Are you serious? Maybe the majority of users don't have userContent.css customizations. But a significant minority do. And consider who evangelizes firefox. You guessed it. It's the power users. Take that away and there's very little reason for any user to pick Firefox over Chrome. Mozilla is losing ground and they can't figure out why and your post shows what the problem is. If Mozilla goes out of their way to alienate users like me (and the GP), they're going to slide into irrelevance.
If Mozilla goes out of their way to alienate users like me (and the GP), they're going to slide into irrelevance.
Take that away and there's very little reason for any user to pick Firefox over Chrome.
Welp, then just go use Chrome and hasten the inevitable, fork your own browser, or heck just head over to IcyPaleWeaselMoon with it's whooping 0.02%, JS engine straight from 2006, tab instance security that is non-existent, and tasty single-threaded browser (mmmm, loving it when all my webpages share the same memory space)! The endless whining from folks who contribute zilch towards a code base they continually hate on gets old fast.
But a significant minority do.
AKA, nobody.
And consider who evangelizes firefox.
Clearly not because all I ever hear from the "power users" is
Chrome is running internet police mode for a while already. In latest build they blocked *.eml downloads or something that looks like scripted downloader in other webmail. Normal user would be unable to do anything about it as even whitelisting website does not disable that block.
> AKA, nobody. Hello from nobody. userContent.css is the best option for dealing with brain dead web designers who think that web users should be unable to copy any website text. Even if I need t
The problem is that all these things cost time and money to maintain. Mozilla is open source so if someone wanted to work for free maintaining them I'm sure Mozilla would listen, but nobody does.
Besides, what are power users going to do? Switch to a Chrome based browser?
I'd count myself as a power user, and I'm switching back to Firefox as soon as they fix one blocking bug on the Android version. The enhanced privacy protection and blocking functions alone are worth it.
There has NEVER been a "significant minority" using userContent.css. Never. I'm sure there is the odd person who uses it, maybe to override some annoying font or for their own needs but that's it. That doesn't mean it should be removed because it should be trivial to implement and test ("if userContentFile.exists() { loadCSS(userContentFile); }" but perspective.
On any post about firefox people complain it (a) has too many features (b) has too few (c) is too much like chrome (d) is not enough like chrome (e) looks terrible (f) visual changes are evil.
It's the browser nerds apparently love to hate now.
Thing is what all of the complaints seem to amount to is "Firefox is just like chrome (except with better extensions, no snooping by google) so I'm just going to use chrome".
But you do you. Your computer your choice. If Firefox is too much like chrome, go switch to chr
Yes Firefox does have features that seem to be rather silly or useless. And they have been removing features at a rapid rate. Currently Firefox is still useful to me and has features I rely on and desire. As those get eliminated, like userContent.css, then my reason for using firefox diminishes considerably. I'm glad Firefox is here now and I hope they not only listen to average users, but the users like me who uses these features.
I realize a browser costs money to make, but it also seems like Mozilla is
i completely agree in spirit.
Features of an application are not subject to whimsy. "We felt like now was a good time to take away or bastardize this thing - Oh and we are going to force it on to users or else they get screwed by some hacker." The bug discussion they had is unimportant. They have the power to change things, but the question is do they have the _authority. This is the crux. They believe they do. Users disagree.
Until recently it didn't matter, so what if the new version of Word has ugly
>, but the question is do they have the _authority. It's their software. They're the ones doing all the work. I can't think of who else would possibly have the authority. As a freeloading user your authority is limited to deciding which software you want to use.
That said... BOOO! I use compact mode pretty much anywhere I'm not on a huge 4k screen. Which admittedly isn't often these days, but I do plan to get my laptop running again eventually.
I'm more amused by the kind of thinking that goes into "you can't tell me what to do". If people who do open source didn't have the authority over their own code, what would that mean for the longevity of the movement? Baby-bathwater-browser.
As a freeloading user your authority is limited to deciding which software you want to use.
Oooh. Watch that assumption. A significant percentage of Firefox users donate some money and/or time to Mozilla. It's a community, supposedly.
