On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 3:45:10 AM UTC+1, Constrained Serenity wrote:
> The Nifty and better thought out UX/UI/Tools of Firebug of lore is THE > THING that set Firebug apart from all other developer tools. > ... > it's sad to see 1/2 a decade+ of development go down the drain... > On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 4:59:52 PM UTC+1, alfonsoml wrote: > On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 11:03:42 PM UTC+1, Sebastian Zartner wrote: As mentioned before both teams, the Firebug Working Group and the DevTools >> team are working together to close those usability gaps between the >> DevTools and Firebug. If you have more of those UX things that are missing, >> you should report them >> <https://github.com/firebug/firebug.next/issues/new>. >> >> The real problem is that this situation shouldn't have happened > I totally agree with that. On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 4:59:52 PM UTC+1, alfonsoml wrote: > Firefox had the best tool, and instead of working from the start with the > Firebug team, they created a new team that obviously didn't use Firebug and > instead they recreated from scratch everything, throwing away all the > ideas, details, polishment that existed because they thought that they > could do it better. > The team behind the Firefox DevTools and the Firebug Working Group should definitely have worked more closely together in the past. The past can't be undone, but at least the teams work together now. On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 3:45:10 AM UTC+1, Constrained Serenity wrote: > Web Developer and the new Firebug 3.0 UX/Capabilities are more or less on > par with the Chrome/IE's developer tools which are very Inaccessible, > limited and more or less a waste of time. > > ...in favor of such a dumbed down, poorly thought out, very inaccessible > UX/Tool. On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 4:59:52 PM UTC+1, alfonsoml wrote: > ...but the blindness of the people heading Mozilla is astonishing. > On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 5:24:50 PM UTC+1, stephen taylor wrote: > The firefox tools really suck - they are clearly not created by web > developers and are actually worse than the Chrome and IE and Safari tools. > On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:58:43 PM UTC+1, stephen taylor wrote: > Every single web developer who relies of FB (and I have never met a > *single* serious developer that does not) will freak out if the new version > of FB reflects the goofy ineptitude of the current FF dev tool. > While the UI of the Firefox DevTools still has a lot of potential to be improved and definitely lacks some basic features, they are not as bad as you illustrate them. Actually they got quite powerful in the relatively short time they exist. Now we see "hey, if there's something missing go here and file a bug", not > only from you, other people say the same, but why should we waste our time > filing bugs to make the Firefox dev tools work like it should when there > are already tons of such requests already filed > Because the team might miss to (re-)implement certain features some people are missing. and in the release notes of Firefox we see that the work is focused on > things like web audio, virtual reality, and the like instead of working on > the basics used by 90% of the people 90% of their time? > You should ask that to the Firefox DevTools team. Note that they use UserVoice <https://ffdevtools.uservoice.com/> as a system to get user input and prioritize their work. On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 5:24:50 PM UTC+1, stephen taylor wrote: > File a bug report or feature request? This is silly - do they actually > not know that every developer uses firebug? Read a book sometime or do a > tutorial - they always reference firebug. > I wished every developer used Firebug, though that's definitely not the case. From my experience most people nowadays use the Chrome DevTools. OK - here's a feature request: > > 1) please make your tools do **exactly** what firebug does. > 2) make it look the same, too > > That's simple, right? > That's the goal, though technically that is extremely difficult to do. On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 11:10:31 PM UTC+1, Constrained Serenity wrote: > The new "Firebug 3.0" is NOT Firebug. ... Firebug 2.0.7 is the Last > version of "Firebug" > This is also my thinking as Firebug 3.0 tries to be something else. Though not because it's currently still lacking many different parts of functionality Firebug 2.0 had (note that it's still in alpha phase) but more because it's now an extension to the DevTools instead of an independent tool. I would have preferred if Firebug had stayed an individual tool. I want to emphasize again that the above reflects my personal opinion. I am not working for the FWG anymore since December last year <https://groups.google.com/d/topic/firebug-working-group/6PulwrKtmtE/discussion> . On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 5:23:58 PM UTC+1, Richard Muse wrote: > > On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 5:03:42 PM UTC-5, Sebastian Zartner wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Note that for Firebug 2.0.7 you need to have e10s >> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.mozilla.org%2FElectrolysis&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG8t8sJZzH3ci8i5zma8Zl-KVGB5Q> >> >> disabled. >> > Nice to say, but there is no option I see to disable it in the general > configuration screen your link points to. (I had checked this before.) When > I do a abount:config there is an option for print.enable_e10s_testing which > is defaulted to true. Is that what you may be referring to? > My fault. Firefox 36 doesn't have e10s enabled by default. You can easily see whether e10s is enabled. When the browser tab texts are underlined, it is enabled. In Nightly (38) *Enable E10S (multi-process)* is the first option you see when you open the browser options. Did you try out the *Network* panel? It shows the data inline, displays the >> response body and POST parameters as expected and also parses JSON. >> I just created bug 1125985 >> <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1125985> to link the >> console entries with the *Network* panel instead of opening the popup >> window. >> > Yes, I checked the network panel. While it is easier to see the > information on the right side panel, it is a HUGE amount of spam where it > used to just show my request in the console > Which 'spam' is that? > not only that, but the JSON panel does NOT parse out the nice pretty json > such as the earlier firebug did. It is just a long string. > It works fine for me on this test case: http://www.softwareishard.com/firebug/tests/1275/Issue1275.htm That is fine, but looks like someone's timing is really off since I HAVE to > use FireBug 3 to have anything work with FireFox 36.0. > You don't. Firebug 2.0.7 is even working in Firefox 38.0 in case e10s is disabled. The statement in teh linked page for e10S is, "The e10s team estimates e10s > with a single content process will be enabled in Firefox Release by the end > of 2015" Well we are in January. I cannot find anywhere that states, > "version x of firefox will have the e10s enabled". The one site I did find > mentions the tag "browser.tabs.remote.autostart" which is set to false, yet > the 2.0.7 will not work. > Please start another thread as this one gets quite lengthy and it's hard to track such issues individually. Sebastian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Firebug" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/firebug. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/firebug/49ab852f-10a4-413d-bc31-0eb5084d4cbe%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
