Firefox 67, multiple user profiles, FF 66 behaviour required

[therube]

-instance appears to be no more. (Was it ever? Perhaps not.)

Windows & Linux (were) always potentially different in how "remoting" worked.

This says stuff, but what it says, assuming I'm understanding (which I might not be), does not play out (on my end, Windows).
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... z-L_of5WZE

It also means if you do "firefox -P foo -url
www.google.com" we'll open that url in profile Foo, either by using an
existing Firefox using profile Foo or by starting with profile Foo.

No good.

> E:\Users\RUBEN>C:\WLIB\FIREFOX\FIREFOX\firefox.exe -p ff61 -url http://www.google.com
> E:\Users\RUBEN>C:\WLIB\FIREFOX\FIREFOX\firefox.exe -p profile67 -url http://www.google.com

[willi uebelherr]

Dear friends, i don't like to overload this discussion.

Many thanks to Bummelchen. He concentrate to our question.

Normally, i don't look for profiles. I look for different FF in different environment. Clear, part of this is also the profile. But not alone. In my situation, i use a computer in a hostal and guest use it as common guests and i use it with my PortableApps. But never in the same time.

Katoda use on FF installation with different start-button. But never in the same time.

In general, if one FF is running, this instance have to use. If more FFs are running, the started FF have to ask the user, what profile he have to use. if the developer want tu use a configuration, then they have to open a configuration for multiple FFs running and never any profile name. Now, with the FF67 i see two FF entrys in the windows 10 preferencing for browser. And this second is my portable. What a s%&t. Portable as a static instance?

Never i have the idea to use two FF version running in the same time. And, if the developer wrote, this was always a big question, then they make all users to developers and this is really stupid. In reality, this developers act as egoists and and make his private working environment to the all-environment.

The consequece is, to ask the developer groups for a workaround of this nonsens. I am very thankful for Bummelchen and Katoda to distribute our questions in the Mozilla environment. And, of course, we can support your initiative with comments.

[mightyglydd]

Mozilla environment.

What's that ?

[bjherbison]

When I hit a bug I try to use multiple Firefox instances at the same time so I can do a side-by-side comparison. Sometimes it's a different version, sometimes different add-ons or settings (but always a different profile).

[willi uebelherr]

Dear bjherbison,
for you sometimes, maybe. But not the many people, that use FireFox.

This is the most problem in this discussion, that all think only for himself and don't have a look to the many others.

FF need a constant behaviour for his working, so all people can follow it. Specific tasks like Bug-Tracking need a specific environment. And this people can do itself. They have the experience and knowledge for that. The developer group have to accept this basics.

I support very much the method of katoda to use for different tasks different profiles. This is a good way. But i don't like this confusion now, what i see, that now i have two firefox in the windows preference for browsers. This is a big nonsense.

We need one FF with his profiles as a default. All others are specific. And normally, the most people don't need this specific action. They work with only one instance. And this we can generalise for all other more specific situations. Also yours.

Therefore, if one FF is runnig, this have to use. Independent of version and profiles or else. if more are running, this need a specific preparation.

[bjherbison]

Dear bjherbison,
for you sometimes, maybe. But not the many people, that use FireFox.

This is the most problem in this discussion, that all think only for himself and don't have a look to the many others.

I am actually doing it because I am thinking of others. My time spent debugging the problems is an overall loss to myself, but benefits the community.

Yes, the main purpose of Firefox should be to support the typical user. But unless the tools are provided to analyze problems carefully the quality of the software will go down.

[willi uebelherr]

My time spent debugging the problems is an overall loss to myself, but benefits the community.

Dear bjherbison, absolute correct and i thank you very much for your time and activity.

But this is a very specific task. So, let us repeate for a solution.

FF67 change to multiple running for different instances with different versions and profiles. The question is, if we have only one instance running, why he don't use it for an externel request to create a new tab? Independent of the version and profile, what this used?

1) Use the running (only) FF instance for a external request. This is for me one of the most tasks.
2) Starting of a FF instance for a external request. For that we have a default instance or before we start a specific instance.

1) makes problems.
2) is possible, if we have only one "default". Normally this will be, i hope.

How we can workaround this problem? Are the dev-group willing to follow this?

Maybe, you have good connections. Can you ask them?

[Brummelchen]

@willi - you make it too complicated. further - there will be no workaround, drop that idea. it is as i cited from bugzilla - mozilla has set its options for the mass and not for Individualists. if you feel mistaken, get the source code and compile your own firefox.

[willi uebelherr]

@Bummelchen, correct. This is not a bug. I wrote a question in the bugzilla discussion thread from katoda (Roman Sąsiada), but i think, here is the better place.

Now, i have read "Profiles.ini file", http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profiles.ini_file
It seems to me, i have manage the profiles.ini from the standard installation so, that if i work on the computer using PortableApps, the external request for FF with a link have to use another profile.directory. But if the static installed FF is old, i have also to use the portable exe-file. I prefer to use the portable version completely.

My requirements are very different from that of katoda. But really in the center it is the same. The path to the profile-directory, what FF have to use.
But before, i will look for portable Firefox and for PortableApps, what they propose.

Have any one of you an idea?

