Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Firefox The Internet

Popular Firefox Bookmark Syncing Add-On Starts Losing... Bookmarks (bleepingcomputer.com) 67

Posted by msmash from the call-IT dept.
A popular Firefox browser add-on that saves and syncs bookmarks has started to lose those bookmarks instead, users are complaining. From a report: According to user reports -- and your reporter's own experience -- the problems arose when Xmarks updated the add-on to version 4.5.0.4, the first version to work on the new WebExtensions API, Firefox's new add-on technology. Since then, Firefox users have reported a wide range of problems, but among which the biggest was the fact that Xmarks was not syncing bookmarks as it should. The problems did not manifest the same way for all users. Some users said the add-on stopped syncing new bookmarks altogether, some reported corrupted links, others said they lost all bookmarks, while other reported that only a small portion of new bookmark URLs was being added to their Xmarks account.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Popular Firefox Bookmark Syncing Add-On Starts Losing... Bookmarks More

Popular Firefox Bookmark Syncing Add-On Starts Losing... Bookmarks

Comments Filter:

  • WebExtensions are a victory for mozilla (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    But not any of its users.

  • No time to read... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mlw4428 ( 1029576 ) on Monday November 06, 2017 @05:23PM (#55501917)
    ...I'll bookmark this for later.

  • This is one of the reasons (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday November 06, 2017 @05:38PM (#55502045)
    I haven't gotten to porting my Extension to the new APIs. They're not at all stable. Plus it's not so much a 'port' as it is a complete re-write from scratch. Firefox needs to sort out the new APIs _before_ shutting down the old ones.

    • Re:This is one of the reasons (Score:5, Insightful)

      by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Monday November 06, 2017 @06:29PM (#55502423)

      +1, they very much need to delay the obsolescence of the existing addons until:

      1) Webextensions is stable.
      2) Webextensions is proven by developers AND users as working right.
      3) Firefox has the vast majority of API's necessary to port the majority of addons- especially those needing access to the UI.
      4) Developers have had time after the above they so they can actually port addons, test them, get feedback and API tweaks from Firefox fixed, and fix their own new addons.

      My understanding of the situation is that NONE of the above is met. The hell with artificial timelines, THIS STUFF IS VERY IMPORTANT! If it takes an extra 3 months, 6 months, even a year, so be it! The Firefox addon infrastructure is one of its main selling points. Flushing that down the toilet might cause a loss of another half or more of their users.

      • 5) Webextensions was designed in a different time.

        The Firefox addon infrastructure is one of its main selling points

        It wasn't there when I started using Phoenix all those years ago. It was a breath of fresh air in an IE6 world. I stopped using Firefox ~4 years ago and moved to Chrome then Opera after bloat and old bugs never got fixed. A new install would feel sluggish after the bare minimum of 'required' plugins.

        Firefox 57 is a night and day difference again. It has uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger and LastPass which is all I really use. Most importantly it's fast. It's alr

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dutch Gun ( 899105 )

        Three of the four add-ons I use are marked "legacy". Honestly, if I need to go track down updated add-ons anyhow, why shouldn't I just switch to Chrome anyhow?

        Firefox should have added an automatic update mechanism for transitioning to new, compatible add-ons. Asking their users to track down new versions that are compatible is completely brain-dead. And they shouldn't switch over until they have near complete coverage.

        I also agree that we may see a noticeable drop in Firefox usage numbers right after th

        • Re:This is one of the reasons (Score:4, Informative)

          by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Monday November 06, 2017 @07:59PM (#55502969)

          >"why shouldn't I just switch to Chrome anyhow?"

          Well, the remaining reasons are:

          1) It is open source (I suppose you could use Chromium instead, but good luck with that on some platforms).

          2) It is community driven (although some times it is hard to tell, but far more than Chrome)

          3) It is not Google-burdened in any way (Chrome is a binary blob with who-knows how much spyware, backdoors, data collection, and other "features" inside)

          Other thoughts: FF performance is vastly improved and resource usage is on-par with any other browser, but since they "Chrome-ified" it, flexibility and user control in the UI is diminished, however, it still probably has a lot more customizable options than Chrome.

