What the fucking shit, Mozilla?
>>54783438
Someday, someone will fork firefox and a better browser will come along just like how firefox was a netscape fork.
>inb4 pale moon
I want a fork that isn't based off a build from years ago.
lol fuckin rekt. thats why i don't use software within software. browser extensions are basically a meme. i think i'm the only person on 4chan who doesn't and never will use them.
>>54783458
Hell it didn't screenshot the whole page. Basically I woke up this morning to find 2/3rds of my addons now disabled.
>>54783468
>HTTPS Everywhere
>umatrix
>ublock origin
Only three extensions I need.
You do realize all of that shit slows the browser down? Firefox is already bad enough with its launch time. Extensions need to go just like NPAPI.
>>54783468
You're so special and so much better than everyone else.
>>54783468
>Muh special snowflake status
>>54783497
>just let marketing companies track your every move
no thx
>>54783502
nope. actually, i am a very bad person.
>>54783497
Go away ad company shill
>>54783502
hes right though, you give too much control to extensions to do whatever the fuck they want with the browser and then complain when they cause performance issues, its no doubt mozilla are constantly trying to lock things down because the idiots are winning
>>54783497
>Firefox is already bad enough with its launch time
you wot mayn
>>54783535
Fuck off shill
Get used to it, mozilla isnt the same as it used to be
>>54783458
Whats wrong with the build for pale moon
>>54783563
Furry shit aside, it's based off firefox 24 and was only made because autists were upset over the firefox 29 update.
>>54783438
A good reason why i do not use YahGoozilla Chromefox anymore.
All they do today is supporting simple users. Locking stuff down because simple users can't understand, removing stuff because simple users are offended to have features which they do not understand.
Also removing stuff because SJW guys and feminists get mad because no advanced feature should exist as that kind of features do only support technology advanced guys and insults the general common idiot user only because features like that do exist.
Way to go crapware!
>>54783593
Too bad firefox is the only good modern open source browser.
>>54783458
>Someday, someone will fork firefox and a better browser
Nope.
It's all about Chromium copies nowadays. Firefox will die if Mozilla dies, I'm sure.
>>54783438
Google Chrome is to blame that we are living in times where idiots reign.
If Chrome never would have existed, we still would have software optimized for advanced users.
Google is to blame for SJW, feminists, simplicity and minimalism and that every developer today is sucking simple users dicks.
And to make it even "better" everyone tries to be like Chrome because the others are just jealous of their market share.
Google should be vanishing, they are to blame that technology goes ten steps backwards instead of 10 steps forward.
Disgusting!
>>54783612
I do not care for Open Source if i have to use such a fucking crapware. Vivaldi is my browser of choice.
But granted, i could switch over to Otter Browser, which is Open Source.
>>54783438
Lol, one day, after my website, and probably sometime around when I do some actual software, I wanna make a web browser.
Chrome sucks, FF is absolute dogshit. IE is... better.
I'd pick a good name though.
>>54783629
>please stop making computers easier, customizing my browser is the only way i can impress my mom
>>54783612
A browser is not good if all advanced features are removed. Even Open Source does not save it anymore from being crap.
Crap stays crap, no matter if it is foss or not. Only zealots do not understand this fact.
Way to go cocksucker! Fucking hypocrite!
>>54783438
What is the last good version of Firefox before all these shit changes started happening?
>>54783629
so google is to blame for making the fastest, un-bloated and not desperate browser for computers? hmm....
>>54783652
>I am too stupid to handle advanced options, Open Source is the only important, i am insulted by features so i want them all gone
Spot the simple fag without brain who is insulted by advanced features in a program
>>54783612
>good
>>54783668
Chrome sucks. It is to blame that we do not have advanced software anymore, only simple stuff for simple fags.
If you call that a good software and good influence, then you are more stupid as you are writing right now.
>>54783629
And guess where Brendan Eich was kicked from by SJW. Yep, it is NOT google.
Mozilla should allow third party to make browsers based on gecko engine just like google does. Because of this, Opera, Vivaldi and various browser creators improve chrome/blink for free and this is why Chrome is good browser. Not only from user point of view but also browser developer too.
>>54783560
It is terrible compared to the superior Google Chrome. Does Firefox still put all tabs under one huge process? Yes it does last time I used it.
