15 ms·

Firefox considering off-by-default preference for loading user.js files

52 points by smnthermes 7y ago

torstenvl 7y ago
> My main assumption is that 3% of users shouldn't want/need this thing, and 97% of users shouldn't be paying startup costs for it. Removing user freedom because "users shouldn't want/need this thing" seems like a Google move.
- vidarh 7y ago
  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.
- addicted 7y ago
  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.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- gdulli 7y ago
  Firefox has definitely become synonymous to me with loss of functionality and control.
  - zo1 7y ago
    All the major browsers are doing it.
    - beatgammit 7y ago
      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.
    - gowld 7y ago
      If Firefox is destined to be a low quality Chrome clone, it may as well just be a redirect to the Chrome installer.
  - zzo38computer 7y ago
    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.
humaid 7y ago
I am using ghacks user.js[1], which makes fingerprinting harder and improves my privacy online. Removing user.js would mean less privacy for me. [1]: https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  Are you using the Firefox setting privacy.resistFingerprinting?
  - humaid 7y ago
    Yes, but there are some things (like privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing) which are hidden preferences you won't find in about:config.
    - iudqnolq 7y ago
      That's good to know. Thanks
- samantohermes 7y ago
  But some items such as privacy.ResistFingerprinting will probably be added to the GUI, as they are related to the Tor Uplift project.
- rasz 7y ago
  I inject this into Chrome to hopefully achieve something similar: window.AudioContext = undefined; window.OfflineAudioContext = undefined; window.BaseAudioContext = undefined; navigator.getUserMedia = undefined; navigator.webkitGetUserMedia = undefined; window.MediaStreamTrack = undefined; window.RTCPeerConnection = undefined; window.RTCSessionDescription = undefined; window.webkitMediaStreamTrack = undefined; window.webkitRTCPeerConnection = undefined; window.webkitRTCSessionDescription = undefined; if (navigator.mediaDevices) navigator.mediaDevices.enumerateDevices = undefined; //https://googlechrome.github.io/samples/beacon/ navigator.sendBeacon = undefined; //https://mathiasbynens.github.io/rel-noopener/ window.opener = undefined; //https://demo.agektmr.com/storage/ unsafeWindow.window.openDatabase = undefined; Object.defineProperty(unsafeWindow.window, "indexedDB", { value: undefined }); //https://browserleaks.com/canvas //https://panopticlick.eff.org HTMLCanvasElement.prototype.toDataURL = undefined; HTMLCanvasElement.prototype.toBlob = undefined; CanvasRenderingContext2D.prototype.getImageData = undefined;
lousken 7y ago
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.
- yoklov 7y ago
  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.
  - lousken 7y ago
    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.
deith 7y ago
Author's name states his pronouns, opinion discarded.
- dang 7y ago
  "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - deith 7y ago
    :)
- efiecho 7y ago
  This is exactly what I thought :)
- slater 7y ago
  wth?
mrandish 7y ago
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.
- gowld 7y ago
  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.
molticrystal 7y ago
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.
- nzd 7y ago
  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?
  - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
    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.
    - smnthermes 7y ago
      Tree tabs is still severely limited.
      - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
        In what way? It does everything I did before (put the tabs in a tree on the side)
8bitsrule 7y ago
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.
- zo1 7y ago
  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.
  - A_Parr 7y ago
    I've lost my voice from all the other features they've dropped over the last decade plus. It's all fallen on deaf ears, anyway. They don't care about Firefox users, because they're not Chrome users.
    - gowld 7y ago
      They're going to be Chrome users now. Everyone has their limit.
      - rasz 7y ago
        or MSblink, Vivaldi, Opera, Brave.
- rasz 7y ago
  We are talking tens of miliseconds wasted every single day!
gray_-_wolf 7y ago
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...
- feanaro 7y ago
  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.
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  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.
  - CamJN 7y ago
    In that case Mozilla doesn't get to market themselves as giving a shit about privacy.
    - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
      Telemetry done right is not privacy invasive. There is nothing wrong with them seeing a count saying x% of users use this feature.
benibela 7y ago
The scratchpad, too
zamadatix 7y ago
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.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
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.
LordLestat 7y ago
Just saying the following... 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 developed! ----------------------------- Nobody with a sane mind would want to support radical right-wing visions – but the issue is that today everything is getting attacked and in conclusion removed just because there is the chance that it could point to a very small degree towards a moderate middle-ground or even moderate conservative ground – all what is moving away from your typical “leftist/progressive” concept. Mozilla is supporting an excluding concept – which may be nicely wrapped as “inclusive and socially correct” but in reality fully excluding a minority who also has rights – the group of users who are sitting in the already mentioned middle-ground/moderate-conservative-ground and do not like that everything gets intentionally dumbed-down or removed to put everything out of the way for a less tolerating/accepting and rather aggressive/dismissive user group – which Mozilla wants on board. ----------------------------- And that is in the end the ultimate reason why people and software which are sticking out from the crowd do get so much despised and demonized – or even receiving threats (Classic add-on archive) or getting in an active way monitored and even the smallest mistake is recorded and used in time to blacklist the projects or people which refuse to play the established and discriminating game of today.

