1. 24
  1.  

  2. 31

    That’s cool and all, but knowing Mozilla, an about:config option called “legacyUserProfileCustomizations” is gonna disappear.

    Related: In Firefox 90, they removed the “Compact” density option, which I kind of rely on to be comfortable with Firefox. They added an about:config option, “browser.compactmode.show”, to add it back. In Firefox 91, if you have the option enabled, they renamed the option from “Compact” to “Compact (not supported)”. I know it’s only a matter of time before they remove it entirely. And I’m kind of panicking about that, because I really, really don’t want more vertical space to be wasted by padding in the tab bar on small laptop screens. If anything, I find the “Compact” option too big. I wish Mozilla would stop changing things for the worse, and I wish Mozilla would stop taking away configuration options.

    1. 18

      What is wrong with them? Every major release, they’ve taken away functionality that I depend on.

      1. 12

        Every major release, they’ve taken away functionality that I depend on.

        I feel the same. I even often joke that Mozilla is spying on me with the sole goal of knowing what features I rely on and yanking them away from me :).

        What is wrong with them?

        Nothing is wrong with them. We just aren’t part of their main demographic target.

        1. 11

          I absolutely dread every single firefox update for the same reason - something I rely on or have burned in have and muscle memory get altered or removed.

          It feels completely hopeless to me as well because I can’t see another acceptable choice. I can’t support Google’s browser engine monopoly and every other browser I research has some other issue that makes me reject it in comparison.

          It feels like abuse by endless paper cuts, unwanted and unnecessary changes forced on me with no realistic choice to opt out. These changes seem to be accelerating too and meanwhile firefox market share declines further and further.

        2. 10

          That’s cool and all, but knowing Mozilla, an about:config option called “legacyUserProfileCustomizations” is gonna disappear.

          The reason it was made an option is to slightly improve startup time since it won’t have to check for this file on the disk. Comparatively few people use it, which is hardly surprising since it’s always been a very hidden feature, so it kind of makes sense: if you’re going to manually create CSS files then toggling an about:config option is little trouble.

          Apparently, the name “legacy” is in there “to avoid giving the impression that with this new preference we are adding a new customization feature”. I would be surprised if it was removed in the foreseeable future, because it’s actually not a lot of code/effort to support this.

          That being said, instead of relegating userChrome to a “hidden feature”, it would seem to me that properly integrating support for these kind of things in Firefox would give a lot more benefits. In many ways, almost everyone is a “power user” because a lot of folks – including non-technical people – spend entire days in the browser. For example, I disable the “close tab” button because I press it by accident somewhat frequently which is quite annoying. While loads of people don’t have this problem, I suspect I’m not the only person with this small annoyance considering some other browsers just offer this as a setting, but I am one of the comparatively small group of people who has the know-how to actually fix it in Firefox.

          The technical architecture to do a lot of these things is right there and actually works quite well; it just doesn’t fit in the “there is one UX to satisfy everyone, and if you don’t like it then there’s something wrong with you”-mentality 🤷

          1. 18

            All preference changes through about:config are officially unsupported and come with zero guarantees. This includes creating custom chrome folders.

            There actually is a maintenance and complexity cost for keeping these things alive. We’ve done a lot of hardening lately that was cumbersome to pull off in light of those customizations. In essence, we are disabling some protections when we detect profile hackery. I want to repeat: despite our team working around and “acknowledging” the existence of those hacks, they are still unsupported and we can’t promise to always work around custom profile quirks.

            The best way to be heard and change things in an open source project is to show up and help drive things. I know this isn’t easy for big project like ours…

            1. 4

              This used to be a longer comment but I edited it and now it only shows this note 😳. I was needlessly nasty. Sorry, man, rough day.

              1. 1

                No harm done 👍

              2. 2

                I, too, prefer the “Compact” theme. Is there still anything that can be done to keep it going forward?

              3. 2

                I’ve heard this startup time justification before, but surely the additional hassle of implementing, testing, and documenting a new configuration parameter isn’t worth saving a single stat call on startup? It’s hard to imagine that even shows up in the profile.

                1. 1

                  If everything else has already been tightly optimized, the stat call being performed on a spinning rust drive could be shown as being a major performance bottleneck when profiling startup performance.

                  1. 6

                    When I rebuild LLVM, ninja does a stat system call for every C++ source and header file on the disk, about 10,000 of them in total. If I have no changes, then it completes in so little time that it appears instantaneous.

                    If the cost of a stat system call is making a user-noticeable difference to start times, then you’re in an incredibly rare and happy place.

            2. 7

              The tab style changed? I hadn’t even noticed.

              1. 4

                Tabs other than the current tab don’t render borders. it flattens the design and honestly looks better as far as I’m concerned, but every time a Firefox update comes out this side of the internet collectively freaks out about whatever changes have been made.

                1. 4

                  Oh… Ya looks fine to me.

                2. 2

                  Likewise. Sounds like bikeshedding to me. The only feature I’d like in Firefox is something like Opera workspaces. Trying to imitate them with bookmarks and windows is not up to scratch, and re-opening multiple windows can be flaky.

                3. 6

                  It’s also worth checking out the interactive table restyler on userchrome.org, which generates appropriate userChrome.css directives and shows a live preview based on the options you choose.

                  1. 4

                    First the ‘Compact’ layout been removed.

                    Now its PITA to change back to ‘normal’ tabs style - it should be in one switch - not a several points howto …

                    Pity to watch Firefox starts to decline …

                    1. 3

                      The Proton UI is now normal. The rest is unsupported legacy code artifacts that will eventually stop working. I think it’s already non-functional in upcoming Firefox 91.

                      1. 2

                        The Proton UI is now default, and standard. It’s a different kind of normal.

                    2. 2

                      The default styling for Firefox is not my taste so I use a Firefox Safari theme (find it on Github). Lately, I’ve been using The Browser Company’s beta browser and I’m loving it thus far (about a month or two in).

                      I still use FF for web development but for me, it’s days are numbered.

                      1. 2

                        I can’t see what was wrong with the old tabs – I honestly really preferred them.