If that one stat is actually significant, I'd understand it, but strace'ing Firefox during startup on my machine gives ~2500 stat calls, split between ~1400 stat(), and the rest roughly evenly spread between lstat and fstat.
Obviously that will vary between platforms and depending on what you have installed, but the one stat() needed to determine whether or not user.js is present would not seem to be the right thing to focus on.
If that is indeed the case, the 3% is the only reason Firefox has the remaining 97%. If it wasn’t for the “freedom” types everyone would be recommending everyone to simply use Chrome and save themselves the support hassles when a Chrome optimized site doesn’t load on their parents’ laptop.
Which is a great reason for Firefox to not do it. Firefox sets itself apart by being different from the other major browsers, with a focus on user control and privacy by default.
I can understand removing features by default, but they should not be removed entirely. If user.js is causing startup to take longer and nobody uses it, then come up with a different way to check for it (e.g. about:config setting). If it's causing runtime or maintenance issues, then it might be worth asking the community if it's worth keeping.
Yes, I thought, instead the browser should be made, increase the functionality/control availability to the user, make less things available to the document author.
The biggest problem with user.js is the documentation, or rather lack thereof. Instead, mozilla should provide full documentation on how this file works and mainly which fuctions are available (FULL LIST) and what they do. In general, the config in firefox is a hot mess and user.js is not the problem.
I think it’s just pref/user_pref and such. Despite the name it is not a js file and is not parsed like one. I think the file extension is entirely vestigial.
But still, there's no complete list of these and only some of them are properly documented. I've tried to look up some prefs about half a year ago and couldn't find it anywhere. There's just a wiki that mentions some of them and on various blogs you can find a mention of what something does here and there, but that's about it.
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
I worry that this is yet another reduction in degrees of user's freedom to tweak, tune and adjust FF. Back when FF killed all XUL extensions, it lost one of its most uniquely valuable propositions. Yes, the change was required to make the browser more secure but at the time we were assured that new APIs supporting the lost functionality would come. It's been nearly three years since the change was announced and the functionality of several of the most popular extensions (like Tab Mix Plus) are still impossible to implement in Firefox.
I strongly support the mission of the open web but as a heavy FF user I'm not happy with the prevailing attitude at Mozilla that seems either against user customization.
Mozilla is desperately trying to keep up with Google Chrome, plus also adding privacy controls, but simply can't. One of the first victims that Chrome (and all mass market apps) sacrificed in the service of rapid development is user control over their experience.
This is the cost of converting from a pragmatic power user tool to a slick Eternal September consumer product.
There are already third party utilities that inject dlls or monitor the mozilla windows to allow features lost when legacy extension support was removed.
I saw on ghacks the other day about ThunderBirdTray which is a 3rd party executable that watches Thunderbird to restore the functionality lost when MinimizeToTray stopped working.
Improved privacy, better download managment(DownloadThemAll what it used to be able to do), OS integration, ect have for the most part been eroded away.
Eventually things seem like they will escalate to the point you'll have to use CheatEngine, a suite of 3rd party programs running in the background, or special compiles of the browser made by 3rd parties like WaterFox or yourself to get chrome or firefox to do anything in addition to loading a webpage, and to stop it from doing a lot of unwanted things.
I'm quite happy since the day I left official Firefox. First I disabled auto-updates at v55.0 for some long time and then switched to Waterfox. So far the switch is a peace of mind and I don't feel disrespected when I see news like this any more.
Mozilla is unfortunately losing its meaning since they decided to follow Google closely. Firefox one day will be a marginal browser. Or maybe it already is?
I have been very happy with firefox recently. All of my extensions like script blockers and tree tabs have been ported to the new system and the browser has been super fast and full of great new features/privacy improvements.
I understand the point of having the file every time I switch the FF version or the machine I'm running it in. It's portable and keeps me away from having to get near the teeth-grindingly awkward 'about:config' interface.
"checking for this file needlessly causes additional IO early on startup" is probably the lamest reason to get rid of it.
This is how user-control enabling features get removed, with barely a whimper. And it appears to be done by people that are looking for easy-hanging fruit to promote their brand from the look of it.
I doubt that it's 3% of users, I have user.js and also disabled telemetry. I would suspect there is not small amount of people who have both user.js and telemetry disabled same as me...
Yes, it's disturbing how the submitter entirely ignores the possibility of users who have telemetry disabled, as if it is not even a possibility. Since 3% is still too high for his agenda, he then begins throwing unwarranted conjectures that most of those 3% use a `user.js` against their own volition.
In fact, it seems obvious that this is a highly biased sample and probably in the other direction, at that. It seems a reasonable assumption that people who have turned off telemetry are those that would be more likely to use a `user.js` file.
Tbh if you disable telemetry you don't really get to complain that your usage didn't get considered when you explicitly refused to tell Mozilla which features you use.
