updates Meet the browser: Firefox Next

[bawz]

2 hours ago, Konstantine said:

I, on the other hand, cannot wait for Servo to show up. I haven't understood the whole WebExtensions thing but if I can use uBlock Origin, Stylish and Youtube High Definition on Firefox 57+ then I don't really care. uBlock Origin has a WebExtension version if I recall correctly.

just install Chrome Extensions in Firefox now by Adding a https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/chrome-store-foxified/ in Firefox now an you'll get a Preview of what WebExtensions will be like , once you install that Extension, then install a Extension from the Chrome Store 

[trag3dy]

2 hours ago, Gary7 said:

Stylish will be gone.

If they're making Firefox compatible with Chrome extensions then stylish still exists but it is nowhere near as useful as Stylish on Firefox. On the old Firefox anyways...  It's pretty much limited to just websites.

[Semtex]

There is different between Stylish for Fx and Ch, in the second one You can't control browser interface itself, that is why Ch Stylish is only substitute of this what we have on Fx... So sad.  After so many years withy FX I don't see alternative for my self.

[bawz]

read this http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3026921 an http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3025513

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

7 hours ago, Demz said:

read this http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3026921 an http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3025513

Then I guess it will be Chrome or Cyberfox.

[Steven P. Administrators]

9 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Then I guess it will be Chrome or Cyberfox.

What's Cyberfox and why does it benefit with the (Intel/AMD) CPU variant over Firefox? (I use Chrome, Firefox and Edge (the latter only if I must!))

 

Would there be any benefit to me switching from Firefox x64 to Cyberfox Intel x64? (I am rocking an i5-4400 Haswell btw fellas) 

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

5 minutes ago, Steven P. said:

What's Cyberfox and why does it benefit with the (Intel/AMD) CPU variant over Firefox? (I use Chrome, Firefox and Edge (the latter only if I must!)

 

Would their be any benefit to me switching from Firefox x64 to Cyberfox Intel x64? (I am rocking an i5-4400 Haswell btw fellas) 

It runs better that Firefox and they have a tool called Profile Buddy that will transfer everything from Firefox 64 to Cyberfox 64. I am not sure if what Mozilla is doing with Fx  will affect Cyberfox or not. It is not really a clone as there are some changes in the programming. You can find all the info you need at the link below Steve. You may have to join their forum to get that tool. Good Luck. The Intel or AMD version will both work I was told.

https://cyberfox.8pecxstudios.com/

 

[Semtex]

Cyberfox is Firefox based fork, working quite OK if You ask me, but we don;t know if changes made in Firefox 57 will not land in Cyberfox as well. I've ported Nightly profile direct into Cyberfox profile without problem. simple Ctrl C and Ctrl V

 

Alternative is Palemoon browser, also nice and old school Firefox fork, based on 27 or 28 ESR.

[Steven P. Administrators]

Just now, Gary7 said:

It runs better that Firefox and they have a tool called Profile Buddy that will transfer everything from Firefox 64 to Cyberfox 64. I am not sure if what Mozilla is doing with Fx  will affect Cyberfox or not. It is not really a clone as there are some changes in the programming. You can find all the info you need at the link below Steve. You may have to join their forum to get that tool. Good Luck.

https://cyberfox.8pecxstudios.com/

 

Thanks Gary, I will definitely check it out!

[Boo Berry]

IMO, there's no real world benefits to using Cyberfox or Waterfox over Firefox 64-bit for Windows. I've tried both and performance has always been the same.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

3 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

IMO, there's no real world benefits to using Cyberfox or Waterfox over Firefox 64-bit for Windows. I've tried both and performance has always been the same.

Firefox will be not using extensions. Cyberfox also comes in a 32 bit platform. The performance is not better but the security is. This is what I have been told. Waterfox is strictly a clone while Cyberfox is not.

[Semtex]

Problem is, that after few months Firefox will be "different" as  today. Big extension base was always main argument for Firefox users. Mozilla is on a way without return.

[Boo Berry]

4 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

Firefox will be not using extensions. Cyberfox also comes in a 32 bit platform. The performance is not better but the security is. This is what I have been told. Waterfox is strictly a clone while Cyberfox is not.