I've think that's been a load of crap for years, but that's why you see posts like this. It used to be the case -- all you had to do was offer a little time or money -- but some people haven't figured out that they don't matter to the mission any more.
That might buy you influence, but not authority. It's right there in the name: donation. And generally I think it's treated more as "keep up the good work", particularly if you don't include any requests or commentary along with with your donation. You've generally got to be kind of explicit when buying influence, especially when you're only responsible for a drop in the bucket.
As a developer I can completely understand why they'd dump some esoteric feature that very few people use. It still has to be tested every release and in these modern days there may even be an automated test that has to be maintained.
Of for fscks sake, someone just take Firefox out behind the woodshed and put it out of its misery. Mozilla has been slowly strangling it for years and we can all see where it's headed, it's just taking forever to get there. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion, one freeze frame at a time.
They also disabled browser.urlbar.clickSelectsAll. When a bunch of people reported it [mozilla.org], one of the devs effectively said "no" then locked the bog report, and is closing all new reports as duplicates.
This is all a long way of saying; I use firefox above other browsers because I can customize it to disable the BS I don't want, and enable timesaving features I do want. More and more, they demonstrate that they care less about
A large part of the issue seems to be.. do web browsers need to change so much internally that we need enormous teams maintaining them? And with that, making stupid random changes to justify their job during the lulls?
You've got it exactly. Browsers are a mature technology, apart from chasing whatever random whim the Google children decide to inflict on us this week there's not much more you can do with them. Mozilla has a massively bloated staff count with not much to do, so they have to continuously churn the browser to justify their existence. Since it's not obvious what additional crap you can lard onto it, the only thing left to do is remove things and break things.
They only change the settings they want and they delete the settings they don't use. For example, ALT V Z R was the key sequence to reset the zoom level since version 4.0 and that's now been changed to something ignorant, 'actual size' with the key sequence of ALT V Z A, which means 10+ years of muscle memory down the drain.
For example, ALT V Z R was the key sequence to reset the zoom level since version 4.0 and that's now been changed to something ignorant, 'actual size' with the key sequence of ALT V Z A, which means 10+ years of muscle memory down the drain.
"reset zoom" has had the – localization independent! – shortcut Ctrl+0 since introduction of the zoom feature.
userContent.css (Score:3, Insightful)
Mozilla can just fuck right off. They're pulling this shit at the same time they're planning on removing userContent.css support.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
OMG what are you and, well literally no-one else, going to do that happens?
Re:userContent.css (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you serious? Maybe the majority of users don't have userContent.css customizations. But a significant minority do. And consider who evangelizes firefox. You guessed it. It's the power users. Take that away and there's very little reason for any user to pick Firefox over Chrome. Mozilla is losing ground and they can't figure out why and your post shows what the problem is. If Mozilla goes out of their way to alienate users like me (and the GP), they're going to slide into irrelevance.
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft. If users like you were as powerful as you thought nearly half the news stories on Slashdot would disappear.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If Mozilla goes out of their way to alienate users like me (and the GP), they're going to slide into irrelevance.
Take that away and there's very little reason for any user to pick Firefox over Chrome.
Welp, then just go use Chrome and hasten the inevitable, fork your own browser, or heck just head over to IcyPaleWeaselMoon with it's whooping 0.02%, JS engine straight from 2006, tab instance security that is non-existent, and tasty single-threaded browser (mmmm, loving it when all my webpages share the same memory space)! The endless whining from folks who contribute zilch towards a code base they continually hate on gets old fast.
But a significant minority do.
AKA, nobody.
And consider who evangelizes firefox.
Clearly not because all I ever hear from the "power users" is
Re: (Score:1)
> Welp, then just go use Chrome
Chrome is running internet police mode for a while already. In latest build they blocked *.eml downloads or something that looks like scripted downloader in other webmail. Normal user would be unable to do anything about it as even whitelisting website does not disable that block.
> AKA, nobody.