I'm never sure what base Firefox is targeting. Sometimes with changes like these it seems like the casual user base but then you look at the changes they advertise (e.g. built in privacy) it's not stuff casual users care about. In the end the statistics show it's not attracting either side.
It's gotten to the point non-Google Chromium based browsers have higher usage share than Firefox. It makes me wonder how much longer Google will keep shoveling cash over to Mozilla as the numbers drop.
The way I configure Firefox is, I have two files in Firefox's installation directory: (1) /pref/local-settings.js, which tells Firefox to load (2) /firefox.cfg, where all my actual settings are.
Is this what they're thinking of removing, or something else? I'll be pretty pissed off if they remove that. It's the only way I was able to switch the Firefox—the browser has far too much cruft by default, I need a very easy way to take it all out on any new machine.
Only someone who is either in support for Mozilla's constant moves AGAINST power-users and in benefit ONLY for Chrome/simple-users and diversity/intelligent-features-hating-leftists - or falling for Mozilla using their usual trendy buzz-words like speed... or security... can still put a bit value into that team of losers over there at Moz-HQ!
Mozilla... fully living anti-feature fascism since 2013!
-----------------------------
Why has Mozilla-new and their new user group of “progressive/leftists” a general problem with browsers like Vivaldi/Brave/Waterfox/Seamonkey or Pale Moon and customization and choice in general? No matter how hard people try to ignore that very simple issue and constantly are in denial it has anything to do with politics… it is in direct correlation towards the change of the mentality of what is considered “politically correct” today! First the public shared oversimplfied reasoning… Mozilla-new removed most power user features (and they will also remove userchrome.css in the future) to be attractive to Chrome users, to make Chrome users switch away from Googles product. The point is that Chrome users or general simple users do not accept and like “bloat” – so it was decided that all the “conservative features” had to go to enable Firefox more compatible with their needs.
-----------------------------
Now here is where politics are kicking in, and things get a LOT MORE messier… Mozilla-new has turned into a fully customization/choice and politically-moderates and conservatives hating “heavily left leaning developer” – as that would (at least also theoretically) appeal to the majority of Google Chrome users or general people with the same opinion – which have because of their ideology and believe much less tolerance and understanding for everything which provides choice/which is more conservative aligned. Mozilla-new has fully turned into a company which just betrayed their own creation and origin user-base as it was not compatible with “leftist/progressive visions/ideas” and their world-view! But there is a major problem with Mozillas way of thinking… No matter how much they try to appeal to “leftist/progressive” simple/Chrome users with ongoing feature removals and morality adjustments – The majority of this user base will stay loyal to Google and Chrome – no matter how much Mozilla tries to persuade that kind of users to use Firefox instead. Mozilla-new will only be seen as an imitation facility who additionally got greedy and jealous – who tried to adopt Chromes simple add-on system, it’s development mentality and political mentality for the sake of broadening Mozillas shrinking user-base!
-----------------------------
Mozilla-new is humiliating everything which is true and honest FOSS with their actions. Real Open-Source developers have standards, morals, loyalty… all that what Mozilla-new is missing. They abuse the legacy of a real unique and once amazing past – which just was discarded for being “non-inclusive and non-liberal”
-----------------------------
What they forget is that a honest and real liberal and inclusive concept would mean also to keep features of users who have a different opinion, mentality and especially skill level! As i see it this is a common problem with this new kind of “leftist/progressive” opinion of so many developers and it’s management today – which also affects the users they gain – they make use of concepts they do not at all understand and honor. While the users of such groups are wildly attacking people and organizations who go a different way – and not wanting to become simple and minimalist just for the majorities sake. If something is swimming into another direction it is seen as threat and danger seen as mortal enemy to the today established system what is seen as “the only correct and acceptable one” – this has direct influence on the vision how a product is de...
Fully agreeing. Mozilla are just dumb-down focused SJW browser Nazis who remove features to make all the screaming and bitching snowflakes and Millenial-leftists happy, which actually TRULY believe that having customization and choice in general is excluding and infuriating simple minded users.
On the other hand.... After Microsoft and that Santa-Hat issue at the end of 2019 - where a guy complained that it "pushed religion" - what else to expect from leftists and leftist-addicted developers than THAT?
Also... Nazis and fascists will always be and always stay Nazis and fascists - and just it is delivered by the left, it is not making it equally correct and socially acceptable.
49 comments
[ 1558 ms ] story [ 2500 ms ] threadRemoving user freedom because "users shouldn't want/need this thing" seems like a Google move.
Obviously that will vary between platforms and depending on what you have installed, but the one stat() needed to determine whether or not user.js is present would not seem to be the right thing to focus on.
I can understand removing features by default, but they should not be removed entirely. If user.js is causing startup to take longer and nobody uses it, then come up with a different way to check for it (e.g. about:config setting). If it's causing runtime or maintenance issues, then it might be worth asking the community if it's worth keeping.
[1]: https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I strongly support the mission of the open web but as a heavy FF user I'm not happy with the prevailing attitude at Mozilla that seems either against user customization.
