Firefox won't properly downgrade.

"Please leave a message at the beep, we will get back to you when your support contract expires."

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
King Author
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby King Author » Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:57 am UTC

I made the HORRENDOUS mistake of upgrading Firefox. It was an unspeakable experience. I'm trying to downgrade back to 12, which is what I was using.

Firefox says it's downgraded, the About thing lists the version as 12, however, it's still stuck looking like the new FF29 abortion; this is NOT the Firefox 12 I was using. The differenty-looking icons, the non-combined Forward/Back buttons, it's all FF29-looking.

Anyone know how to fix this? I want it to go back to before I made the awful, awful, stupid mistake of upgrading. Do I have to entirely uninstall Firefox and nuke every trace of it from my machine, then install Firefox 12 fresh? Or are there some config files or something I can edit?

Also, I'm using Windows XP, and have done nothing on my computer since starting it up today other than make the horrible mistake of upgrading Firefox. Does XP have a built-in system restore thing? I just want everything to go back to the way it was, this new Firefox is an abomination.

Edit: Fuck fuck fuck fuck FUCK! I tried a System Restore and it didn't restore Firefox! Fuck! Shit, why did I upgrade Firefox? Am I gonna be stuck with this new shit forever? Fuck!

Okay, this is insane. There HAS to be a way to restore Firefox to the way it was. There has to! It's impossible for there not to be! I had Firefox 12 and it looked a certain way. It HAS to be possible to restore that certain way. It's not possible that the ill-advised upgrade fundamentally rewrote the laws of physics, there has to be SOME way to restore the data on my computer to its previous state, there has to be SOME way to get Firefox back to how it was.

Any help at all?

Edit2: Aww fuck! Things just keep getting worse! Now, after undoing the System Restore, Firefox has some weird theme or something and all my tabs are such are eyesorely colored and it changed a bunch of my about:config stuff like enabling domain highlighting (which I fucking LOATHE).

Simpling Uninstalling Firefox and reinstalling a fresh Firefox 12 did not work; this is NOT the Firefox 12 I was using, this is completely different and worse. I don't know what else to do short of reinstalling my OS (which I've had to do before because config stuff for programs got so royally fucked) and reinstalling Firefox 12 absolutely fresh.
Last edited by King Author on Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:23 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I have signitures disabled. If you do, too...you can't read this, so nevermind >_>

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby HES » Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:23 am UTC

Rather than downgrading to an unsupported version, try using Classic Theme Restorer.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5426
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby Xanthir » Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:40 am UTC

Do not go back to Firefox 12. It is terribly insecure compared to modern Firefox (missing the last 2 years of security updates), and also supports far less modern web tech, so many sites won't work on it, and more will break every day.

As HES says, explore the existing methods for changing your theme around. Or just get used to the change.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby cphite » Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:42 pm UTC

Couple of things:

1. As you've discovered, the theme that Firefox uses isn't necessarily contained in the files that it removes when you uninstall Firefox. Re-installing the OS isn't necessary.
2. There is a lot more to browser upgrades than how they look. The upgraded Firefox has far more functionality, will work with more website, and - most importantly - has security enhancements that are especially important if you're going to continue running Windows XP, which is no longer receiving security updates.

You should upgrade Firefox to the newest version your OS can run, and then change your theme to get as close as you can to the look and feel you're used to. You may not find something that is exactly the same, but you'll get used to it.

User avatar
King Author
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby King Author » Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:54 pm UTC

*shakes head*
No, no, no and no.

1. Firefox 29+ is closed-source and includes DRM. I refuse to upgrade to that. I'm no Richard Stallman, but I absolutely cannot support EME compliance or closed-source web browsing period.

2. I've been using FF12 for these past two years, since it was the newest version. I only browse a tiny handful of known-safe sites, I use NoScript, disable Java and Cookies and everything. I've never had a security problem. Even if I did, there's no valuable data on this computer -- only music, movies, porn and games. No personal info, not even any of my manuscripts (which most would consider worthless >_> but I'm paranoid about, heh). The risk is worth having a browser I'm comfortable with.