Hello from nobody. userContent.css is the best option for dealing with brain dead web designers who think that web users should be unable to copy any website text. Even if I need t
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that all these things cost time and money to maintain. Mozilla is open source so if someone wanted to work for free maintaining them I'm sure Mozilla would listen, but nobody does.
Besides, what are power users going to do? Switch to a Chrome based browser?
I'd count myself as a power user, and I'm switching back to Firefox as soon as they fix one blocking bug on the Android version. The enhanced privacy protection and blocking functions alone are worth it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On any post about firefox people complain it (a) has too many features (b) has too few (c) is too much like chrome (d) is not enough like chrome (e) looks terrible (f) visual changes are evil.
It's the browser nerds apparently love to hate now.
Thing is what all of the complaints seem to amount to is "Firefox is just like chrome (except with better extensions, no snooping by google) so I'm just going to use chrome".
But you do you. Your computer your choice. If Firefox is too much like chrome, go switch to chr
Re: (Score:2)
Yes Firefox does have features that seem to be rather silly or useless. And they have been removing features at a rapid rate. Currently Firefox is still useful to me and has features I rely on and desire. As those get eliminated, like userContent.css, then my reason for using firefox diminishes considerably. I'm glad Firefox is here now and I hope they not only listen to average users, but the users like me who uses these features.
I realize a browser costs money to make, but it also seems like Mozilla is
Re: userContent.css (Score:2)
I was just about to come here and say how stupid it was to remove this feature when it's basically just a user stylesheet.
Now it makes sense.
Removing user stylesheets is even more stupid though...
I completely agree in spirit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>, but the question is do they have the _authority.
It's their software. They're the ones doing all the work. I can't think of who else would possibly have the authority. As a freeloading user your authority is limited to deciding which software you want to use.
That said... BOOO! I use compact mode pretty much anywhere I'm not on a huge 4k screen. Which admittedly isn't often these days, but I do plan to get my laptop running again eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more amused by the kind of thinking that goes into "you can't tell me what to do". If people who do open source didn't have the authority over their own code, what would that mean for the longevity of the movement? Baby-bathwater-browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep - especially ironic from people who are busy telling other people what to do.
Re: (Score:2)
As a freeloading user your authority is limited to deciding which software you want to use.
Oooh. Watch that assumption. A significant percentage of Firefox users donate some money and/or time to Mozilla. It's a community, supposedly.
I've think that's been a load of crap for years, but that's why you see posts like this. It used to be the case -- all you had to do was offer a little time or money -- but some people haven't figured out that they don't matter to the mission any more.
Re: (Score:2)
That might buy you influence, but not authority. It's right there in the name: donation. And generally I think it's treated more as "keep up the good work", particularly if you don't include any requests or commentary along with with your donation. You've generally got to be kind of explicit when buying influence, especially when you're only responsible for a drop in the bucket.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only way I found to fix the issue [superuser.com] was to literally hack it back into firefox.
This is all a long way of saying; I use firefox above other browsers because I can customize it to disable the BS I don't want, and enable timesaving features I do want. More and more, they demonstrate that they care less about
Re: (Score:2)
A large part of the issue seems to be.. do web browsers need to change so much internally that we need enormous teams maintaining them? And with that, making stupid random changes to justify their job during the lulls?
You've got it exactly. Browsers are a mature technology, apart from chasing whatever random whim the Google children decide to inflict on us this week there's not much more you can do with them. Mozilla has a massively bloated staff count with not much to do, so they have to continuously churn the browser to justify their existence. Since it's not obvious what additional crap you can lard onto it, the only thing left to do is remove things and break things.
Which is precisely what Mozilla has been doing p
Re: (Score:1)
Edge while certainly not ideal in any way is actually a better chrome than Chrome.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:userContent.css (Score:5, Informative)
For example, ALT V Z R was the key sequence to reset the zoom level since version 4.0 and that's now been changed to something ignorant, 'actual size' with the key sequence of ALT V Z A, which means 10+ years of muscle memory down the drain.
"reset zoom" has had the – localization independent! – shortcut Ctrl+0 since introduction of the zoom feature.