4 ms·

Mozilla just doesn't get the message.... We don't want your features, fixes, refreshes, rebranding, or re-imagining. We want a browser that is fast, stable, sec

by 5ilv3r 10y ago

Mozilla just doesn't get the message.... We don't want your features, fixes, refreshes, rebranding, or re-imagining. We want a browser that is fast, stable, secure, minimal, and that DOES NOT FIGHT US. Let me load my old SSL certs (a warning is fine). Let me keep my preferences (why does https:// https:// disappear from my address bar every update, and my search bar keep switching back to case sensitive). Stop making your problems worse and get your $#!% together! I'm a sysadmin, dangit, I need this tool to work!

bengotow 10y ago
Well, the web is evolving. If you're a sysadmin and you test everything in an ancient version of Firefox that doesn't display SSL errors, you're not getting an accurate picture of what the product's users will see. The latest browsers might entirely block people from visiting your site, display a huge warning, etc. and you wouldn't know. Maybe being a sysadmin requires getting the fixes, refreshes, rebranding as they come down the pipe? I'm also not a fan of the recent changes, just take a more defeatist attitude I guess!
- 5ilv3r 10y ago
  No no no you missed what I am saying. I use horrible hardware appliances with built in md5 ssl certs for remote administration. I am not a web developer. I need to be able to access them to secure them and to work on hardware problems. This isn't even on the internet, this is on a local lan serving a small business. We're not going to buy new hardware because my browser updated, so I'm stuck having to boot up a mint 7 livecd vm to run firefox 4 every now and then. It's horrible.
  - bengotow 10y ago
    Ahh I see! Sorry, I totally misread your message. Wow, that's a rough situation... If things get really bad, I think you could use a HTTPS proxy like Charles (https://www.charlesproxy.com/ https://www.charlesproxy.com/) to decrypt the traffic and re-encrypt it with a newer SSL cert before viewing it in Firefox. I'm not sure about Firefox, but you can run Chrome from the command line with `--allow-running-insecure-content --ignore-certificate-errors` and it'll load anything and everything. Maybe there's a similar mode for Firefox that will disable everything.
    - 5ilv3r 10y ago
      I've been working on a proxy for my retrocomputers, using it at work would be a pretty sad solutions. :( No one builds things to last more than 2 years anymore...
  - mbell 10y ago
    > I need to be able to access them to secure them If they are using md5 ssl certs, it's unlikely securing them is possible. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a dozen or more security vulns in such outdated devices.
    - 5ilv3r 10y ago
      You secure them by firewalling them off after you change the default passwords. Old school but solid.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    That's the problem of the hardware appliance, and the company who makes it has basically abandoned their customer if they have no updates that let you manage it with a modern browser. Who makes this product? They shouldn't be supported.
    - 5ilv3r 10y ago
      supermicro, F5, lantronix, cisco, netgear (in cisco pants), APC, and dell.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      The trouble is, from the point of view of basically everyone producing those devices, the current "what will every browser do this week" situation is not a viable platform to support in the traditional way. They can tell you their box works with certain browsers that are available at the time you buy it, but why is -- or should -- it be their problem if they supply a working product and then someone they have no control over updates a browser they didn't know you were using and something breaks? If admins don't like this, they need to expect to pay a huge amount of money for ongoing support contracts that actively update to support new versions of browsers, or they need to stop demanding web-based config interfaces and get used to installing native software that uses proprietary protocols that will reliably still work next week as well. The idea that vendors of devices that often have working lifetimes of 5-10 years or more should be responsible for keeping up with every little browser update for every "evergreen" browser throughout that lifetime as part of routine support is just not commercially viable, and that's why approximately no-one offers it.
Certhas 10y ago
So Thunderbird is moving away from legacy technology that was built to make Mozilla/Firefox more than just a browser. They are doing this to be free to improve Firefox to make it more stable, fast, secure and minimal. This leads to a completely independent Mozilla project, Thunderbird, that relied on this technology to get the axe. That project thus is discussing taking the difficult technical step to start from scratch while keeping the user experience the same its been for 10 years. This, in turn, leads to you criticising Mozilla for not focusing on making their browser fast, stable and secure. Because you are hitting some configuration/update/UI bugs that seem entirely unrelated to the core browsing experience. Thunderbird, BTW, has 25 million users. So even if you don't need it, some people do.
- 5ilv3r 10y ago
  The resource allocation decisions mozilla has been making is driving me away from their products. Throwing resources at recreating thunderbird with a new framework is a poor use of their time.
  - Certhas 10y ago
    You are still not paying attention. Mozilla has decided to _not_ throw resources at Thunderbird anymore. The outcome of that is that the _community_ is debating to move away from the to be deprecated XUL platform.
- petre 10y ago
  They allegedly made the browser fast when they split the Mozilla suite into Firefox and Thunderbird. I am using both of them as my main browser, mail client and web dev platform, they both work fine although a bit sluggish. Opera feels a lot faster for instance and the debugger is pretty clean and usable, in fact is the cleanest of the whole bunch with Chrome dev tools being the most clutteted.
jodrellblank 10y ago
Completely agree. "You don't need to see any of this, you can't go there for your own good" is frustrating and unhelpful. I keep FireFox portable 3.x around for sites (intranet devices) like that.