3. "Improved functionality" is VERY MUCH in the eye of the beholder; I don't want or need any "improved functionality." (The only reason I was even using FF12 was because literally every site stopped working on what I was using, Firefox 3, which remains my favorite release.)

4. I've encountered missing/incomplete functionality over the past year, it's exclusively been on increidlby obnoxious websites that I don't use or care about, anyway.

5. I tried the "Classic Theme Restorer" during the awful 45-minutes of my life that Firefox 30 was installed on my computer. It's crap and doesn't change the fact that FF29+ is incredibly restricted and impossible to customize in any but the most superficial of ways (ooh, drag and drop buttons, how fancy).

If you can help with the problem I have, I'd be incredibly greatful. Telling me to abandon my desired task and upgrade is not helpful.

(Also, ugh, another problem -- my mousewheel scrolling got screwed up by this ill-advised attempt to upgrade. It's jumping five lines at a time. I tried messing around in about:config, even reducing mousewheel.withnokey.numlines all the way to 1 -- it has absolutely no effect. How and why did installing FF30 so royally fuck up my Firefox, even after downgrading? So frustrating!)

cphite: Any idea how I can access the Firefox theme that's somehow been permanently installed on my computer, so I can nuke it? And more to the point, any idea how to restore the FF12 theme? Would a fresh install after nuking the new theme work? I'm not hopeful. I think I'm just gonna have to end up reinstalling my OS.
I have signitures disabled. If you do, too...you can't read this, so nevermind >_>

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5426
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby Xanthir » Thu Jun 26, 2014 11:22 pm UTC

Ah, if you have NoScript and cookies disabled, you're already accepting a completely broken browser, so whatever I guess. Note that there have been attacks even on things like image decoding and the font stack, which none of your restrictions will prevent.

Note that if you have porn on your computer, unless you transferred that from another device you own, the site you got it from is definitely not "known-safe".
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
King Author
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby King Author » Fri Jun 27, 2014 12:25 am UTC

Xanthir wrote:Ah, if you have NoScript and cookies disabled, you're already accepting a completely broken browser, so whatever I guess. Note that there have been attacks even on things like image decoding and the font stack, which none of your restrictions will prevent.

Note that if you have porn on your computer, unless you transferred that from another device you own, the site you got it from is definitely not "known-safe".


*spoken through gritted teeth*
Thank you for your concern about my security!

Can anyone help. me. with. my. problem?

(re: porn -- torrents)
I have signitures disabled. If you do, too...you can't read this, so nevermind >_>

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby cphite » Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:22 pm UTC

King Author wrote:*shakes head*
No, no, no and no.

1. Firefox 29+ is closed-source and includes DRM. I refuse to upgrade to that. I'm no Richard Stallman, but I absolutely cannot support EME compliance or closed-source web browsing period.


I see... out of curiosity, is this a stance purely on principle, or do you actually expect your online experience to change as a result of running a closed source, EME compliant browser?

2. I've been using FF12 for these past two years, since it was the newest version. I only browse a tiny handful of known-safe sites, I use NoScript, disable Java and Cookies and everything. I've never had a security problem. Even if I did, there's no valuable data on this computer -- only music, movies, porn and games. No personal info, not even any of my manuscripts (which most would consider worthless >_> but I'm paranoid about, heh). The risk is worth having a browser I'm comfortable with.


Do you ever log into your bank from your computer? Use your credit card? Honestly, the stuff that's actually ON your computer is pretty low on the list of things that the folks writing malware are interested in...

Running an obsolete browser on an obsolete OS is a security risk. Yes, if you only go to a select few sites that you believe to be safe, it might be fine. But the truth is, by running NoScript and disabling Java, you're eliminating less than half of the stuff that might infect your system. And that number will only grow if you stay obsolete. And the best part is, with XP, you're going to be dealing with shit that won't typically show up on a routine scan. Good luck :roll:

3. "Improved functionality" is VERY MUCH in the eye of the beholder; I don't want or need any "improved functionality." (The only reason I was even using FF12 was because literally every site stopped working on what I was using, Firefox 3, which remains my favorite release.)


That "increased functionality" is part of the reason the websites you care about work on FF12 and not FF3. Eventually, at least some of them won't work on FF12 anymore either.