>>54783680
shit aside with the power users, I have nothing else to complain about. Speaking of alternatives like otter browser, has anyone used them? Is it good?
>>54783704
Mozilla allows people to do that. Nobody actually makes use of it, as they turn their code right now in a carbon Chrome copy.
So why bother with Mozilla code if you have in the end a code base which is almost like Blink?
>>54783668
no advanced software?
Someone needs to make a browser with comparability to Firefox extensions already.
I can't code like shit, nor do I want to
>>54783709
Otter is good, but still rough around the edges. So is Qupzilla or Qutebrowser.
>>54783668
>quit Firefox
200MB of ram free
>quit chrome
>3GBram of ram free
Chrome is the definition of bloated trash browsers
>>54783723
I'll stick with firefox till a superior open source alternative is made.
>>54783718
Well, software which is mainly supporting the needs for advanced users, software which is not being dumbed down because a simple user could be insulted in their pride because of not enough intelligence to be able to handle complexity.
>>54783438
such curry addons
>>54783715
>Mozilla allows people to do that. Nobody actually makes use of it
because it's shit code. google had tabs as processes back in 2009. it took firefox 7 years to get to the same level. you can imagine how fucked up their code must be.
>>54783715
Nobody does it because if anybody decides to do that, that person/company will not have their changes upstreamed for compatibility reasons. And there are technical difficulties to port from gtk to other toolkits.
Mozilla does not do other products than browser so if anybody will make better browser than fx based on gecko mozilla will cease to exist. This is reason why mozilla won't accept any good changes.
>>54783730
The thing is Firefox is not superior anymore. It is a fake Chrome browser. Looks like Chrome, feels like Chrome but is not Chrome.
What is worse than a company which defines itself over trying to become like Chrome?
Otter, Qupzilla or Qutebrowser, hell even Midori is better at that point.
>>54783674
chrome://flags
you're welcome. utilize this time to feel stupid for being alive for the past 4 months you've been posting this nonsense.
>>54783747
By "compatibility reasons" I meant that company wants to post it.
>>54783729
>quit Firefox
>1200MB of ram free
>>54783747
And that is what i wanted to say. They are Chrome addicted, so they are not accepting anyone else around which does NOT want to be like Chrome.
It is either use Firefox code base and be happy about becoming an almost carbon Chrome copy or fuck off and go somewhere else.
That is what Mozilla is wanting.
>autist fixated on features yet can't articulate even, somewhat, what those 'features' are
>even thinks speed is not a feature and should be sacrificed for some vague thing he calls "features"
>>54783755
Haha! I speak of customization, ricing, theming... changing some lame flags you call advanced stuff?
You are an insult for every real power user! Go back under your rock simple fag and think of what you have written right now!
People still use Firefox,
>>54783729
>what is memory cache
>what is prefetching
>>54783773
Ricing, theming, changing the whole UI as you want, customize almost every visible aspect of the browser out of the box without add-ons/extensions/aps, use CSS to place every single little element where you want to have it, use CSS to change the color of every single piece like you want to have it.
>>54783458
>I want a fork that isn't based off a build from years ago.
A build before they turned shit. Just like Firefox and Netscape.
It means that it's time for you to submit to Mozilla's girth like the good little bitch dog that you are.
>>54783523
At least there's something you're right about.
>>54783773
And yet people who like speed only or are able to switch a handful of flags which increase the browsers instability think they are power users.
Well done, you should be hit by a flash right in your face that your brain is roasting in hell forever!
>>54783707
>Does Firefox still put all tabs under one huge process? Yes it does last time I used it.
Chrome's approach is a <insert number of tabs> times worse.
>>54783612
Palemoon, Seamonkey, maybe Iridium, maybe Midori (in the future)
>>54783838
>dog instead of fox
You had one job
>people STILL use failurefox
Last time I used it (version 46 or whatever the fuck) they got rid of the menu for some gay faggot ass button that didn't even have all the options. It also locked up after trying to run an HTML5 video because it was running for 3 days, and the shitty fucking piece of shit didn't let me restore my tabs. I guess they're going to multiprocess because they can't fix their fucking browser, so at least if something fucks up it just kills that tab. They obviously can't fix it because FF keeps getting more fucked up with every release.
