Discussion:
Firefox quantum
(too old to reply)
Roy
2017-11-15 17:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Just installed it. What a mistake. Most of my add-ons are missing.

Will look at going back to previous version
David Arnstein
2017-11-15 19:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roy
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+***@pobox.com {{ }}
^^
n***@sbcglobal.net
2017-11-17 19:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Arnstein
Post by Roy
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)
^^
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.
David Arnstein
2017-11-21 22:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Arnstein
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+***@pobox.com {{ }}
^^
Marcel
2017-11-23 21:59:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
David Arnstein <arnstein+***@pobox.com> wrote:
: In article <ouhslj$pfp$***@dont-email.me>, Roy <***@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

Loading...