On 2017-09-11 01:19, Daniel Campbell <[email protected]> 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