>>54783458
>>inb4 pale moon
>I want a fork that isn't based off a build from years ago.
You mean back when firefox wasn't a heap of shit? Oh no, it will be missing killer features like no FTP and some spyware Pocket addon.
>>54783863
Seamonkey loses all features once XUL is killed, Pale Moon is dying.
What version of Firefox doesn't come with chrome reskin crap?
>>54783892
Vivaldi is what i use too. Features are great, but it is Chromium, so it still sucks like hell.
Also it is only an app and 2 extensions which makes it a pseudo browser only.
Otter Browser and Qupzilla or Qutebrowser are the real deal. Or the concept of Brave (NOT the browser itself) to create a browser with lib-chromium-content.
lib-chromium-content. or QTWebengine are the future, someone has to really make a good Open Source browser with one of that 2 creation methods.
>>54783913
Firefox 0.x - Firefox 22 (Firefox 23 - 28 also feature heavy feature removals for the Chrome UI introduced in Firefox 29)
>>54783563
>Furries
Just gas it already...
>>54783580
Firefox 29 and onward IS bad, as Mozilla only tried to make a carbon Chrome copy afterwards.
If you call a desperate attempt to get Chrome users and jealousy with the wish to destroy Google because Mozilla can't forgive that Google abused them and enforced simplicity on them and afterwards was casting Mozilla aside good...
Well, in that case you should better activate your brain for once...
>>54783729
This meme is years old at this point....
>>54783563
The only bad thing is that it is outdated. Technology wise it sucks big time.
And i do not think they have the knowledge to finish Tycho, a Pale Moon rebuild on a later code base if they have already been unable to keep their code base 24 fork up to date.
>>54783924
So we fork FF 22, give it a facelift, patch security holes, and maybe add actual features we would need
All of those should be signed I think. They should work
>>54784013
Forget that. You do not have the abilities. Even Moonchild with Pale Moon failed as that was too complex.
Pick either libchromiumcontent and Electron or QTWebengine and QT - More easier and more future proof.
>>54784013
libchromiumcontent means you only use the Chromium rendering engine, all the rest you create on your own.
So no spyware or telemetry or Chrome UI available. Just pure non-poisoned Blink available.
Of course Google and Chromium team says that you SHOULD use the whole Chromium code if you want to create a Chromium based browser, but that is a lie.
You can do it without any of Chromiums UI and API bloats and create a real sane browser like Firefox once was, with tons of features thanks to the UI not a native one. All made of CSS - which offers limitless customization.
>>54784073
But anon I'm autistic and don't want anything with the name chrome at all touching my browser
>>54784097
Chromium/Chrome is defined over it's UI.
Blink is defined over the rendering.
Blink pure is NOT Chrome/Chromium
>>54783563
>>54783898
>Whats wrong with the build for pale moon
Security. Firefox 24 was released in 2013. I cannot reasonably expect a browser version from 2013 to be as secure as the current version of Firefox.
>>54784175
>Firefox 24 was released in 2013. I cannot reasonably expect a browser version from 2013 to be as secure as the current version of Firefox.
All the "features" they keep adding to FF are riddled with bugs and holes. It probably is more secure.
All of those are on AMO(signed), there's no reason they shouldn't be working.
Even if they were disabled by the check you can disable the check in the preferences.
I'm using qupzilla. It looks like a decent firefox and uses qtwebengine, which is basically chromium. Userscripts work too, the only downside is that there is only one developer.
>>54784281
Well, Open Source means you can contribute or anyone can take over when something happens.
But better try Otter-Browser - has even more advanced features and offers QTWebengine builds too.
>>54784237
Mozilla will kill the function to allow unsigned extensions. Then you have to install the Aurora build, which means you have to use a not fully stable Firefox version for having your own unsigned extensions running.
How stupid is that.
>>54784347
It's a compile time option. You can build your own firefox without it or you can use one of the unbranded builds they'll provide at that time.
>>54784382
Not even Gentoo users are building their browsers.
>>54784382
Still i have an almost carbon Chrome copy instead of the once fully customizable Firefox 22.
Seeing no reason not to use Qupzilla, Otter Browser or Qutebrowser.