5. I tried the "Classic Theme Restorer" during the awful 45-minutes of my life that Firefox 30 was installed on my computer. It's crap and doesn't change the fact that FF29+ is incredibly restricted and impossible to customize in any but the most superficial of ways (ooh, drag and drop buttons, how fancy).

If you can help with the problem I have, I'd be incredibly greatful. Telling me to abandon my desired task and upgrade is not helpful.

(Also, ugh, another problem -- my mousewheel scrolling got screwed up by this ill-advised attempt to upgrade. It's jumping five lines at a time. I tried messing around in about:config, even reducing mousewheel.withnokey.numlines all the way to 1 -- it has absolutely no effect. How and why did installing FF30 so royally fuck up my Firefox, even after downgrading? So frustrating!)

cphite: Any idea how I can access the Firefox theme that's somehow been permanently installed on my computer, so I can nuke it? And more to the point, any idea how to restore the FF12 theme? Would a fresh install after nuking the new theme work? I'm not hopeful. I think I'm just gonna have to end up reinstalling my OS.


Sorry, it's force of habit... when I see something glaringly bad I feel compelled to point it out. It'd be like taking your car in for an oil changing and expecting the mechanic not to mention the four flat tires and the family of raccoons living in the trunk. Sure, that isn't what you took your car in for, but he'd be negligent not to at least say something... :wink:

When you install something, you're basically just running a program that has a list of files and registry entries to create or modify; when you uninstall, you run a program that does the opposite. The problem, as you're experiencing first hand, is that often when you're many, many versions apart, the uninstall program doesn't get rid of enough of the newer version to go back to the earlier version. I realize that sentence sucks, but I think you get the gist of it. Basically, FF30 is different enough from FF12 that the uninstall doesn't remove/restore enough for FF12 to work properly.

What you need to do, most likely, is uninstall Firefox and remove every last shred of it from your system.

Try following the steps here:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/uninstall-firefox-from-your-computer

Also, look in C:\Documents and Settings\<your name>\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\ and delete anything you find before re-installing.

If that doesn't work, you may need to re-install the OS... or learn to accept change. Whichever.

User avatar
King Author
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby King Author » Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:14 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
King Author wrote:*shakes head*
No, no, no and no.

1. Firefox 29+ is closed-source and includes DRM. I refuse to upgrade to that. I'm no Richard Stallman, but I absolutely cannot support EME compliance or closed-source web browsing period.


I see... out of curiosity, is this a stance purely on principle, or do you actually expect your online experience to change as a result of running a closed source, EME compliant browser?


Principle, mostly. Though again, I'm not an extremist like our bearded, samurai-sword-wielding friend. Games, for example, I completely accept as closed-source. I mean, imagine a mystery/puzzle game that's open-source -- people would just look at the code to figure out all the puzzles, how lame! But when it comes to something like a web browser, closed-source is unacceptable. Telecommunications MUST be open-source lest the telecommunications giants encroach on our ability to freely express ideas. Which, of course, they're doing right now!

cphite wrote:
2. I've been using FF12 for these past two years, since it was the newest version. I only browse a tiny handful of known-safe sites, I use NoScript, disable Java and Cookies and everything. I've never had a security problem. Even if I did, there's no valuable data on this computer -- only music, movies, porn and games. No personal info, not even any of my manuscripts (which most would consider worthless >_> but I'm paranoid about, heh). The risk is worth having a browser I'm comfortable with.


Do you ever log into your bank from your computer? Use your credit card? Honestly, the stuff that's actually ON your computer is pretty low on the list of things that the folks writing malware are interested in...


I don't have a credit card or bank account.

cphite wrote:Running an obsolete browser on an obsolete OS is a security risk. Yes, if you only go to a select few sites that you believe to be safe, it might be fine. But the truth is, by running NoScript and disabling Java, you're eliminating less than half of the stuff that might infect your system. And that number will only grow if you stay obsolete. And the best part is, with XP, you're going to be dealing with shit that won't typically show up on a routine scan. Good luck :roll:


I know it's a risk. I don't care. I absolutely, utterly and 100% loathe with all my heart and soul Windows 7. Windows 8 is a mess, never used Vista but heard nothing but bad things, can't get used to Mac OS, tried several times over the years to convert to Linux but it's just too difficult. XP works, it does what I want and nothing more.

