Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > ba.internet > #19320 > unrolled thread

Firefox quantum

Started byRoy <montanawolf@outlook.com>
First post2017-11-15 10:14 -0700
Last post2017-11-23 21:59 +0000
Articles 5 — 4 participants

Back to article view | Back to ba.internet


Contents

  Firefox quantum Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> - 2017-11-15 10:14 -0700
    Re: Firefox quantum David Arnstein <arnstein+usenet@pobox.com> - 2017-11-15 19:21 +0000
      Re: Firefox quantum noozguru@sbcglobal.net - 2017-11-17 11:02 -0800
      Re: Firefox quantum David Arnstein <arnstein+usenet@pobox.com> - 2017-11-21 22:29 +0000
      Re: Firefox quantum Marcel <c.c.nbsdfm@FirefoxXqu.usenet.us.com> - 2017-11-23 21:59 +0000

#19320 — Firefox quantum

FromRoy <montanawolf@outlook.com>
Date2017-11-15 10:14 -0700
SubjectFirefox quantum
Message-ID<ouhslj$pfp$1@dont-email.me>
Just installed it.  What a mistake.  Most of my add-ons are missing.

Will look at going back to previous version

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#19321

FromDavid Arnstein <arnstein+usenet@pobox.com>
Date2017-11-15 19:21 +0000
Message-ID<oui43j$n17$1@reader2.panix.com>
In reply to#19320
In article <ouhslj$pfp$1@dont-email.me>, Roy  <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:
>Just installed it.  What a mistake.  Most of my add-ons are missing.

I knew this was coming, but it was still unpleasant.

For me, the biggest loss is the NoScript extension. I feel rather exposed
using the www without NoScript. The developer posted a message stating
that a quantum-compliant version is arriving real soon now. Well, maybe.
He updates the extension constantly, and he had to know about quantum
months ago. We'll see.

It's almost as bad losing the Classic Theme Restorer extension. The
developer posted a message stating that it's game over for that one. He
seemed rather angry about the loss of the XUL framework.

Time to move on! Classic Theme Restorer allowed me to resist the trends
set forth by Mozilla. I could resist further by holding on to v.56, but
I have concluded it is better to adapt.

And look for Firefox alternatives as well. Of course.
-- 
David Arnstein                       (00)
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com          {{   }}
                                     ^^

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#19322

Fromnoozguru@sbcglobal.net
Date2017-11-17 11:02 -0800
Message-ID<2d09edbf-f422-4c0e-a748-3cf790df2772@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#19321
On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 at 11:21:25 AM UTC-8, David Arnstein wrote:
> In article <ouhslj$pfp$1@dont-email.me>, Roy  <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:
> >Just installed it.  What a mistake.  Most of my add-ons are missing.
> 
> I knew this was coming, but it was still unpleasant.
> 
> For me, the biggest loss is the NoScript extension. I feel rather exposed
> using the www without NoScript. The developer posted a message stating
> that a quantum-compliant version is arriving real soon now. Well, maybe.
> He updates the extension constantly, and he had to know about quantum
> months ago. We'll see.
> 
> It's almost as bad losing the Classic Theme Restorer extension. The
> developer posted a message stating that it's game over for that one. He
> seemed rather angry about the loss of the XUL framework.
> 
> Time to move on! Classic Theme Restorer allowed me to resist the trends
> set forth by Mozilla. I could resist further by holding on to v.56, but
> I have concluded it is better to adapt.
> 
> And look for Firefox alternatives as well. Of course.
> -- 
> David Arnstein                       (00)
> arnstein+usenet@pobox.com          {{   }}
>                                      ^^

The update arrived on Ubuntu today.  Yeah, stuff I use is missing like the ad blocker I was using.  Put in another one but the old one was easier to turn off and on.  Too many sites are overloaded with ads or late arriving ones can mess up a form when you're typing in it.  Smarter web sites use embedded ads.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#19323

FromDavid Arnstein <arnstein+usenet@pobox.com>
Date2017-11-21 22:29 +0000
Message-ID<ov29d1$mgl$1@reader2.panix.com>
In reply to#19321
In article <oui43j$n17$1@reader2.panix.com>,
David Arnstein  <arnstein+usenet@pobox.com> wrote:
>For me, the biggest loss is the NoScript extension. I feel rather exposed
>using the www without NoScript. The developer posted a message stating
>that a quantum-compliant version is arriving real soon now. Well, maybe.
>He updates the extension constantly, and he had to know about quantum
>months ago. We'll see.

The developer of NoScript has not given up: https://noscript.net/ . He has
posted anupdated version. It is not yet available through Mozilla server. But
this is still great news.
-- 
David Arnstein                       (00)
arnstein+usenet@pobox.com          {{   }}
                                     ^^

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#19324

FromMarcel <c.c.nbsdfm@FirefoxXqu.usenet.us.com>
Date2017-11-23 21:59 +0000
Message-ID<ov7gbh$dp8$1@blue-new.rahul.net>
In reply to#19321
David Arnstein <arnstein+usenet@pobox.com> wrote:
: In article <ouhslj$pfp$1@dont-email.me>, Roy  <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:
: >Just installed it.  What a mistake.  Most of my add-ons are missing.

: I knew this was coming, but it was still unpleasant.

: For me, the biggest loss is the NoScript extension. I feel rather exposed
: using the www without NoScript. The developer posted a message stating
: that a quantum-compliant version is arriving real soon now. Well, maybe.
: He updates the extension constantly, and he had to know about quantum
: months ago. We'll see.

He did, but FireFox didn't roll out the API he needed until 2 or 3 weeks
ago (no joke! https://forums.informaction.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=23173&start=165#p91247 ).

There is a new version of NoScript that works with FF 57, but the UI
is, um, *ugly*. I'm gonna stick with 56 for a while.

=M


[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | ba.internet


csiph-web