Firefox 57, which is slated for release on November 14, will "only run WebExtensions", according to Mozilla.
This is expected to break compatibility with many existing Firefox extensions, and in many cases there aren't WebExtensions-compatible alternatives available for these extensions.
During some recent discussion at Slashdot, it became clear that some users have nearly all of their extensions classified as "legacy", and susceptible to breakage.
Members of the SoylentNews community, if you use Firefox, how many of your extensions are set to no longer work with Firefox in the near future?
If Firefox 57 breaks compatibility with your existing extensions, will this finally be enough for you to discard Firefox and find an alternative browser to use?
Will this extension breakage, and subsequent loss of users, effectively end the viability of Firefox as a modern web browser?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13 2017, @02:57PM (11 children)
That's nothing chrome only needs one page open to grind to a halt.
It's still astonishing to me that the Fx developers have their heads do far up their assets that they can't bother to listen to the users.
Most changes just make things worse and they don't care.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Sunday August 13 2017, @03:40PM (5 children)
Well, just looking at the Mozilla leadership [mozilla.org] explains everything.
In particular, look at the Chief Innovation Officer. You'd think that if any position should be held by someone technical, it would be this one, right?
Well, let's see:
You still wonder about the priorities at Mozilla?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Sunday August 13 2017, @08:44PM
To be fair, she has nothing much to do with Firefox. She's apparently there to satisfy a quota for Mozilla.
The guy in charge of Firefox: Mark Mayo [mozilla.org] knows nothing about browsers either:
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 13 2017, @09:04PM (3 children)
"Well, just looking at the Mozilla leadership [mozilla.org] explains everything.
In particular, look at the Chief Innovation Officer. You'd think that if any position should be held by someone technical, it would be this one, right?"
This may surprise you but innovation does not necessarily require "someone technical". More interesting is the bio you posted which states that this person in fact did innovate something respectable in the realm of technology without a technical background.
So, I think you have a problem with this person being both a woman and successful.
Grow up, dude.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Sunday August 13 2017, @09:39PM (1 child)
You think wrong. I don't care at all about her gender. And there's nothing in my post that hints otherwise. I also don't mind her being successful; for example, I don't have a problem at all with her having been the CEO of Spiegel Online. Indeed, this position was very much in line with her education and previous experience, so I guess she probably was a very good fit for it. But Mozilla isn't providing a journalism platform, it's making a web browser.
The one whose prejudices are showing here are you: In your view, if someone is critical, and a woman is involved in any way, then the true reason of the critique must be because it's a woman.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2017, @04:14PM
i can't imagine how anyone could read the list of accomplishments she had, and then think she is suitable for a CIO role at Mozilla.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday August 14 2017, @02:50AM
The person in question did nothing relevant in the realm of technology to have that position. And someone non-technical are usually to clueless to make the right decision on what projects that should have resources.
Oh, and the browser shows as others pointed out.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Monday August 14 2017, @02:56AM (4 children)
Ah yes, Chrome/Chromium. I once had an xterm gobble gigs and gigs of memory (I like big scrollback buffers, and I cannot lie). Couldn't find which of my gazillion terminals would've gotten that ridiculously large. Installed pstree. Turns out the offending xterm was the one I'd started Chromium from (and was now hiding under the browser). Gazillions of warning printouts had piled up over some weeks. Taught me two things - code quality is questionable in that browser, and more importantly, start it in the background and close the terminal!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday August 14 2017, @08:05AM (3 children)
Or simply don't configure xterm to save an unreasonable number of lines.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Monday August 14 2017, @08:13AM (1 child)
> Or simply don't configure xterm to save an unreasonable number of lines.
Madness!
If you can't accidentally dump a kernel or ten into your terminal without losing the real stuff, what good is a scrollback buffer in the first place?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 18 2017, @01:44AM
Why 9is this only voted +2?
This is pretty literally the kind of stuff that sysdevs do because thing X is blocking normal method Y.
I've done split pipes to term and remote file where the remote link was unreliable and the term was the critical backup. I'd have been pissed to find it truncated.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Bot on Monday August 14 2017, @10:16AM
> Or simply don't configure xterm to save an unreasonable number of lines.
wow, the systemd devs deflection maneuver!
If only you put a reinforcing ad hominem it would have been perfect :)
To be fair, the amount of stuff dumped to stdout/err by a browser is not much relevant imho
Account abandoned.