This is the cost of converting from a pragmatic power user tool to a slick Eternal September consumer product.
I saw on ghacks the other day about ThunderBirdTray which is a 3rd party executable that watches Thunderbird to restore the functionality lost when MinimizeToTray stopped working.
Improved privacy, better download managment(DownloadThemAll what it used to be able to do), OS integration, ect have for the most part been eroded away.
Eventually things seem like they will escalate to the point you'll have to use CheatEngine, a suite of 3rd party programs running in the background, or special compiles of the browser made by 3rd parties like WaterFox or yourself to get chrome or firefox to do anything in addition to loading a webpage, and to stop it from doing a lot of unwanted things.
Mozilla is unfortunately losing its meaning since they decided to follow Google closely. Firefox one day will be a marginal browser. Or maybe it already is?
"checking for this file needlessly causes additional IO early on startup" is probably the lamest reason to get rid of it.
They don't care about Firefox users, because they're not Chrome users.
In fact, it seems obvious that this is a highly biased sample and probably in the other direction, at that. It seems a reasonable assumption that people who have turned off telemetry are those that would be more likely to use a `user.js` file.
It's gotten to the point non-Google Chromium based browsers have higher usage share than Firefox. It makes me wonder how much longer Google will keep shoveling cash over to Mozilla as the numbers drop.
Is this what they're thinking of removing, or something else? I'll be pretty pissed off if they remove that. It's the only way I was able to switch the Firefox—the browser has far too much cruft by default, I need a very easy way to take it all out on any new machine.
Only someone who is either in support for Mozilla's constant moves AGAINST power-users and in benefit ONLY for Chrome/simple-users and diversity/intelligent-features-hating-leftists - or falling for Mozilla using their usual trendy buzz-words like speed... or security... can still put a bit value into that team of losers over there at Moz-HQ!
Mozilla... fully living anti-feature fascism since 2013!
-----------------------------
Why has Mozilla-new and their new user group of “progressive/leftists” a general problem with browsers like Vivaldi/Brave/Waterfox/Seamonkey or Pale Moon and customization and choice in general? No matter how hard people try to ignore that very simple issue and constantly are in denial it has anything to do with politics… it is in direct correlation towards the change of the mentality of what is considered “politically correct” today! First the public shared oversimplfied reasoning… Mozilla-new removed most power user features (and they will also remove userchrome.css in the future) to be attractive to Chrome users, to make Chrome users switch away from Googles product. The point is that Chrome users or general simple users do not accept and like “bloat” – so it was decided that all the “conservative features” had to go to enable Firefox more compatible with their needs.
-----------------------------
Now here is where politics are kicking in, and things get a LOT MORE messier… Mozilla-new has turned into a fully customization/choice and politically-moderates and conservatives hating “heavily left leaning developer” – as that would (at least also theoretically) appeal to the majority of Google Chrome users or general people with the same opinion – which have because of their ideology and believe much less tolerance and understanding for everything which provides choice/which is more conservative aligned. Mozilla-new has fully turned into a company which just betrayed their own creation and origin user-base as it was not compatible with “leftist/progressive visions/ideas” and their world-view! But there is a major problem with Mozillas way of thinking… No matter how much they try to appeal to “leftist/progressive” simple/Chrome users with ongoing feature removals and morality adjustments – The majority of this user base will stay loyal to Google and Chrome – no matter how much Mozilla tries to persuade that kind of users to use Firefox instead. Mozilla-new will only be seen as an imitation facility who additionally got greedy and jealous – who tried to adopt Chromes simple add-on system, it’s development mentality and political mentality for the sake of broadening Mozillas shrinking user-base!
-----------------------------
Mozilla-new is humiliating everything which is true and honest FOSS with their actions. Real Open-Source developers have standards, morals, loyalty… all that what Mozilla-new is missing. They abuse the legacy of a real unique and once amazing past – which just was discarded for being “non-inclusive and non-liberal”
-----------------------------
What they forget is that a honest and real liberal and inclusive concept would mean also to keep features of users who have a different opinion, mentality and especially skill level! As i see it this is a common problem with this new kind of “leftist/progressive” opinion of so many developers and it’s management today – which also affects the users they gain – they make use of concepts they do not at all understand and honor. While the users of such groups are wildly attacking people and organizations who go a different way – and not wanting to become simple and minimalist just for the majorities sake. If something is swimming into another direction it is seen as threat and danger seen as mortal enemy to the today established system what is seen as “the only correct and acceptable one” – this has direct influence on the vision how a product is de...
On the other hand.... After Microsoft and that Santa-Hat issue at the end of 2019 - where a guy complained that it "pushed religion" - what else to expect from leftists and leftist-addicted developers than THAT?
Also... Nazis and fascists will always be and always stay Nazis and fascists - and just it is delivered by the left, it is not making it equally correct and socially acceptable.