updates Meet the browser: Firefox Next

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

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.

It is based on Firefox but the coding is different. It is not a clone.

[Boo Berry]

Just now, Gary7 said:

It is based on Firefox but the coding is different. It is not a clone.

How is the coding different? Where's the source code?

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Just now, Boo Berry said:

How is the coding different? Where's the source code?

I am done arguing with you/ I used Cyberfox and was a member of the forum. Palemoon is not a clone either but waterfox is. C-Ya

[Boo Berry]

I didn't say Pale Moon was a clone, it's a fork. Nonetheless, I found the Cyberfox GitHiub page and will take a look at the changes they make but so far from the commits it looks like mostly upstream changes, with a few changes here and there. If anything, it's a fork too.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

http://www.ghacks.net/2016/11/26/classic-theme-restorer-may-be-dead-by-the-end-of-2017/

 

Some info

[Boo Berry]

I'm aware of that too. Looks like Classic Theme Restorer was integrated into Cyberfox so yeah, that'll definitely give them issues by the end of 2017 unless they fully fork off like Pale Moon... or just go with the changes.

 

But there's still ample time for developers to port their extensions, if possible (which depends on the APIs), to WebExtensions... that said, XUL-based extensions like Classic Theme Restorer likely won't be coming back. Honestly, there's a chance Firefox's userbase will greatly plunge due to these changes...

 

It's not looking like a good future for Firefox users, that's for sure.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

Cyberfox Web Browser is a web browser based on Mozilla Firefox with the intent of being fast, stable & reliable. It ships with many customizable options allowing you to personalize your web browsing experience. Cyberfox Features: Uses own profile system Compatible with Mozilla Firefox extensions Removed features (Telemetry, Health-report, Sponsored tiles & other components that collected information) Many new features built in. Choice between Australia or classic style. Powered by Mozilla

 

http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/cyberfox_64_bit_web_browser.html

[oldtimefighter]

2 hours ago, Boo Berry said:

I'm aware of that too. Looks like Classic Theme Restorer was integrated into Cyberfox so yeah, that'll definitely give them issues by the end of 2017 unless they fully fork off like Pale Moon... or just go with the changes.

 

But there's still ample time for developers to port their extensions, if possible (which depends on the APIs), to WebExtensions... that said, XUL-based extensions like Classic Theme Restorer likely won't be coming back. Honestly, there's a chance Firefox's userbase will greatly plunge due to these changes...

 

It's not looking like a good future for Firefox users, that's for sure.

I really don't understand comments like this... Firefox's user base already purged a while ago and mostly went to Chrome which already uses WebExtensions. LOL Relatively few people actually care about XUL-based extensions or the classic UX (or the forcing out of Brendan Eich). They are just a loud but small minority. Chrome won (is winning now) because of better performance and stability as they were able to implement multi-process first. Marketing is a factor also of course for Chrome. The other thing users care about? A more secure browser (perceived) which Chrome brings (in part) with signed WebExtensions which Firefox is now trying to do.

 

Personally, I will stick with Firefox because it is open source and supports an open and free Internet better than any other browser (and add-on support on mobile). The fact I am already using to many products and services from Google also favors Firefox. Firefox will also be a niche browser... They had a big start but that was only because MS dropped the ball with IE and Firefox was there to fill the vacuum.

Edited January 31, 2017 by oldtimefighter

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

I will stick with Firefox as well as it seems that Cyberfox will be affected, just will have to wait and see. Chrome is also winning or won as Google has tons of Money whereas Mozilla does not.

[Steven P. Administrators]

4 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

I will stick with Firefox as well as it seems that Cyberfox will be affected, just will have to wait and see. Chrome is also winning or won as Google has tons of Money whereas Mozilla does not.

1 billion dollars in 100 dollar bills weighs 20,000 pounds, and that equals 10 (American) tons, so your comment is correct, they do have tons of money.

[Boo Berry]

Sadly, there's a lot of oblivious people out there without any idea what WebExtensions are, what XUL extensions are or what any of this stuff will mean once it lands. They're the type that installs extensions they heard about, and just leave it as-is (the set it and forget it mentality). Those are the people that when Firefox 57 (or whenever the change is pushed) will get the rude awakening of their extensions getting disabled/removed and that they can no longer customize the UI like they could during the XUL/XPCOM-era of extensions.

 

A lot of the people I know that use Firefox over Chrome only for it's UI customization capabilities. Without that, what other real reason would the average user have to keep using Firefox over Chrome? That's what I meant about the userbase likely going to drop more. There's a lot of people that have stuck with Firefox for that one reason alone (as long as there is/was a workaround for Australis, e.g. Classic Theme Restorer).

 

Funny thing is, I seem to remember that the majority of revenue a few years back for the Mozilla Foundation came from Google due to the search agreement they had. When that deal expired, Mozilla went with Yahoo. I wonder if they regret that one?

 

Personally, this change won't have any effect on me. I only use one extension which is already available as a WebExtension - I look forward to Firefox 57 (or whenever it happens)!

