firefox quantum on FreeBSD?

scottro

Daemon

Reaction score: 909
Messages: 2,061

I hadn't realized DownloadHelper was broken with youtube. After reading this, I tried it. I use youtube-dl for youtube though, and really don't download very many things, so that's not a big deal for me. Ublock seems to work for me though.
 
OP
azathoth

azathoth

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 14
Messages: 380

firefox 56 sticking with here
I love the net!
squuuuanch!
 

Minbari

Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 308
Messages: 571

Till I don't have those extensions I won't switch to Firefox-current (quantum).
ff-esr.png
 
OP
azathoth

azathoth

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 14
Messages: 380

actually some weird javascirpt thing keeps hanging youtube

back on chrome

yes let the autism flow I know

but hek im the kinda guy whothinks happstack.com gnoga.com cliki.net/web aidaweb.si and swi prolog webserver can replace the cancer of oracle same way freebsd can replace windows mac and deadrat
 
OP
azathoth

azathoth

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 14
Messages: 380

This is like a monopoly anit competitive bug google put on youtube to screw with firefox
sue google!!
for billions!
investigate the ad money scam!! where 1 dolalr in and 50 out! silicon valley liek fed is printing fake money stealing ownership
 
D

Deleted member 48958

Guest


#removed :D
I'll use firefox-esr (52 version should be supported untill 2018?) and palemoon.
 

poorandunlucky

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 372

Firefox quantum is awesome. Compiled without a hitch for me, in Poudriere, and it's running super fast, it's super stable, it's a pleasure to use, it's clean and awesome. Best browser ever!

Not even exaggerating.

It's my personal opinion, as a teenager, that you're gaf if you use anything else.

That is all.
 

Trihexagonal

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,355
Messages: 2,977

I built www/firefox-esr but any hopes I had my legacy extensions would reactivate were dashed when it said NoScript was not compatible with Firefox 52.5.0, so it's back to Quantum Strangeness for me... :(

And www/palemon.
 

poorandunlucky

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 372

I built www/firefox-esr but any hopes I had my legacy extensions would reactivate were dashed when it said NoScript was not compatible with Firefox 52.5.0, so it's back to Quantum Strangeness for me... :(

And www/palemon.

I have NoScript, AdBlock Origin, HTTPS Everywhere, and Stylish on Quantum... and User Agent Switcher... and LastPass. All work perfectly.

I don't know what you're talking about... I installed NoScript earlier, actually... Works fine...
 

poorandunlucky

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 372

The new version of NoScript is incompatible with www/firefox-esr. I have it installed on www/firefox.

I was hoping all my legacy extensions that were broken with Quantum would reactivate on www/firefox-esr. I only had the option to remove them, so I went back to Quantum.

What legacy extensions could that be?

I just have those, and I feel like it's too much... probably gonna ditch NoScript and/or HTTPS Everywhere soon... I'm not really seeing the point of NoScript so far, besides pages not loading properly...
 

Trihexagonal

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,355
Messages: 2,977

The only one I'm really missing now that I haven't found a replacement for or they haven't fixed is DownloadThemAll!:

downoader.png

That's what it's all about for me. The main reason I use www/firefox is the extensions and without the ones I need it falls short the mark.
 

Trihexagonal

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,355
Messages: 2,977

I just have those, and I feel like it's too much... probably gonna ditch NoScript and/or HTTPS Everywhere soon... I'm not really seeing the point of NoScript so far, besides pages not loading properly...

NoScript lets you enable JavaScript selectively on sites you visit. Sometime you do need to enable scripting for sites to work, but most of the time not all scripts are necessary for proper display. This is just one small example:

imdb.png

Not all sites are particular about the advertisers they get paid to let run ads either, and they can be a vehicle for adware and malware. At any rate, I don't allow JS to run globally and if I have to fiddle around with allowing scripts to run till a site displays properly that's not too high a price to pay IMO, or something I have a problem doing.

HTTPS Everywhere should be self-explanatory and something you'd want.
 

poorandunlucky

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 372

NoScript lets you enable JavaScript selectively on sites you visit. Sometime you do need to enable scripting for sites to work, but most of the time not all scripts are necessary for proper display. This is just one small example:

View attachment 4139

Not all sites are particular about the advertisers they get paid to let run ads either, and they can be a vehicle for adware and malware. At any rate, I don't allow JS to run globally and if I have to fiddle around with allowing scripts to run till a site displays properly that's not too high a price to pay IMO, or something I have a problem doing.

HTTPS Everywhere should be self-explanatory and something you'd want.

HTTPS Everywhere is pretty transparent so far, I'll give it that... NoScript is a good idea, but like I said, it's the first time I run it, so it's annoying af, I have to set permissions for every site I visit, and since they're the sites I visit the most, I want them NAO. RIGHT NAO. Why doesn't this work? OMG this f-in thing again, FAAECCCBOOK. : <

I'm going to keep using it for a while because like I said, it's a good idea, and JS is rather... it's a bit too powerful, IMO, and I'm not super familiar with the add-on, either, so I'm not sure how effective it is at both, allowing visual content and complex interactions, and blocking things that would be unwanted... I'm just not sure if the trouble is worth it considering that it's hard to draw the line between... Like... well, I'm sure you understand... I'm just not sure if the effort's worth the outcome... Like what is it effectively blocking that I wouldn't want... Is there a tangible advantage for me to bother with this at all? (I'm not asking, btw, It's kinda rhethorical, it's the stuff I'm explaining I'm trying to find out...)

But I will admit I don't particularly like what people can do with JavaScript behind my back, and what Firefox will allow people to do with it without my knowledge, how much, or how far...
 

Trihexagonal

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,355
Messages: 2,977

luckylucky.png

Oh look! I enabled scripting and won a prize!!! Last time it wanted to update Flash for me. Wait... I don't have Flash installed, or run Windows. Hmmm...

Yes, it can be a pain to learn to use, and you may have to enable more than 1 script before you find the script that's needed for the site to operate properly. Once you have the regular sites you visit set up it's not so bad. I have to enable scripting for ajax.googleapis.com every time I visit a site I frequent, but I would rather do that than let it run on every site that has it.

Go to one of the news sites and see how many scripts want to run.
 

poorandunlucky

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 38
Messages: 372

View attachment 4140

Oh look! I enabled scripting and won a prize!!! Last time it wanted to update Flash for me. Wait... I don't have Flash installed, or run Windows. Hmmm...

Yes, it can be a pain to learn to use, and you may have to enable more than 1 script before you find the script that's needed for the site to operate properly. Once you have the regular sites you visit set up it's not so bad. I have to enable scripting for ajax.googleapis.com every time I visit a site I frequent, but I would rather do that than let it run on every site that has it.

Go to one of the news sites and see how many scripts want to run.

Good point...

I'll give it a few more days, see how it goes... Maybe we should e-mail the developer to ask him to implement global whitelists for things like that, or even just Google's (ugh) ajax thing...

[What does it even do? Isn't AJAX like three lines of code?]
 

Trihexagonal

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,355
Messages: 2,977

The interface is different now but the old version did have a whitelist with ajax.googleapis.com, outlook.com, google.com etc. already entered. I go through that and delete anything that isn't Mozilla, ebay, or paypal related. Places I use on a regular basis and know I can trust. This version is neutered and doesn't have all the options it used to.
 
Top