At least that 3 do not pretend to be something which they are not.
>>54784330
I tried otter last year, the gui was strange where the tabs looked as if they were floating and many options were not implemented. Didn't even try testing it further. I'm using qupzilla since the developer is on that shit since at least 5 years and delivers a working product, 4chan-x works on it too which is a plus.
I will take a look at the git branch from otter to see how far it has gotten.
>>54784407
I do, everything apart from libreoffice/firefox/chromium builds in seconds. That's partly why I'm using qupzilla that shit finally got competitive some weeks ago.
>>54783783
Was this a shitpost or are you serious
>>54783438
So, can you turn this off?
>>54783438
Cuckzilla firecunt with sjw updates
>>54784407
Building firefox is not really that bad. I built firefox in a VM with 1 core and probably 1GB(if not less) allocated to it and I believe it took around 45 minutes or so. It's slow but considering firefox is among the heaviest applications codewise it's probably not bad at all.
>>54783629
Still without Chrome's ever-increasing market share Mozilla wouldn't have bothered to at least try to implement multi-process tabs.
>>54784667
They only try to get all Chrome users on board. Mozilla is trying to be like Chrome because they want to defeat Chrome for personal revenge of being abused.
For this they sacrifice their old origin user base.
>>54784407
I do, but currently gentoo doesn't have an option to allow unsigned extensions
>>54784518
Serious of course idiot. Wanting speed and switching Flags are not making you to a power user. But to completely changing the aspects of the whole browser does indeed make you into one.
>>54783755
>chrome://flags
does exactly jack shit
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-opera-next,3534-12.html
>tfw when toms hardware proclaimed ff22 2013's best browser
>tfw this was 13 years ago
>>54784518
Even the most retarded special person with special needs can switch some lame switches or value speed.
But to write CSS UI modifications or relocate all UI elements and color UI elements or create real themes needs something like skill and something like a brain.
>>54783707
>It is terrible compared to the superior Google Chrome
Too bad everything else about Chrome is infinitely worse.
>>54784892
Then firefox is terrible compared to infinitely worse.
>>54783523
he barely had any feels when he shot him, dead eyes
>>54784448
>>54784330
As a follow up. I just tried the latest git otter browser and am a little disappointed.
Spellchecking doesn't work, even through it wants hunspell when compiling it.
The tabs are strangely floating in the air.
It uses its own fucking icons, ugly kde4 ones at that. That shit isn’t even installed on my system.
Userscripts aren't discoverable, you have to manually add them through the file open dialog.
It’s fucking ugly, with a toolbar that belongs in the year 2000.
Left qupzilla, right otter-browser.
>tfw Firefox user since at least 1.8
>tfw can't imagine changing
it is going down the shitter but since I don't have the ability to code a browser, I'm stuck with stock options. fuck chrome/ium, i gave up android to keep google from knowing so much about me, the same is said for why I don't have their browser.
>>54784944
The difference is i can move almost all elements around, what i can not do with Qupzilla.
So, Otter is perfect for my usage, too bad that it does not work out for you.
But Qupzilla is not bad too ;)
>>54784976
Sure tabs on the side are nice and all, but I really really hate oxygen and can't fathom why they hardcoded those icons in the gui. Apart from that they should both be the same since qtwebengine, duh.
>>54783704
>Mozilla should allow third party to make browsers based on gecko engine just like google does.
They technically did for many years. No one likes all the baggage that surrounds gecko(not even Mozilla) so as soon as a viable alternative showed up(chromium) they all moved over to it except for a handful of very niche browsers like k-meleon. Mozilla is working on making embedding gecko less painful they're making use of electron's APIs to allow you to use HTML5 based interfaces with gecko.
https://github.com/mozilla/positron
>>54783438
It's 2016, let's recap what I want from my browser:
1. The ability to style every single user element with CSS.
2. The ability to block ads, including cosmetic rules. Should be compatible with ABP/uBlock filter syntax.
3. A matrix policy-based content blocker (like uMatrix or Policeman), with the ability to block at the very minimum: cookies, scripts, css, images, XHRs and iframes; plus the ability to selectively enable referer masking and user agent randomization.