          >"I swear, it's like they're TRYING to drive away the last of their customers like me."

          It does feel that way sometimes.

        • why shouldn't I just switch to Chrome anyhow?

          Because Mozilla's WebExtensions API already offers more than Chrome's does. uBlock Origin, for example, works better in Firefox 57 [mozillazine.org] than possible in Chrome (gorhill [github.com] is the developer of uBlock Origin).

      • Flushing that down the toilet might cause a loss of another half or more of their users.

        Which they can ill afford. If the other six remaining users jump ship as well, they're toast.

      • I completely agree with your comment but sadly 3 is not happening. They've said they don't want addons to modify the UI much so some things that current add ons do won't just be possible with WebExtensions.
        I just don't how this can end well for Firefox.

      • We have to pass the API to find out what's in it!

    • "Firefox needs to sort out the new APIs _before_ shutting down the old ones."

      Unfortunately, that's a battle that has been fought and lost. Admittedly I don't follow Firefox dev channels, but I don't think I've seen any indication that Louise is going to take her foot off the gas or turn.
      • my plugin still more or less works (minus some features) for a lot of users (myself included). They've left a lot of compatibility in (even if you sometimes have to edit about:config to get it). Mind you, that was not done by choice.

    • They're not at all stable.

      What's an example of a WebExtensions API in Firefox 57 that Mozilla says is stable but isn't?

      • 'stable' here means they're still making changes. A lot of the stuff that lets you inspect data streams isn't completely hammered out. Meaning it could (will?) change later on down the line (probably in an effort to make FF feel snappier).

        • 'stable' here means they're still making changes.

          Of course they are. And more APIs will be added over time to enable more features. This is exactly as you'd expect. All the hand-wringing over Firefox 57 is tedious.

  • Or you know... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    You could just use Firefoxâ(TM)s already built in bookmark tool that already syncs your bookmarks to other devices among other things

    • Or you could just rsync bookmarks.html

    • Re:Or you know... (Score:5, Informative)

      by arcctgx ( 607542 ) on Monday November 06, 2017 @05:58PM (#55502213)

      I guess the main reason to use Xmarks instead of Firefox Sync is that it is able to sync between different browsers, not only Firefox to Firefox.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by phayes ( 202222 )

        Xmarks existed long before Mozilla added their bookmark sync and one could set it up to use any web server instead of just trusting xmarks.com.

        I used xmarks for years but when it stopped working about a month ago & there were no signs that xmarks knew what they had broken I moved to FF sync.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by alexo ( 9335 )

      You could just use Firefox's already built in bookmark tool that already syncs your bookmarks to other devices among other things

      Unless you wanted to sync bookmarks with other browsers.

  • XMarks on Firefox started acting up as soon as Firefox did the "Legacy" S**t. The behavior has forced me over to Chrome. Xmarks is still useful if you want to have some disjoint and some synced bookmarks: I use to have different bookmark toolbars at work and at home, but a shared subset of bookmarks that allow me to bookmark something at work, and see the bookmark and write about it on my blog from home. It also lets me sync the bookmarks between different browsers (well, it did), so that there was a standa

  • Long long time ago I used Xmarks to store mine... and I was even considering switching back to Firefox not long ago.
    Glad I didn't now. My bookmarks are my preciousss....
    But since we touched the topic, anyone knows of an open source good alternative to store and organize bookmarks offline, safely outside the cloud?
    I mean, you could just basically use an HTML editor after exporting the whole thing, but there must be something a bit more... elegant for this, right?

  • XMarks kept duplicating my bookmarks and restoring old bookmarks I deleted. I eventually gave up on it and set up an instance of Shaarli to use.

    • XMarks kept duplicating my bookmarks and restoring old bookmarks I deleted. I eventually gave up on it and set up an instance of Shaarli to use.

      Last update: 5 years ago.

  • Whilst most of my bookmarks were there, Xmarks seems to be dropping the "keyword" field from bookmarks. I've resorted to using Firefox Sync now, because life's too short to keep trying to fix Xmarks stuff-ups.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close