Also, pretty big coincidence that a major XP leak was unveiled a few days after official support stopped. I also suspect websites not working with old browsers is artificial -- an attempt to force conversion to newer versions.

cphite wrote:
3. "Improved functionality" is VERY MUCH in the eye of the beholder; I don't want or need any "improved functionality." (The only reason I was even using FF12 was because literally every site stopped working on what I was using, Firefox 3, which remains my favorite release.)


That "increased functionality" is part of the reason the websites you care about work on FF12 and not FF3. Eventually, at least some of them won't work on FF12 anymore either.


And I should stop using a browser I like and start using a browser I hate because at some vague point in the future the sites I use might possibly stop working?

cphite wrote:
5. I tried the "Classic Theme Restorer" during the awful 45-minutes of my life that Firefox 30 was installed on my computer. It's crap and doesn't change the fact that FF29+ is incredibly restricted and impossible to customize in any but the most superficial of ways (ooh, drag and drop buttons, how fancy).

If you can help with the problem I have, I'd be incredibly greatful. Telling me to abandon my desired task and upgrade is not helpful.

(Also, ugh, another problem -- my mousewheel scrolling got screwed up by this ill-advised attempt to upgrade. It's jumping five lines at a time. I tried messing around in about:config, even reducing mousewheel.withnokey.numlines all the way to 1 -- it has absolutely no effect. How and why did installing FF30 so royally fuck up my Firefox, even after downgrading? So frustrating!)

cphite: Any idea how I can access the Firefox theme that's somehow been permanently installed on my computer, so I can nuke it? And more to the point, any idea how to restore the FF12 theme? Would a fresh install after nuking the new theme work? I'm not hopeful. I think I'm just gonna have to end up reinstalling my OS.


Sorry, it's force of habit... when I see something glaringly bad I feel compelled to point it out. It'd be like taking your car in for an oil changing and expecting the mechanic not to mention the four flat tires and the family of raccoons living in the trunk. Sure, that isn't what you took your car in for, but he'd be negligent not to at least say something... :wink:


But there's a difference between pointing something out and berating a point. I'm well aware of the risks using outdated software poses.

cphite wrote:When you install something, you're basically just running a program that has a list of files and registry entries to create or modify; when you uninstall, you run a program that does the opposite. The problem, as you're experiencing first hand, is that often when you're many, many versions apart, the uninstall program doesn't get rid of enough of the newer version to go back to the earlier version. I realize that sentence sucks, but I think you get the gist of it. Basically, FF30 is different enough from FF12 that the uninstall doesn't remove/restore enough for FF12 to work properly.

What you need to do, most likely, is uninstall Firefox and remove every last shred of it from your system.

Try following the steps here:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/uninstall-firefox-from-your-computer

Also, look in C:\Documents and Settings\<your name>\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\ and delete anything you find before re-installing.


I'll try that. Thanks. I'm unhopeful, though, because every time I've ever tried any guide that said "how to COMPLETELY remove X from your computer" it's always a big, fat lie. The Windows Registry alone is apocryphal enough that it's virtually impossible to completely eliminate all traces of a program without a PhD and ten years experience working at Microsoft.

Stupid, negligent designers. Sloppily letting their programs take a big, wet dump all over your files and providing no way to undo it.

cphite wrote:If that doesn't work, you may need to re-install the OS... or learn to accept change. Whichever.


Not loving your tone. My problem isn't an inability to accept change. It's an unwillingness to use awfully-designed software and a resentment of being strong-armed into as much.

I'm a man of principle. I stopped using YouTube altogether after Google merged it with Google+. And you know, I was actually going to try converting to Google+? But I absolutely would not stand for them trying to strong-arm me into using Google+ by subsuming YouTube and cutting off all methods of interacting with the site other than through Plus.