[Brummelchen]

Code: Select all

I prefer to use the portable version completely.

if you run in it steady on your system you should get away from it although the starter is not running after usage (like other portables)

if you are aware of command line parameters there is no need for portableapps
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/doc ... ne_Options

the starter itself determines running instances and switch to -no-remote if necessary. IMO it can handle (external) plugins too but that is not needed here, i dont use any.

the major problem with any of those environments is the not regular call of firefox with a parameter. if firefox is called with -no-remote there is no chance to start another tab or window with that instance - thats what -no-remote is for. in any other case you need to start firefox with a parameter for profile (using profiles.ini) or path (portableapps) to start another tab/window.

i have experienced it myself - -no-remote is blocking any other call - und thus i dont have a default profile (without asking) i get the profile dialog and can chose any other profile. when running my "default" profile and have the default flag set in INI then the call will end in that instance.

and there is nothing i (or you) can change for now.
what we or i need is a switch in pref to switch to old behavior. in special firefox 67 is messing up my profiles.ini - not for bad but the order (my order) is changed.

for me - i am using the profiles.ini although my firefox'es and profiles are put elsewhere. it has advantage when searching for adware because eg adwcleaner will find it reading that ini. not that i have doubt about my system security

[katoda]

I second what Brummelchen wrote about switch allowing us to configure the behaviour of how FF67 is launched. In that way both sides would be perfectly happy.
I would say that all started with enforcing something like -no-remote on ALL instances. Give us way to switch it off when necessary and the problem is gone.

[therube]

Now, i have read "Profiles.ini file", http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profiles.ini_file

You can no longer rely on "documentation" or even your own pre-existing knowledge to know what to do - because FF 67 change what & how things work.
And even better then that, they are rather lax at 1) telling us that anything changed (in any meaningful way) 2) seem not to even want to document just what changed & how one is supposed to work (now) in situations that has always worked (up to now). Openness!

@willi, on the Portable end, is that also a FF 67 Portable version? And you are running FirefoxPortable.exe rather then firefox.exe (directly)?

if you are aware of command line parameters there is no need for portableapps

Command line options no longer work as they once did. See above.

in any other case you need to start firefox with a parameter for profile (using profiles.ini) or path (portableapps) to start another tab/window

And just how do you do that?
fail: firefox -p profile2 -url www.google.com
fail: firefox -p profile2 -url www.google.com -no-remote

the multi-account container extension

Whatever that might be, or even if it is build into FF, it is still different from running more then one instance.
(And also, in the past, one understood what that entailed, & how it worked, & what to expect. That is not longer the case with 67.)

1. ridiculous
2. ridiculous
3. ridiculous (basically). I wouldn't know about pinning & yes, you should always (only) use Firefoxportable.exe.

If FF Portable is 67, no telling what might happen [see above].
With FF 67, no telling what might happen?
You now have to have a mighty clear understanding of just how FF 67 now works - which we don't [see above].

Fore instance, if FF 67, when it goes to start up, checks for an already existing process named, "firefox.exe", then alters its behavior based on that...
If something like that is the case, then well golly gee, starting a "regular" instance of FF 67 will see already running instance of "firefox.exe" that was spawned by the portable-apps launcher, Firefoxportable.exe. And how or if that changes things, well we just don't know [see above].

If you start FF first, or if you start Portable first, or ... who knows?
Portable has always been self-contained.
It did not rely on profiles.ini (or this new installs.ini - whatever that is).
Changes to profile.ini or changes to FF outside of Portable, never had any affect on the Portable version.
Does it now ... who knows?

[therube]

Well, this is just absolutely crazy!

C:\FIREFOX>firefox.exe -p ff61

What should that have done, you ask?
It should have queried profiles.ini & opened FF using the existing Profile at C:\Mozilla\USERS\FF61.
(In the past, it ALWAYS did that. From even prior to FF 61.)
(It has even done that on numerous occasions - after bringing up Profile Manager - even with this debacle named FF 67.)

And what did it do just now, you ask?
It opened a *new* Profile at, C:\TMP\SEA\52.9\newtext.
WHY?!
Now I happen to know what "newtext" is, but I cannot fathom how FF, with its' almighty wisdom, decided to start up there?
(Not to mention, corrupting existing data that was already in that directory.)

This is just freakin' CRAZY!


They'll not allow you to use .css files - because they'll cause FF to take 1ms longer to start up.
Yet they put this hogwash into FF - because POWER users cannot figure things out, & what happens, it now takes 5 SECONDS to open that second instance of FF that you want. (At least they've acknowledged that that is a bug.)


How can this nonsense not be caught well before a release gets out the door?!

[therube]

In all other instances,

C:\FIREFOX>firefox.exe -p ff61

has caused Profile Manager to open (which is not expect, but at least then selecting, it was sitting on the 'FF61' profile cause it to open.
(I do have open other FF profiles. Always have had other "FF" profiles opened.)

This time, that same command-line - FAILED.

So I close that "new" Profile, open Profile Manger, select FF61 from its list, & FF61 does in fact open (this time).

Is it so difficult to get that to work correctly - EVERY TIME?!

[therube]

So I close that instance, FF61.

Go back to my command-line,

C:\FIREFOX>firefox.exe -p ff61

& *this* time, it brings up Profile Manager (incorrect behavior, but that's kind of immaterial at this point), sitting at FF61 in Profile Manager (it is my "default" Profile, not that I know if that has any bearing on anything) & clicking Start FF (wow, now isn't that efficient - I tell it specifically to open a particular Profile, & FF then prompts me as to which profile to open - brilliant!), (speedily) brings up (after waiting 5 seconds) my wanted Profile, FF61.

WHY the difference?!