4 ms·

Putting aside how this may not be all that bad for most SSD's, does anyone know when this behavior started? Firefox really started to annoy me with its constan

Putting aside how this may not be all that bad for most SSD's, does anyone know when this behavior started? Firefox really started to annoy me with its constant and needless updates a few months back; the tipping point being breaking almost all legacy extensions (in 46, I believe). This totally broke the Zend Debugger extension, the only way forward would be to totally change my development environment. I'm 38 and now, and apparently well beyond the days when the "new and shiny" hold value. These days I just want stability and reliability. Firefox keeps charging forward and, as far as I can tell, has brought nothing to the table except new security issues and breaking that which once worked. I haven't updated since 41 and you know what, it's nearly perfect. It's fast, does what I need it to do, and just plain old works. Firefox appears to have become a perfect example of developing for the sake of.

Freestyler_3 10y ago
This has been the case for a long time, I just googled and first hit was an article from 2008. source: http://www.ghacks.net/2008/07/09/change-the-session-store-interval-in-firefox/ http://www.ghacks.net/2008/07/09/change-the-session-store-in...
- ashark 10y ago
  Wikipedia claims the session restore features was added with 2006's 2.0 release. That's what I would have guessed, since that release was (famously) a giant step backwards in performance, which was never really addressed except by waiting for hardware to improve. I'm holding out hope that whoever's responsible for Firefox abandoning "good, light, cross-platform web browser" as its differentiator stays away from Servo, at least for a while. That's a niche that's unserved currently, AFAIK.
gcp 10y ago
Much of the recent breakage was to introduce essential features that users have been loudly asking for for years, such as multi-process support and content processes in a security sandbox. If you're intentionally running very old versions which by now have published exploits, then I can see that these are not things you would consider important.
- rackforms 10y ago
  Progress at what cost? Does maintaining security have to also mean breaking the systems that pay my bills?
  - gcp 10y ago
    I do not think you want to be paying your bills on a browser that's been compromised, no.
    - rackforms 10y ago
      It's a dev box that only touches local resources.
  - Manishearth 10y ago
    This is what Firefox ESR is for IIRC.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- rackforms 10y ago
  In the end: Thank you for your comment : ) My annoyance with the plugin situation, and at first, no resolution for it, was fixed in 45: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox?as=u&utm_source=inproduct https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firef... I'm now running the latest version of FF, but still able to use my plugin.
mmastrac 10y ago
> developing for the sake of It's exactly the opposite of this. Have you read through the FF update notes? The web standards are a moving goalpost - constantly evolving. On top of that they've been slowly landing incremental improvements to Electrolysis that have allowed them to turn it on for more and more users without big risks to stability. You can't do that for a browser with "big bang" releases every year. In the last years I think it's been shown that the only model that works for browsers is "evergreen".

Freestyler_3 10y ago

This has been the case for a long time, I just googled and first hit was an article from 2008. source: http://www.ghacks.net/2008/07/09/change-the-session-store-interval-in-firefox/ http://www.ghacks.net/2008/07/09/change-the-session-store-in...

ashark 10y ago
Wikipedia claims the session restore features was added with 2006's 2.0 release. That's what I would have guessed, since that release was (famously) a giant step backwards in performance, which was never really addressed except by waiting for hardware to improve. I'm holding out hope that whoever's responsible for Firefox abandoning "good, light, cross-platform web browser" as its differentiator stays away from Servo, at least for a while. That's a niche that's unserved currently, AFAIK.

gcp 10y ago

Much of the recent breakage was to introduce essential features that users have been loudly asking for for years, such as multi-process support and content processes in a security sandbox. If you're intentionally running very old versions which by now have published exploits, then I can see that these are not things you would consider important.

rackforms 10y ago
Progress at what cost? Does maintaining security have to also mean breaking the systems that pay my bills?
- gcp 10y ago
  I do not think you want to be paying your bills on a browser that's been compromised, no.
  - rackforms 10y ago
    It's a dev box that only touches local resources.
- Manishearth 10y ago
  This is what Firefox ESR is for IIRC.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
rackforms 10y ago
In the end: Thank you for your comment : ) My annoyance with the plugin situation, and at first, no resolution for it, was fixed in 45: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox?as=u&utm_source=inproduct https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firef... I'm now running the latest version of FF, but still able to use my plugin.

mmastrac 10y ago

> developing for the sake of It's exactly the opposite of this. Have you read through the FF update notes? The web standards are a moving goalpost - constantly evolving. On top of that they've been slowly landing incremental improvements to Electrolysis that have allowed them to turn it on for more and more users without big risks to stability. You can't do that for a browser with "big bang" releases every year. In the last years I think it's been shown that the only model that works for browsers is "evergreen".