*sigh*

Everything sucks. YouTube used to be awesome, then Google got their grubby mits on it, now it's borderline-unusable. Firefox was the darling of open-source code, and now it's become the very thing it was designed to unseat. (I really, REALLY hope a new browser comes along to do to Firefox what Firefox did to Internet Explorer back in the day.) I even remember the days when GameFAQs was a fun place, until CJayC sold out to IGN or whatever and they corporate-ed it up. And don't get me started on the Oculus Rift. It's not even OUT yet and it's already been ruined. Such a tragedy, too. It was going to be our thing, you know? Now it's just going to be another corporate admachine.

And why? Why does everything on the internet eventually, inevitably go to shit? Corporate greed and individual unprincipled...ness. CJay sold out for money, YouTube sold out for money, the Rift guys sold out for money, Firefox is going closed-source and compling with EME for monetary issues. No matter how passionate you are and how awesome your product is, if the corporations bang on your door and waft billions of dollars under your nose for long enough, you will cave in.

I just wish things were different. I'm so unhappy with the direction technology is taking. Don't even get me started on that supreme court decision. At the risk of sounding sensationalist (as if I didn't already by ranting about "teh c0rporation$"), 2014 seems like the year the internet dies :(

Sorry. Just feeling blue over all this. I'll try nuking FF completely. As completely as it'll let me, anyway. And I'll try out some newer-versions of Firefox, since you're so adamant about it. But I absolutely will go no further than FF28. No matter what, I cannot be complicit with the EME.
I have signitures disabled. If you do, too...you can't read this, so nevermind >_>

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:12 am UTC

You object on principle to closed-source browsers, but you're unwilling to learn how to use Linux?

Whether or not you manage to postpone the inevitable and return to a clean FF12 install this time, it really is inevitable that the sites you use will eventually stop working with that.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
chridd
Has a vermicelli title
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
Location: ...Earth, I guess?
Contact:

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby chridd » Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:40 am UTC

From https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/, it looks like the EME support is only a plugin, and they just added the ability to use the plugin (with Firefox itself remaining open source). It's probably possible to disable it or not install it.
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she · Forum game scores
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...

User avatar
King Author
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby King Author » Sun Jun 29, 2014 9:41 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:You object on principle to closed-source browsers, but you're unwilling to learn how to use Linux?

Whether or not you manage to postpone the inevitable and return to a clean FF12 install this time, it really is inevitable that the sites you use will eventually stop working with that.


Where did I say I refuse to learn Linux? I'd love to learn Linux! I said I tried and failed. I just, just can't even use the damn thing. Tried a dozen distros. The big problem was that I couldn't get networking capabilities up and running -- I was completely unable to connect to the internet. The connection settings were so incredibly complex, and of course since it's Linux, there's no automatic anything, you have to hand-set all settings. I couldn't even figure out what it wanted from me, and nobody online was able to help me (I accessed the internet with a different compy, obviously).

chridd wrote:From https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/, it looks like the EME support is only a plugin, and they just added the ability to use the plugin (with Firefox itself remaining open source). It's probably possible to disable it or not install it.


Irrelevant. Firefox now contains closed-source code. I can't support that.
I have signitures disabled. If you do, too...you can't read this, so nevermind >_>

User avatar
chridd
Has a vermicelli title
Posts: 846
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
Location: ...Earth, I guess?
Contact:

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby chridd » Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:47 pm UTC

King Author wrote:
chridd wrote:From https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/, it looks like the EME support is only a plugin, and they just added the ability to use the plugin (with Firefox itself remaining open source). It's probably possible to disable it or not install it.


Irrelevant. Firefox now contains closed-source code. I can't support that.
No, if I understand correctly, it interacts with a closed-source plugin. It's always done that (e.g., Flash Player). (Unfortunately, I can't install it on my computer to check if it gives the option to not install EME. If not, there might be a version somewhere that doesn't have it, although I haven't found one so far.)
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she · Forum game scores
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...

User avatar
King Author
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby King Author » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:23 am UTC

chridd wrote:
King Author wrote:
chridd wrote:From https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/, it looks like the EME support is only a plugin, and they just added the ability to use the plugin (with Firefox itself remaining open source). It's probably possible to disable it or not install it.