52 points by smnthermes 7y ago

> My main assumption is that 3% of users shouldn't want/need this thing, and 97% of users shouldn't be paying startup costs for it. Removing user freedom because "users shouldn't want/need this thing" seems like a Google move.

vidarh 7y ago
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.
addicted 7y ago
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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
gdulli 7y ago
Firefox has definitely become synonymous to me with loss of functionality and control.
- zo1 7y ago
  All the major browsers are doing it.
  - beatgammit 7y ago
    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.
  - gowld 7y ago
    If Firefox is destined to be a low quality Chrome clone, it may as well just be a redirect to the Chrome installer.
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  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.

humaid 7y ago

I am using ghacks user.js[1], which makes fingerprinting harder and improves my privacy online. Removing user.js would mean less privacy for me. [1]: https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js

iudqnolq 7y ago
Are you using the Firefox setting privacy.resistFingerprinting?
- humaid 7y ago
  Yes, but there are some things (like privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing) which are hidden preferences you won't find in about:config.
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    That's good to know. Thanks
samantohermes 7y ago
But some items such as privacy.ResistFingerprinting will probably be added to the GUI, as they are related to the Tor Uplift project.
rasz 7y ago
I inject this into Chrome to hopefully achieve something similar: window.AudioContext = undefined; window.OfflineAudioContext = undefined; window.BaseAudioContext = undefined; navigator.getUserMedia = undefined; navigator.webkitGetUserMedia = undefined; window.MediaStreamTrack = undefined; window.RTCPeerConnection = undefined; window.RTCSessionDescription = undefined; window.webkitMediaStreamTrack = undefined; window.webkitRTCPeerConnection = undefined; window.webkitRTCSessionDescription = undefined; if (navigator.mediaDevices) navigator.mediaDevices.enumerateDevices = undefined; //https://googlechrome.github.io/samples/beacon/ navigator.sendBeacon = undefined; //https://mathiasbynens.github.io/rel-noopener/ window.opener = undefined; //https://demo.agektmr.com/storage/ unsafeWindow.window.openDatabase = undefined; Object.defineProperty(unsafeWindow.window, "indexedDB", { value: undefined }); //https://browserleaks.com/canvas //https://panopticlick.eff.org HTMLCanvasElement.prototype.toDataURL = undefined; HTMLCanvasElement.prototype.toBlob = undefined; CanvasRenderingContext2D.prototype.getImageData = undefined;

lousken 7y ago

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.

yoklov 7y ago
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.
- lousken 7y ago
  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.

deith 7y ago

Author's name states his pronouns, opinion discarded.

dang 7y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deith 7y ago
  :)
efiecho 7y ago
This is exactly what I thought :)
slater 7y ago
wth?

mrandish 7y ago

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.

gowld 7y ago
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.

molticrystal 7y ago

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.

nzd 7y ago
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?
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  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.
  - smnthermes 7y ago
    Tree tabs is still severely limited.
    - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
      In what way? It does everything I did before (put the tabs in a tree on the side)

8bitsrule 7y ago

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.

zo1 7y ago
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.
- A_Parr 7y ago
  I've lost my voice from all the other features they've dropped over the last decade plus. It's all fallen on deaf ears, anyway. They don't care about Firefox users, because they're not Chrome users.
  - gowld 7y ago
    They're going to be Chrome users now. Everyone has their limit.
    - rasz 7y ago
      or MSblink, Vivaldi, Opera, Brave.
rasz 7y ago
We are talking tens of miliseconds wasted every single day!

gray_-_wolf 7y ago

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...

feanaro 7y ago
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.
Polylactic_acid 7y ago
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.
- CamJN 7y ago
  In that case Mozilla doesn't get to market themselves as giving a shit about privacy.
  - Polylactic_acid 7y ago
    Telemetry done right is not privacy invasive. There is nothing wrong with them seeing a count saying x% of users use this feature.

benibela 7y ago

The scratchpad, too

zamadatix 7y ago

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.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

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.

LordLestat 7y ago

Just saying the following... 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 developed! ----------------------------- Nobody with a sane mind would want to support radical right-wing visions – but the issue is that today everything is getting attacked and in conclusion removed just because there is the chance that it could point to a very small degree towards a moderate middle-ground or even moderate conservative ground – all what is moving away from your typical “leftist/progressive” concept. Mozilla is supporting an excluding concept – which may be nicely wrapped as “inclusive and socially correct” but in reality fully excluding a minority who also has rights – the group of users who are sitting in the already mentioned middle-ground/moderate-conservative-ground and do not like that everything gets intentionally dumbed-down or removed to put everything out of the way for a less tolerating/accepting and rather aggressive/dismissive user group – which Mozilla wants on board. ----------------------------- And that is in the end the ultimate reason why people and software which are sticking out from the crowd do get so much despised and demonized – or even receiving threats (Classic add-on archive) or getting in an active way monitored and even the smallest mistake is recorded and used in time to blacklist the projects or people which refuse to play the established and discriminating game of today.