Re: [gentoo-user] What do you think about Firefox 57?

[Danny YUE]

On 2017-09-11 01:19, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote:
> On 09/07/2017 05:26 AM, Danny YUE wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have been using FoxyProxy in Firefox for a really long time, until
>> today I found its new version really sucks.
>>
>> Then I read the comment from author who declared that the old version
>> can *only* be used before (roughly) end of 2017 before Firefox 57 and in
>> new version some features must perish.
>>
>> Afterwards I found that it seems Firefox 57 will use a new ecosystem for
>> extensions and be more strict for plugin developers.
>>
>> So Firefox gurus, what do you think about it?
>>
>>
>> Danny
>>
> <user-hat>
> I switched to Pale Moon a while ago, though I suspect fewer and fewer
> mainstream sites will work with it as devs will begin requiring features
> enabled in newer Firefox and Chrome (e.g. WebRTC, EME, localStorage,
> etc). GitHub has already dropped support for Pale Moon, despite PM
> supporting just about everything GitHub makes use of.
>
> Losing XUL may be great from a security standpoint, but the feature-set
> is lacking, it negatively impacts performance (no cache sharing,
> blockers can't block correctly without a full render prior) and it all
> reeks of a code merge. Why else would Mozilla be putting all this work
> into looking *and* acting like Chrome? This behavior is that of a
> company that is looking to get out of the market. They've already
> abandoned their phone OS and their e-mail/calendar client. Firefox is
> just the final nail in the coffin. Servo isn't up to snuff yet, and the
> power users that gave Firefox its popularity are (like me) disinterested
> in what passes for "modern Web". Many websites are flat-out malicious,
> and more are insecure in general, largely due to feature creep in the
> browser. Without the ability to protect yourself, it becomes a risky
> decision to continue browsing a space filled with surveillance and
> malware. In short, it's a dumpster fire. Like all grim scenarios,
> however, there are sites out there that don't abuse people. But that
> number is dwindling every day.
>
> Aside from that, the hard requirement on PulseAudio is another strike
> against it, and their culture wrt diversity is off-putting. Mozilla
> isn't the Web leader it once was. To its credit, I don't think any
> organization is "leading" the Web well. With the W3C approving DRM as a
> standard in HTTP, it indicates a corporate acquisition of the standards
> body, and it's no longer fit for purpose. We need a browser that is
> opinionated and sticks to the standards that make sense, and hands
> control of media to other programs. That would severely simplify the
> browser, and leverage software that's generally already on a computer.
> Web browsers as they are are fine for netbooks, which have little in the
> way of system software. But for desktop machines, at least, most things
> can be handed to a media player, PDF viewer, etc. The code's already
> there: there are handlers for different protocols like irc:, mailto:,
> torrent:, etc. Adding handlers via MIME-type would be fine.
>
> As it is, I already don't read much on the Web. The experience has
> become crap, even with blocking extensions. More trouble than it's
> worth, most of the time. I have better things to do than endlessly tweak
> my privacy just so sites don't slurp up all the metadata they can on my
> connection. uBO, Privacy Badger, uMatrix, and others are great -- huge
> jumps in quality compared to their predecessors -- but the rampant
> misuse of the medium leaves me disinterested in the Web.
>
> So few websites these days are designed with graceful degradation in
> mind, let alone accessibility. It's all ECMAscript bells and whistles,
> web "apps", etc. to the point where you have two systems: your Gentoo
> system and your Web browser. I try to reduce complexity where possible,
> balanced against safety. That leads me to an upstream who won't screw
> with my interface and disrupt the add-on ecosystem because "this is
> better for you".
>
> Based on what I've read so far, Moonchild is up front about any
> breakage, and warns about unsupported compilers or settings. One of our
> regulars (Walter Dnes) helps maintain PM for us, too, so that's even
> better. :)
>
> But to be fair, I'll try it out when 57 is released so I have a stronger
> opinion. I suspect I will be let down.
> </user-hat>

Such a long response, thank you Daniel.

I don't know if adding DRM into HTTP protocol is a good idea.
Maybe it does help reduce spreading of pirate, but HTTP then somehow
works beyond "transfer".

Personally speaking, I prefer to be able to pick software in a grand
market, instead of integrate everything into one big monster with
security/privacy holes.

I would like to try 57 also (with old Firefox profile backup).


Danny