Irrelevant. Firefox now contains closed-source code. I can't support that.
No, if I understand correctly, it interacts with a closed-source plugin. It's always done that (e.g., Flash Player). (Unfortunately, I can't install it on my computer to check if it gives the option to not install EME. If not, there might be a version somewhere that doesn't have it, although I haven't found one so far.)


*shakes head*
Flash is a completely stand-alone thing that you can simply have no traces of on your computer if you choose. EME is being woven into the very fabric of the web. The only hope of stopping it, and the encroaching hand of big brother, is for web browsers to refuse to comply with the standard.

Furthermore, in order to implement EME, Firefox has to include the closed-source code necessary to run it.

Not to mention that that entire post is PR bullshit. Firefox is circling the drain, and EME adoption is the last blow to their credibility. As poorly-designed as Firefox has become, it remained the only totally-open source, DRM-free web browser. Now it can no longer claim that, and they'll say anything to stem the tide of users rushing away from FF and towards Chrome.

Mozilla believes in an open Web that centers around the user and puts them in control of their online experience.

You mean by imposing the un-disablable and fan-loathed Australis UI in FF29? And refusing to go back on it even after the nonstop avalanche of hatred it's generated? Or do you mean by cramming DRM down users throats so Mozilla can keep Netflix support?

Many traditional DRM schemes are challenging because they go against this principle and remove control from the user and yield it to the content industry. Instead of DRM schemes that limit how users can access content they purchased across devices we have long advocated for more modern approaches to managing content distribution such as watermarking. Watermarking works by tagging the media stream with the user’s identity. This discourages copyright infringement without interfering with lawful sharing of content, for example between different devices of the same user.

Mozilla would have preferred to see the content industry move away from locking content to a specific device (so called node-locking), and worked to provide alternatives.


...but we decided to abandon all those beliefs and principles and become party to the end of the internet.

Instead, this approach has now been enshrined in the W3C EME specification. With Google and Microsoft shipping W3C EME and content providers moving over their content from plugins to W3C EME Firefox users are at risk of not being able to access DRM restricted content (e.g. Netflix, Amazon Video, Hulu), which can make up more than 30% of the downstream traffic in North America.

We have come to the point where Mozilla not implementing the W3C EME specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other browsers to watch content restricted by DRM.


That's another thing. I don't USE streaming services! Why should I have to run a closed-source, DRM-packed browser so that other people can watch Netflix?

This makes it difficult for Mozilla to ignore the ongoing changes in the DRM landscape.

Who talks like this? Who literally talks like this? Have you ever spoken to a human being who spoke this way? PR, damage-controlling hogwash.

Firefox should help users get access to the content they want to enjoy, even if Mozilla philosophically opposes the restrictions certain content owners attach to their content.

No, Firefox should do what their fanbase tells them to do. But they don't. (Australis, anyone?)

As a result we have decided to implement the W3C EME specification in our products, starting with Firefox for Desktop. This is a difficult and uncomfortable step for us given our vision of a completely open Web, but it also gives us the opportunity to actually shape the DRM space and be an advocate for our users and their rights in this debate.

Listen to this shit. "We're SO committed to a completely open Web, that we're going to comply with the closing of the Web so we can have a say in how and when it's closed."

Wow. So principled.

The existing W3C EME systems Google and Microsoft are shipping are not open source and lack transparency for the user, two traits which we believe are essential to creating a trustworthy Web.

"Now let us explain exactly how we're going to betray those two beliefs and join Google and Microsoft in the Big Evil Corporation Club."

We have designed an implementation of the W3C EME specification that satisfies the requirements of the content industry while attempting to give users as much control and transparency as possible.

Which is to say, none.

Due to the architecture of the W3C EME specification we are forced to utilize a proprietary closed-source CDM as well.

*gestures*

It's all damage-control, PR nonsense.
"Our Beliefs and Principles are of an Open Web, we believe in belief, and have a strong principle towards principles. We say all the good things that people like, and believe those things, too. And in the name of our noble Beliefs, we're going implement closed-source DRM in Firefox. Because we believe in an open web."

Who even wrote this post? They're saying one thing and doing another. Literally! Right there in the post. "We believe in an open web. Now, here's how we're closing the web."