4. Support for ICCv4 profiles and full color management, including color management of images, CSS colors and <video> elements
5. Support for pentadactyl, vimium, vimperator or equivalents. Basically, vim-like modal browsing with hints.
6. Support for mouse gestures
7. Support for privacy-centric addons like Decentraleyes or HTTPS Everywhere
8. Support for styling arbitrary websites with my own user CSS (like Stylish)
9. Strong privilege separation, especially between the website rendering agent and the component that actually communicates with my (vulnerable) graphics drivers.
10. A typical suite of web debugging tools (e.g. element inspector, JavaScript console, network request log, etc.)
11. The ability to turn off all telemetry, developer pings, link prefetching, malware checks and other spyware / antifeatures.
12. The ability to plug in libmpv (or a program of my choice) for rendering <video> elements
Firefox currently seems to be the browser that comes closest to providing all of these, although it's still missing:
- Strong privilege separation
- <video> color management
- Ability to use libmpv (well)
Apart from that it's pretty much perfect. Is there any browser out there that provides a *greater* (rather than a lesser) subset of this feature list? If so, I'd love to hear it
>>54785108
>- Strong privilege separation
Being blocked by the addons, this is why Mozilla is trying to get addon devs to move onto a new API
>- Ability to use libmpv (well)
That's not much different from how the flash plugin works and that's a well known trainwreck. I think it's better to just download media and play it locally. I would like all media to work like that really.
>>54785233
>I think it's better to just download media and play it locally. I would like all media to work like that really.
I only really need it for embedded webms in 4chan threads. I don't really want to be downloading those and opening them in mpv one-by-one..
>>54785233
But libmpv is local, isn't it? I just let mpv replace every tube site with npapi.
>>54785270
Plugins are an entire application themselves, the browser doesn't have any actual control over how they do things it only calls on them to run something and then communicates back and forth with them through an API(NPAPI/Pepper). The application is completely exposed to the internet which means if there's a bug that can be exploited given enough users it will probably turn into a major vulnerability.
>>54785108
>- Ability to use libmpv (well)
Does Mozplugger still work? Streaming vids into mpv literally renders most stock web player obsolete.
>>54785442
Mozplugger never worked for me. It sort of “seemed” to work, but it also completely broke focus (made my browser unresponsive).
It's also a disgusting hack. I don't really want to *replace* the video element entirely, I just want to replace the rendering backend. The display controls etc. should still be the same (and still be controllable by JavaShit so that the 4chan extension can control video automuting and stuff).
>>54785108
here's your (you)
>>54785265
>>54785472
I think firefox actually does something like this now or at least supports it. Firefox apparently uses ffmpeg as its backend for decoding media if you have it on your system.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1207429
>>54785500
>responding for the sake of responding
shit post
>>54785561
ffmpeg != libmpv
>>54783899
>once XUL is killed
XUL won't die
>>54785573
mpv uses ffmpeg libraries for encoding and decoding.
>>54785641
>mpv is also written in C, therefore every video renderer written in C is as good as libmpv
>>54783707
Do you seriously want to argue tabs between Chrome and Firefox?
Do that after Chrome has finally developed lazy loading.
On Firefox, i can load up 187 tabs of fucking wordpress and blogs via Session Manager and there will be no hang or performance hit.
Do the same on Chrome via Session Buddy, even with the lazy loading addons,
and the browser will freeze, the computer will stall, and you won't be able to do anything on the computer for 15 fucking minutes without restarting it. And this is with 90 tabs, let alone over 150.
Chrome can go suck a dick. Even Opera somehow managed not to fuck shit up using the same function.
>>54783490
>umatrix
Is umatrix a a good alternative to noscript?
>>54783458
>what is servo
>>54783438
This shit is even more infuriating when the developers of the extension/addon haven't updated it in forever or abandoned it.
>>54786178
It's OK. The last time I used NoScript was 5 years ago, but if I recall correctly, it allowed more detailed, granular control over what to allow and disallow
.
wut
Am I overkilling it with Ublock Origin?
>>54786155
>On Firefox, i can load up 187 tabs of fucking wordpress and blogs via Session Manager and there will be no hang or performance hit.
Hey, I do believe you but I myself have problem using Firefox with more than 40 tabs. What addons do you use?