by 5ilv3r 10y ago

bengotow 10y ago

Well, the web is evolving. If you're a sysadmin and you test everything in an ancient version of Firefox that doesn't display SSL errors, you're not getting an accurate picture of what the product's users will see. The latest browsers might entirely block people from visiting your site, display a huge warning, etc. and you wouldn't know. Maybe being a sysadmin requires getting the fixes, refreshes, rebranding as they come down the pipe? I'm also not a fan of the recent changes, just take a more defeatist attitude I guess!

5ilv3r 10y ago
No no no you missed what I am saying. I use horrible hardware appliances with built in md5 ssl certs for remote administration. I am not a web developer. I need to be able to access them to secure them and to work on hardware problems. This isn't even on the internet, this is on a local lan serving a small business. We're not going to buy new hardware because my browser updated, so I'm stuck having to boot up a mint 7 livecd vm to run firefox 4 every now and then. It's horrible.
- bengotow 10y ago
  Ahh I see! Sorry, I totally misread your message. Wow, that's a rough situation... If things get really bad, I think you could use a HTTPS proxy like Charles (https://www.charlesproxy.com/ https://www.charlesproxy.com/) to decrypt the traffic and re-encrypt it with a newer SSL cert before viewing it in Firefox. I'm not sure about Firefox, but you can run Chrome from the command line with `--allow-running-insecure-content --ignore-certificate-errors` and it'll load anything and everything. Maybe there's a similar mode for Firefox that will disable everything.
  - 5ilv3r 10y ago
    I've been working on a proxy for my retrocomputers, using it at work would be a pretty sad solutions. :( No one builds things to last more than 2 years anymore...
- mbell 10y ago
  > I need to be able to access them to secure them If they are using md5 ssl certs, it's unlikely securing them is possible. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a dozen or more security vulns in such outdated devices.
  - 5ilv3r 10y ago
    You secure them by firewalling them off after you change the default passwords. Old school but solid.
- cmurf 10y ago
  That's the problem of the hardware appliance, and the company who makes it has basically abandoned their customer if they have no updates that let you manage it with a modern browser. Who makes this product? They shouldn't be supported.
  - 5ilv3r 10y ago
    supermicro, F5, lantronix, cisco, netgear (in cisco pants), APC, and dell.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    The trouble is, from the point of view of basically everyone producing those devices, the current "what will every browser do this week" situation is not a viable platform to support in the traditional way. They can tell you their box works with certain browsers that are available at the time you buy it, but why is -- or should -- it be their problem if they supply a working product and then someone they have no control over updates a browser they didn't know you were using and something breaks? If admins don't like this, they need to expect to pay a huge amount of money for ongoing support contracts that actively update to support new versions of browsers, or they need to stop demanding web-based config interfaces and get used to installing native software that uses proprietary protocols that will reliably still work next week as well. The idea that vendors of devices that often have working lifetimes of 5-10 years or more should be responsible for keeping up with every little browser update for every "evergreen" browser throughout that lifetime as part of routine support is just not commercially viable, and that's why approximately no-one offers it.

Certhas 10y ago

So Thunderbird is moving away from legacy technology that was built to make Mozilla/Firefox more than just a browser. They are doing this to be free to improve Firefox to make it more stable, fast, secure and minimal. This leads to a completely independent Mozilla project, Thunderbird, that relied on this technology to get the axe. That project thus is discussing taking the difficult technical step to start from scratch while keeping the user experience the same its been for 10 years. This, in turn, leads to you criticising Mozilla for not focusing on making their browser fast, stable and secure. Because you are hitting some configuration/update/UI bugs that seem entirely unrelated to the core browsing experience. Thunderbird, BTW, has 25 million users. So even if you don't need it, some people do.

5ilv3r 10y ago
The resource allocation decisions mozilla has been making is driving me away from their products. Throwing resources at recreating thunderbird with a new framework is a poor use of their time.
- Certhas 10y ago
  You are still not paying attention. Mozilla has decided to _not_ throw resources at Thunderbird anymore. The outcome of that is that the _community_ is debating to move away from the to be deprecated XUL platform.
petre 10y ago
They allegedly made the browser fast when they split the Mozilla suite into Firefox and Thunderbird. I am using both of them as my main browser, mail client and web dev platform, they both work fine although a bit sluggish. Opera feels a lot faster for instance and the debugger is pretty clean and usable, in fact is the cleanest of the whole bunch with Chrome dev tools being the most clutteted.

jodrellblank 10y ago

Completely agree. "You don't need to see any of this, you can't go there for your own good" is frustrating and unhelpful. I keep FireFox portable 3.x around for sites (intranet devices) like that.