Firefox does not load this module directly. Instead, we wrap it into an open-source sandbox.

Gee, I wonder why they named it that. Couldn't be that "sandbox" has highly-positive connotations, could it?

As plugins today, the CDM itself will be distributed by Adobe and will not be included in Firefox. The browser will download the CDM from Adobe and activate it based on user consent.

Which would be fine if Firefox itself didn't have to run closed-source code to interact with it. Besides, this is splitting hairs -- 99% of Firefox users are gonna download it. It's a de-facto requirement and inclusion.

While we would much prefer a world and a Web without DRM, our users need it to access the content they want. Our integration with the Adobe CDM will let Firefox users access this content while trying to maximize transparency and user control within the limits of the restrictions imposed by the content industry.

The content industry does not control you! They are not "imposing" anything on you -- they don't have that power! You're complying with them to try and gain back the users you've lost to Chrome!

There is also a silver lining to the W3C EME specification becoming ubiquitous. With direct support for DRM we are eliminating a major use case of plugins on the Web, and in the near future this should allow us to retire plugins altogether. The Web has evolved to a comprehensive and performant technology platform and no longer depends on native code extensions through plugins.

How is that a silver lining? If something comes in plugin form I can decide not to include it on my computer. Anything built into the web is out of my hands.

While the W3C EME-based DRM world is likely to stay with us for a while, we believe that eventually better systems such as watermarking will prevail, because they offer more convenience for the user, which is good for the user, but in the end also good for business. Mozilla will continue to advance technology and standards to help bring about this change.

Not only will Mozilla not continue to do so, it's not doing so in the first place. By complying with EME, they have literally spelled the doom of watermarking and other DRM alternatives. There's zero incentive to develop those technologies, no incentive at all for content providers to embrace them, because they have now truly and wholly won the DRM war! The last holdout, Firefox, has bowed down!

Firefox, as shipped by Mozilla, will continue to be Free Software / Open Source Software.

In the same sense the cars, as shipped by their manufacturers, are 100% pollution-free, because they don't come with gas.

As plugin owners start to migrate from supporting their plugins (for example, Microsoft appears to be ending Silverlight support and Adobe has discontinued Flash for Android), Firefox cannot continue to rely on NPAPI plug-ins for providing video DRM (and thereby allow users to watch movies from major Hollywood studios).

Yeah, 'cause that's what I use a web browser for.

This is all academic anyway. Anyone can get any Hollywood movie via bit torrent. People who want to do that are going to do it regardless of how DRM-packed web browsers become. The vast majority of Netflix et. al. users have no idea how to pirate, so adding DRM to browsers protects no one.

Mozilla’s competitors don’t appear to be letting DRM die together with NPAPI (or ActiveX) plug-ins. In fact, the Encrypted Media Extensions API was developed by Microsoft, Google and Netflix and Microsoft and Google have already implemented EME in their respective browsers.

"Waaah! Our competitors are forcing us to include EME compliance in Firefox. Everybody's being mean to us!"

The ability to watch movies from major Hollywood studios is a feature users value. Netflix alone accounts for fully 1/3 of bandwidth usage in North America during the evening peak time. We expect that many users around the world would switch browsers in pursuit of this ability, or of a better experience, if Firefox provided either no experience or a worse experience (depending on operating system).

This is completely disingenuous. The vast, vast majority of those peak-hour viewers are random people who have no idea how a computer even actually works. If you explained to them the concepts of the open web, DRM and such, I wonder how their opinions would change.

Won’t having to support multiple key servers with mutually incompatible DRM protocols (in order to get cross-browser support) make Web publishing prohibitively expensive for independent publishers?
DRM is a requirement imposed by the major studios onto services that license movies from them. Independent video publishers can avoid the cost of DRM by not imposing a DRM requirement on themselves.


"...so, yes. If independent publishers wanna protect their videos, tough shit. Be a billion-dollar megacorporation, then we'll talk."

Mozilla will develop the CDM host and is planning on making its code open source as is the norm for Mozilla-developed code. However, the CDM will refuse to work if it finds itself in a host that isn’t identical to the Mozilla-shipped CDM host executable. In other words, downstream recipients of the source code for the CDM host won’t be able to exercise the freedom to modify the CDM host without rendering it useless (unless they also make arrangements with Adobe).