Uhh, how? Security should be exactly the same since it's more-or-less based on Firefox's open source code with additional branding/skinning changes, and compiled using a different compiler than Mozilla uses (I believe it's the Intel compiler, as far as I know).

[Semtex]

Read about PAE and addressing in x64 platforms  

[Boo Berry]

1 minute ago, Semtex said:

Read about PAE and addressing in x64 platforms  

It *should* be the same with Firefox 64-bit.

[Steven P. Administrators]

2 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

It *should* be the same with Firefox 64-bit.

Now I'm confused  so it has little benefit over the 'official' x64 version, is what I am gathering.

[Boo Berry]

Exactly. These third-party Windows 64-bit builds of Firefox (in the case of Waterfox, and early Cyberfox builds until they added 32-bit builds) were popular and good to use before Mozilla pushed out an official Firefox 64-bit stable build for Windows a year ago. As such, if I recall correctly these third-party builds gained a little in terms of performance thanks to optimizations in the compiler used (e.g. SSE2) but I recalled correctly again Mozilla is using at least SSE2 now when compiling Firefox for official builds. But today I cannot note any performance difference with Firefox 64-bit vs Cyberfox 64-bit vs Waterfox 64-bit in real world use. I just tried all three and performance seemed the same for me. Firefox 64-bit on Windows should also benefit from PAE too by default, since after all it's a 64-bit binary.

 

It *might* have performance improvements on slower, older hardware but on this high-end machine I don't notice any difference.

[Semtex]

Sorry, we have some small mismatch I was referring to whole x64 platform. I think too, that same security problems exist in x64 Firefox and forks, in some stages regular FX is safer since in forks some changes are fixed bit later.

[Boo Berry]

1 minute ago, Semtex said:

in some stages regular FX is safer since in forks some changes are fixed bit later.

Well, this might be true with Pale Moon somewhat, as long as Cyberfox/Waterfox is built against the newest stable releases, it should inherit all security-related changes from upstream.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

12 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

Uhh, how? Security should be exactly the same since it's more-or-less based on Firefox's open source code with additional branding/skinning changes, and compiled using a different compiler than Mozilla uses (I believe it's the Intel compiler, as far as I know).

I am talking about The 64 Bit Browser, any 64 Bit Browser. Not just Cyberfox as I already posted they do have a 32 Bit browser as well. Firefox will no longer be using extensions, read through the thread.

[Boo Berry]

1 minute ago, Gary7 said:

I am talking about The 64 Bit Browser, any 64 Bit Browser. Not just Cyberfox as I already posted they do have a 32 Bit browser as well. Firefox will no longer be using extensions, read through the thread.

I'm already well aware of Mozilla's push for WebExtension-only extensions by the end of 2017, targeting Firefox 57. This will have an effect on Waterfox and Cyberfox too - Pale Moon likely not due to it being a full fork of Firefox with all kinds of legacy stuff (which doesn't make sense - I don't believe they're even willing to support EME!).

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

1 minute ago, Boo Berry said:

Well, this might be true with Pale Moon somewhat, as long as Cyberfox/Waterfox is built against the newest stable releases, it should inherit all security-related changes from upstream.

Waterfox is strictly a clone, Cyberfox has used the Firefox platform but coded it differently.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Just now, Boo Berry said:

I'm already well aware of Mozilla's push for WebExtension-only extensions by the end of 2017, targeting Firefox 57.

If so then you have no problems. It is not known if Cyberfox will permit extensions past release 56 or not? They may have to come up with their own Extension source which has been discussed.

[Boo Berry]

1 minute ago, Gary7 said:

Cyberfox has used the Firefox platform but coded it differently.

Uhh, how? From what I'm seeing from the Cyberfox website and using the portable version is that it's still re-branded Firefox compiled in a different compiler and a different skin. Even if it has some cosmetic and feature changes, it's still largely still based on upstream code.

[Boo Berry]

Just now, Gary7 said:

If so then you have no problems. It is not known if Cyberfox will permit extensions past release 56 or not? They may have to come up with their own Extension source which has been discussed.

I have no problems right now in Firefox, I only use one extension (Download Cleaner Lite) and it's already been ported as a WebExtension. But yeah, they might have to go the Pale Moon route and fully fork off. Waterfox will likely still be a straight re-brand.