that Waterfox kind of sucks now.

[frostknight]

I should probably add, waterfox used to be like firefox with all the garbage turned off. I think when they were acquired by that ad company, things really went to hell, aka system1, aka 2019 december.


Although in wikipedia's info, it seems to say it became independent again in july 2023. I have not checked up on this, but its possible.

In any case, webextensions was a bad choice for waterfox if it wanted to continue to allow xul.

[moonbat]

I have not checked up on this, but its possible.

It's true.

[frostknight]

I have not checked up on this, but its possible.

It's true.

If that's true maybe it will stop being crappy...

[moonbat]

Don't count on it, given that the base is still modern Firefox.

[frostknight]

Don't count on it, given that the base is still modern Firefox.

So at best it can only ever be librewolf...

Is that what you mean?

If so, yeah... I think you are right.

Then again, discourse gives me a massive headache hence why I am getting frustrated.

:/

[moonbat]

I'm saying modern Firefox is shit, therefore the same goes for all these browsers that are just rebuilds of it with some tracking crap removed. You'll get the same dumbed down UI and lack of decent customization as actual Firefox.

[frostknight]

I'm saying modern Firefox is shit, therefore the same goes for all these browsers that are just rebuilds of it with some tracking crap removed. You'll get the same dumbed down UI and lack of decent customization as actual Firefox.

Yeah, it is ugly and bloated. I would much prefer use a uxp browser for this reason.

Newer GUIs seem to get uglier and uglier for software...

facepalm.jpeg

I wouldn't even entertain such a browser if it weren't for that unforgivable crap called discourse.

I hate it with a passion due to how many forums are adopting it and how that standard affects actually good web browsers.

[Night Wing]

Yes, if you were going to continue to try to use Waterfox, you would need to create the waterfox folder on your desktop first, and then download the Waterfox tarball directly into that folder, and then unpack the tarball inside the folder. Otherwise it will be all kinds of a huge mess like you've run into.

Looks like linux Watefox still has a lot of errors in it with three point releases in a short amount of time. Hard to believe the five betas of G6.0 took two months of time and it is still messy. Linux Waterfox is now in version (G6.0.3).

https://www.waterfox.net/en-US/download/

And my main pet peeve is still not fixed (extract the "waterfox" folder from the tarball when using Extract Here) so I think linux Waterfox is "going it's own way" which I am not happy about tarball wise. Takes me three extra "not" needed steps from how I was always doing it.

Reminds me of Windows 7 and Windows 8 when turning off computers. Windows 7 took two steps (Start Menu, Shut Down) whereas Windows 8 took four steps (Charms Bar, Settings, Power, Shut Down).

Maybe Alex is taking a page from Microsoft's playbook.