>>54786355
As long as your CPU can handle it (i.e. you're using a device from the current millenium), there's no such thing as overkill when it comes to removing cancer.
>>54783640
How is otter doing?
>>54786409
The thing is that lazy loading loads a bundle of tabs as placeholders instead of loading all tabs in the background.
It will only load the content of one tab, the tab in focus.
I use Session Manager.
Of course, if you have too many ACTIVE tabs, that's bad news for the browser, but you can still manage through that shit. I have the same performance experience with regards to active tabs between Chrome and Firefox.
It's the lazy loading that makes Chrome unbearable for me since i use sessions of many tabs a lot. Chrome always loads all tabs, even if for a second (which is enough to cripple your machine).
Never has a browser pissed me off so much as Chrome has.
But damn are Mozilla dumbfuck devs trying too.
>>54786468
>The thing is that lazy loading loads a bundle of tabs as placeholders instead of loading all tabs in the background.
this is cancer and needs to die. (Good thing Firefox lets me turn it off)
>>54786502
How is it cancer? You can still load all tabs with right click + reload all tabs?
You saying it's cancer for a system to have countermeasures for performance bricking? Are you mentally retarded?
>>54783497
Fuck off marketing.
>>54786525
>switch to a tab
>have to wait for it to load
every single time
>open up browser, all your 4chan tabs still open
>they don't begin updating automatically until you visit them all one by one
>>54786589
That's what "reload all tabs" takes care of dumbfuck.
Also, unlike in Chrome, Firefox doesn't disable tabs in the background once they have been activated when you switch to other tabs. All tabs that are activated, stay activated and loaded. The lazy loading is a function in regards to initial loading (to eliminate the possibility of DoS-ing yourself with tabs so to speak).
Do you even know what you are talking about?
>>54783438
Because they need to deploy a bazillion updates per week instead of one big update every month or two. The same meme goes on with Adobe Reader. Personally I don't use it but it's always updating and it's just a fucking pdf reader.
>>54786679
>That's what "reload all tabs" takes care of dumbfuck.
Or I could just disable the option in about:config and never be bothered by the antifeature again.
>Do you even know what you are talking about?
It's just stupid chrome-inspired numbers war.
>oh look at how fast our browser can start up!
It's like Windows showing the desktop before you can actually use it, just to make it seem like it boots more quickly than it does.
nothing but a marketing gimmick driven by a stupid performance / numbers war, of which chrome is the cause
>>54783438
This kind of shit made me ditch Chrome, first to Chromium than to Opera. It disabled MY fucking extensions.
>>54786771
>performance is stupid
Stockholm syndrome much? Did firefox rape you when you were a child?
>>54783497
>You do realize all of that shit slows the browser down?
Hello, Pocket and whatever other bullshit Mozzila put there isn't?
>Louis Rossman
Is this the "Kim from Korea" again?
>>54786771
>It's just stupid chrome-inspired numbers war.
>It's like Windows showing the desktop before you can actually use it, just to make it seem like it boots more quickly than it does.
Yeah, that's why when i try to load a session of anything beyond 80 tabs in Chrome, i have to restart the fucking computer or wait 10 mintues for the fucking CPU and memory to get their shit together,
while in Firefox i can load 200 tabs all at once and then gradually activate them without any long term fuckups, and no such system breaking thing such as in Chrome.
It's just boot speed. Nothing to do with software induced DDoS.
You are mentally retarded.
>>54786798
>Performance for the sake of performance, at the cost of functionality, is justified
I take it you were molested by a marketing team.
>>54783458
Pale Moon is updated basically every month. It is not outdated and it's more secure than the latest Firefox version.
>>54786857
>adding functionality that enables smooth performance is actually removing functionality
I think you need to take some sleep son.
>>54784175
Pale Moon is a "fork" separate from Firefox with an active development. It's not simply a copy of an old Firefox. They regularly patch security and bug fixes that Firefox receives. The only difference is they leave out the unnecessary updates like user interface changes and bloatware.
>>54783490
>HTTPS Everywhere
why would anyone use this?
>>54786883
>muh smooth performance meme
I just opened 100 porn tabs and restarted firefox to see how long it would take.
