FF Quantum compared to Waterfox
-
- Posts: 308
- Joined: October 14th, 2013, 1:20 pm
FF Quantum compared to Waterfox
Just switch to Waterfox and stop crying. Mozilla has chosen their "vision" and they wont stray from it. So endlessly complaining about it is just a waste of time.
- malliz
- Folder@Home
- Posts: 43796
- Joined: December 7th, 2002, 4:34 am
- Location: Australia
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
Recommending people shift to Third Party builds with an uncertain future is NOT what we are here for
What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
"Terry Pratchett"
"Terry Pratchett"
-
- Posts: 308
- Joined: October 14th, 2013, 1:20 pm
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
Firefox itself has uncertain future. Isn't the market share still dropping?
- malliz
- Folder@Home
- Posts: 43796
- Joined: December 7th, 2002, 4:34 am
- Location: Australia
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
Your user agent says it all about your impartiality
What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
"Terry Pratchett"
"Terry Pratchett"
-
- Posts: 308
- Joined: October 14th, 2013, 1:20 pm
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
Hey i had a problem and i fixed it. Advocating for something but not doing it myself would be hypocritical.
-
- Posts: 308
- Joined: October 14th, 2013, 1:20 pm
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
And if we judge impartiality by the useragents than you should take a look at yours first. Im just using open source how its meant to be used, when a software is going in the direction you dont like, you choose a different fork which suits your needs. There is nothing fanboyish about that, like you implied in your "private" message. Its the exact opposite of fanboy-ism.
- malliz
- Folder@Home
- Posts: 43796
- Joined: December 7th, 2002, 4:34 am
- Location: Australia
So, FF Quantum ...
So I am being judged by a swing voter for testing Nightly builds
Something I have done since Phoenix 0.3 sorry it annoys you
Something I have done since Phoenix 0.3 sorry it annoys you
What sort of man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
"Terry Pratchett"
"Terry Pratchett"
-
- Posts: 308
- Joined: October 14th, 2013, 1:20 pm
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
no. The issue is your saying im impartial and a fanboy because i have waterfox in my userstring, in that case you are impartial and fanboy because you have Firefox in yours.
Obviously only people using anything but Firefox/Waterfox are impartial enough to participate in good faith. /s
Obviously only people using anything but Firefox/Waterfox are impartial enough to participate in good faith. /s
-
- Posts: 913
- Joined: December 24th, 2011, 10:29 am
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
Just a guess. I think what he is trying say, politely I might add, that since you have already made your choice you participate there and not here.Obviously only people using anything but Firefox/Waterfox are impartial enough to participate in good faith. /s
Why? Other than your personal opinion(s) you can not offer much information. Your program (based on Firefox 56.0.4 code) does not compare to the current Firefox release (58.0.2) that the OP is asking questions about here. And as time goes on it will compare less and less.
-
- Posts: 597
- Joined: November 10th, 2009, 3:47 am
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
Well, there is a forum here for third party builds, so I see nothing wrong with someone suggesting that.malliz wrote:Recommending people shift to Third Party builds with an uncertain future is NOT what we are here for
Having said that I would first try to offer solutions in regular Firefox to see if they satisfy the poster.
-
- Posts: 597
- Joined: November 10th, 2009, 3:47 am
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
Maybe, maybe not. However, other than Chrome, all other browsers are either in low single digits or headed that way. If Firefox remains roughly where it is now I don't see an issue.PadaV4 wrote:Firefox itself has uncertain future. Isn't the market share still dropping?
Having said that, no product from any vendor is guaranteed an indefinite life! So long as there are alternatives it doesn't matter.
-
- Posts: 4480
- Joined: March 19th, 2005, 10:51 am
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
+1you have already made your choice you participate there and not here.
the major problem for waterfox is that it has been stuck in its technology. devs can take over fixes and maybe some features, but at some certain point it is not possible because the underlaying engine is complete different. in parts i see waterfox as high vulnerable because they re-implement support for java. the have to step back to v51 code. in fact v56 is not fully compatible to webextensions. same for palemoon which is stuck in its base of firefox 55, they need to step back to v52 esr and start over with its code implementation from basilisk. and that will also happen to waterfox. dead forkes for the moment with half baked code.
thus it is more funny people using waterfox and palemoon taking risks and judging about firefox.
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: February 4th, 2017, 1:57 pm
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
malliz, you are talking nonsense. The Waterfox developer has already announced that he is going to use Firefox 60 ESR as his next base, dropping legacy add-on support in the process. Keeping Waterfox 56 around was just a courtesy to those who still need some legacy add-on which haven't been updated yet.malliz wrote:Recommending people shift to Third Party builds with an uncertain future is NOT what we are here for
Last edited by #Sun-Glasses on February 14th, 2018, 10:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
- JodyThornton
- Posts: 153
- Joined: August 12th, 2004, 5:59 pm
- Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario (Canada)
- Contact:
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
So will Waterfox essentially be Quantum then?#Sun-Glasses wrote:malliz, you are talking nonsense. The Waterfox developer has already announced that he is going to use Firefox 60 ESR as his next base, dropping legacy add-on support in the process. Keeping Waterfox 56 around was just a courtesy to those who still need some legacy add-on which hasn't been updated yet.malliz wrote:Recommending people shift to Third Party builds with an uncertain future is NOT what we are here for
Dumbasses like you are one mistake it for a permanent shift of strategy. Think again.
EDIT: Which means (I guess) that Waterfox 56x will be an uppdated ESR relase then?
Cheers,
Jody Thornton
(Richmond Hill, Ontario)
Jody Thornton
(Richmond Hill, Ontario)
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: February 4th, 2017, 1:57 pm
Re: So, FF Quantum ...
Yes, it will be Quantum minus telemetry, Pocket, signed extension requirement etc. I imagine that the Waterfox dev is tired of Mozilla introducing new spyware over and over again, hence why he sticks to ESR releases. Better to polish Firefox once a year than doing it every single month. And yeah, I assume Waterfox 56 will be updated eventually. It could also stay around alongside Waterfox 60 for some time. I don't know.JodyThornton wrote:So will Waterfox essentially be Quantum then?#Sun-Glasses wrote:malliz, you are talking nonsense. The Waterfox developer has already announced that he is going to use Firefox 60 ESR as his next base, dropping legacy add-on support in the process. Keeping Waterfox 56 around was just a courtesy to those who still need some legacy add-on which hasn't been updated yet.malliz wrote:Recommending people shift to Third Party builds with an uncertain future is NOT what we are here for
Dumbasses like you are one mistake it for a permanent shift of strategy. Think again.
EDIT: Which means (I guess) that Waterfox 56x will be an uppdated ESR relase then?
However, malliz claiming that Waterfox is reaching its end is wishful thinking, or just uninformed nonsense. Or both.