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

23 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

Funny thing is, I seem to remember that the majority of revenue a few years back for the Mozilla Foundation came from Google due to the search agreement they had. When that deal expired, Mozilla went with Yahoo. I wonder if they regret that one?

It did but then Google came up with Chrome and that is when Firefox started to copy everything Chrome was about and now they are taking it further. On a side note The Developer of Tab Mix Plus has released the source code for his extension. The customization of Firefox will end with this. I used Slimjet for awhile, it is Chromium Based and is somewhat customization and has extensions.

[Boo Berry]

2 minutes ago, Gary7 said:

It did but then Google came up with Chrome

The Google agreement was some years past Chrome's first release, but before Australis landed, as I recall. I'll look up the exact date.

 

EDIT: 2014, sounds about right, yeah.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

Australis

That was the ruination of Firefox.

 

Mozilla and Google Sign New Agreement for Default Search in Firefox ...

 

 

[Boo Berry]

1 minute ago, Gary7 said:

That was the ruination of Firefox.

It was the beginning (well, the Brendan Eich thing too, but I didn't really care about that). I've actually grown to like Australis.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

3 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

The Google agreement was some years past Chrome's first release, but before Australis landed, as I recall. I'll look up the exact date.

It was extended until Yahoo came around.

1 minute ago, Boo Berry said:

It was the beginning (well, the Brendan Eich thing too, but I didn't really care about that). I've actually grown to like Australis.

I hate it. maybe I will try Edge...

[Boo Berry]

Just now, Gary7 said:

It was extended until Yahoo came around.

Then Mozilla ended the agreement to go into the agreement with Yahoo. Which was rather dumb, IMO.

[oldtimefighter]

44 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

Sadly, there's a lot of oblivious people out there without any idea what WebExtensions are, what XUL extensions are or what any of this stuff will mean once it lands. They're the type that installs extensions they heard about, and just leave it as-is (the set it and forget it mentality). Those are the people that when Firefox 57 (or whenever the change is pushed) will get the rude awakening of their extensions getting disabled/removed and that they can no longer customize the UI like they could during the XUL/XPCOM-era of extensions.

 

A lot of the people I know that use Firefox over Chrome only for it's UI customization capabilities. Without that, what other real reason would the average user have to keep using Firefox over Chrome? That's what I meant about the userbase likely going to drop more. There's a lot of people that have stuck with Firefox for that one reason alone (as long as there is/was a workaround for Australis, e.g. Classic Theme Restorer).

 

Funny thing is, I seem to remember that the majority of revenue a few years back for the Mozilla Foundation came from Google due to the search agreement they had. When that deal expired, Mozilla went with Yahoo. I wonder if they regret that one?

 

Personally, this change won't have any effect on me. I only use one extension which is already available as a WebExtension - I look forward to Firefox 57 (or whenever it happens)!

The move from XUL based extensions to Webextensions will have no effect on like 99% of users. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. LOL No matter what Firefox does they will never overcome Chrome just because of Google's superior marketing position.

 

Why would Mozilla regret the decision to take Yahoo's money? I am assuming the amount was more. LOL Did you mean Yahoo? Yes, they regret the deal.

[oldtimefighter]

55 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

It was the beginning (well, the Brendan Eich thing too, but I didn't really care about that). I've actually grown to like Australis.

Dude, no one cares about Brendan Eich being forced out (he should have been).

 

52 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

Then Mozilla ended the agreement to go into the agreement with Yahoo. Which was rather dumb, IMO.

Wait... Why was that dumb?

[Boo Berry]

19 minutes ago, oldtimefighter said:

Wait... Why was that dumb?

Because it's Yahoo. Does that not seem like a major downgrade from Google?

[Boo Berry]

21 minutes ago, oldtimefighter said:

Dude, no one cares about Brendan Eich being forced out (he should have been).

Indeed, I didn't care then or now but some people made a big deal about it.

[bawz]

PaleMon is no longer a FORK, its been using " Goanna " for sometime now. Goanna took over from Gecko etc 

[Boo Berry]

Goanna is a fork of Gecko, and Pale Moon would still be considered a fork of Firefox. AFAIK, it backports upstream security patches.

[oldtimefighter]

35 minutes ago, Boo Berry said:

Because it's Yahoo. Does that not seem like a major downgrade from Google?

All that matters is the deal was more money. Downgrade? Irrelevant... Anyone just like me who still wants to use Google for search in Firefox can with two "clicks".

[Circaflex]

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

At this point, no it offers nothing over the 64-bit FireFox from Mozilla. IMO it is snake oil now. The only benefit it had IMO was when FF did not have a 64-bit release, these guys were doing them. However, they are generally behind in security patches and bug fixes because they wait for Mozilla to push the fixes, then they will "optimize" the builds. Sticking with the official 64-bit from Mozilla is your best bet.

 

6 hours ago, Boo Berry said:

How is the coding different? Where's the source code?

You're right. It isn't coded differently and they rely on Mozilla for changes and fixes. At this point, it is just run through a compiler to "enhance" speed on Intel chips, but really it does not do much these days. See my comment to Steven, but at this point it is no faster than Mozilla official 64-bit builds.