Didn't take longer than a few seconds as usual and I'm already able to type this response and send you this pictures
Still don't see why I need this antifeature
xpinstall.signatures.required = false
>>54783560
> 2 seconds is an acceptable startup time
>>54786959
because they use wifi?
>>54787138
I don't get it
>>54783438
Since when you have to update? Signature enforcing is for some time now and of course you can disable it.
>>54783497
Do you really ever close your browser?
>>54783662
37.03 all my shit works. Never crashes.
>>54783510
Why is no one noticing this
>>54787550
What to notice?
Only losers and nerds require more than 10 tabs at a time.
Firefox doesn't want anything to do with you misogynistic "power users" anymore.
>>54783438
All those shitty addons. You deserve what you got.
>>54786999
>>54786999
>>54786999
This is the solution. Fucking SJWFox.
>>54783707
I installed Google Chrome on my computer and it slowed down logging in to my Windows user. Simply because it was installed it slowed down the system startup significantly without even opening it up. I also disabled any automatic updates I could find in the settings. No help. I wanted to just have it as a secondary browser but I had no choice but to uninstall it a day later.
>>54786425
>As long as your CPU can handle it
What do you mean? I thought this blocks content from being loaded, which should mean less CPU being used.
>>54786926
Australis grows on you. After a while it fits you like a memory foam bed.
>>54789421
I don't think so...
>>54789396
Checking content against your filter lists is linear in the combined size of said filter lists.
>>54789474
I can move any button anywhere I want.
>>54789568
I should perhaps have added:
... while blocking content that is linear only in the union of the filter lists intersected with the site you're visiting
tl;dr adding more and more filter lists gives you diminishing returns for ever-increasing processing power
>>54786355
It might help reading what each list is for.
>>54786155
>heres this absurd situation that novody would ever be in
>haha my software beats yours
autism
>>54783438
This is related to quite an old security update, you must've held it back for quite a while. The problem is that your add-ons are unsigned. Re-install them.
>>54783563
The devs refuse to add support for MSE and DASH. The consequence of this is that the only video qualities available to you on YouTube are 360p and 720p.
>>54786959
Because most websites that use HTTPS default to HTTP, that's why I use HTTPS everywhere. It will automatically switch to the HTTPS version of the website if it knows it.
>>54789762
I believe his question was why would anyone want to always switch to HTTPS automatically
>>54789811
Not everybody has an exhibitionism fetish
![snapshot_07.50_[2015.12.24_00.37.53].png](https://i.imgur.com/mlRQNbw.jpg "snapshot_07.50_[2015.12.24_00.37.53].png")
>>54783987
>Firefox 2 and onward IS bad,
fixed that for you
>>54789811
>>54789762
Basically yeah, I still don't get why, is HPPS more secure? most of the time chrome rejects those type of webpages to me.
>>54783662
20.0
>>54789878
HTTPS* is more secure because your data isn't being sent in plaintext and the site on the other end has been verified to be legitimate(the site that you actually want) rather than some guy that just wants to eavesdrop on you and steal your personal information. On public or open wifi and mobile it's crucial that you use https. Self-signed https is basically worthless though so that's why it gets rejected by browsers
>>54787334
what this guy said >>54789934
>>54783662
Firefox 1.0
>updating firefox
Fucking kys, this is your own fault.
Just use firefox-esr, no bullshit changes, all the functionality (more than palemoon, what is html 5 for youtube?)
>>54784944
I just might try qupzila. Should I install the stable package in arch or the git version? Btw any eta on third party extensions? I literally only need ublock,stylish ,noscript and "open with.."
>>54783560
>2-6 seconds
It isn't 2006 anymore. I could literally kill and restart Safari multiple times in the time it takes for you to start Firefox just once.
>>54790150
>>54787070
>That time is somehow bad
Wow, you start it up once and you're done until you shot down your computer.
>>54789934
>Self-signed https is basically worthless though so that's why it gets rejected by browsers
No, the real reason it gets rejected is due to the X.509 lobby
>>54783438
>He doesn't understand digital signatures
>>54784002
What is that supposed to prove?
Those 6 chrome processes alone (which looks like one base+one for each tab) are using about 900MB.
My firefox with 2 windows/20 tabs open is using less than your chrome is right now.
![firefox-3-themes[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5UUhYdZ.jpg "firefox-3-themes[1].jpg")
>>54783662
Firefox 3 was essentially the last version to use the standard layout of computer programs with a file menu bar and a toolbar for quick command buttons. Then they started tweaking it randomly and making it less usable with every update.
>>54790150
that dude is using a toaster
>>54790168
If you cannot verify both ends of the connection are who they say they are then the encryption doesn't really serve a purpose. If anything it might be used to mislead the client into believing they're secure when they're really not.
>>54790241
You could say the same about SSH and GPG yet both are respected industry-wide standards for secure communication despite requiring no central authority mafia.
X.509 is a deliberately weakened standard designed by the NSA to be as complex and attackable as possible.
Let's not forget the fact that everybody with a valid X.509 root certificate can basically subvert the entire system. And there are hundreds of these around. (Every company and every secret service in the world has one)
There's no reason why paying fat money to a central authority would somehow make your connection more secure than using a self-signed cert + HPKP/HSTS. In fact, the latter would be *more* secure. But the X.509 lobby says “no!” to the idea of free cryptography.
>>54790293
With SSH you generally know the server and don't just connect to random servers. If you can verify the other end yourself then there's no reason why you would need a CA, self-signed would be easier to set up and quicker and just as safe but generally that isn't possible for websites so CAs are used as neutral third party to verify that a website's details are correct and you're not connecting to some random guy that is pretending to be google or facebook.
>>54786178
The creator said he intended Ublock Origin for Adblock Plus users and Umatrix for Noscript users.
>>54787466
>Since when you have to update?
I didn't update my browser at all. Didn't even close it from last night, woke up and saw a popup at the bottom of my browser window saying my addons are going to be disabled.
>>54790202
I don't know which version is the last one before they turned it completely into Chrome though.
>>54786355
>>54789396
Just check Fanboy's Ultimate List and uncheck the rest of the Fanboy options.
Fanboy's Ultimate List already includes Easylist, EasyPrivacy, and the other Fanboy's Lists together all in one List.
Really, at least try to read the List descriptions.
Also, Anti-Adblock Killer most be installed with Greasemonkey.
Read the Information Icon next to Anti-Adblock Killer.
>>54790416
No, I'll tell you what the difference is. The difference is that SSH is based on TOFU, which the web largely neglects. (But the rise of HSTS+HPKP might put an end to this)
>>54783458
Firefox is tens of millions of lines of terrible spaghetti code
Writing a new browser from scratch would be less work
>>54786178
uMatrix is more than just NoScript
uMatrix is NoScript + RequestPolicy + RefControl + Self-destroying Cookies + user agent spoofer all in one.
In fact, it's strictly more powerful than NoScript even at blocking scripts, because uMatrix can do matrix-based filtering instead of just whitelist filtering. (That was one of my most major complaints about NoScript)
>>54783458
It's called Vivaldi
>>54783560
I bet it is on SSD. It would take no less 10 sec on HDD and 5-8 on SSD. Thanks god Opera and Vivaldi starts in less than second.
>>54790564
>License: Proprietary freeware with open-source components
dropped
go shill your botnet somewhere else
>>54783628
>Firefox will die if Mozilla dies, I'm sure.
And Mozilla will die if Firefox dies, they live for each other.
Try to change system clock
Hmm, I've never had a problem like that in icecat.
>>54790476
I forgot about umatrix. Just downloaded it, it's really cool. Kind of a bother to check what scripts to enable to work on each new site, but much better than noscript.
>>54783438
Everything's working fine in SeaMonkey
>>54790564
>using a fullscreened Chromium web app as a browser
>>54783483
we freaking told you this would happen. that's the extension signing crap they talked about months ago.
switch to waterfox. water kills fire, this is common knowledge
>>54790881
I'm on RockFox since the beginning of ages. Nothing beats rock.
>>54790233
I can confirm that.
>>54783438
>letting any program auto-update
>current year
>>54783438
just use nightly it lets you turn off all that addon checking stuff.
>>54791364
Yeah, fuck it. I'll just have 90% of my CPU being hogged by 30 different programs installing background updates released multiple times a day. Why even bother using the PC...
>>54783783
a power user is what an idiot calls himself when he can't program but still wants to feel superior