In other words, Firefox code is now useless to independent developers. Awesome.

Does this mean applying DRM to HTML?
No, this is about enabling DRM to be applied to video and audio tracks when played using HTML facilities.


The Hairsplit of the Year Award right there.

Mozilla strongly opposes any future expansion in scope of the W3C EME specification.

Wow. A bold, reassuring statement. Or it would be if they hadn't spinelessly caved to EME in the first place. We've seen what Mozilla "strongly opposing" something means -- nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Also, even though record labels gave up on DRM for music files which are sold to users, they still require DRM for music subscription services (that is, services where the user loses the ability to play the music upon terminating the subscription). Support for EME in the <audio> element helps move those services move off NPAPI plug-ins.

I forgot about this. The music industry abandoned DRM and it hasn't been hurt one bit. All this talk about the "necessity" of DRM for the movie industry is patent bunk.

* * *

Whatever. I'm just ranting now 'cause I'm angry. Looks like I'll just have to hope someone creates a DRM-free, open-source browser before pre-EME browsers become completely nonfunctional.
I have signitures disabled. If you do, too...you can't read this, so nevermind >_>

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:09 am UTC

There are already multiple open-source browsers around.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
King Author
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby King Author » Mon Jun 30, 2014 8:41 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:There are already multiple open-source browsers around.


I'm only aware of IE, Chrome, Safari, Opera and Firefox. Opera's dead, IE and Chrome have DRM, Firefox has just gone under. I have no idea about Safari. I literally don't know the first thing about it. But I can't imagine it's immune from all this. Guess I'll look into it.

Unless you're talking about some other browsers I've never heard of?

* * *

Continuing the rant -- with the W3C incorporating EME (which was proposed by Microsoft, Google, et. al.) into the web, they've set a dangerous precedent -- if you're big and powerful enough, you can bully the W3C into doing whatever you want, and alter the course of the internet to your advantage.

I wonder who's foolish enough to think it stops at EME, and we'll never have for-profit intrusion into the W3C again. No, what EME represents is Microsoft and Google taking over the internet, not just in practice as they have been for awhile now (especially Googs), but in literal fact -- the W3C will now do their bidding.

Maybe the next Internet Protocol will have built-in advertisements? Or built-in toll gates? I mean, the justification of the EME is that such DRM is already so prevalent on the web, might as well build it right into the fabric of the net. Ads are commonplace -- why not make them official? And the FCC just gave the telecommunication companies the right to sell "fast track" and "slow track" internet service, so in the coming months and years that'll be commonplace. Why not build toll-gates right into the fabric of the web?

Here's a great idea -- why have a W3C at all? Google essentially controls the internet, the W3C just slows down the process of the corporations controlling what end-users are and aren't allowed to see. It's inevitable, right? So let's just hand the web officially over to Google. And Microsoft and so on. It's not like the spineless FCC is going to do anything to stop them.
I have signitures disabled. If you do, too...you can't read this, so nevermind >_>

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1456
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby Xenomortis » Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:51 am UTC

King Author wrote:Unless you're talking about some other browsers I've never heard of?.

I'm sure you can use search engines as well as the next man to find open source browsers - turns out there are quite a lot!
Although you'll have to do a bit of work to check each browser for things you object to - turns out having principles isn't cheap - and because the marketshare for anything you find will be negligible, it's likely the occasional site will fail badly.
And remember that open source projects tend to favour linux, although at least some should support Windows (probably XP too).

King Author wrote:I also suspect websites not working with old browsers is artificial -- an attempt to force conversion to newer versions.

Having worked as a web developer, I can tell you that being told "you no longer have to support this browser version" is a joyous thing.

King Author wrote:Furthermore, in order to implement EME, Firefox has to include the closed-source code necessary to run it.

As a plugin, that you never need to download and use.


Remember that principles are easy for small companies and lone developers to follow.
It is much harder for large companies to allow their flagship product to fall far behind their competitors because they chose to stand on principles.
Image

User avatar
King Author
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby King Author » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:54 pm UTC

Xenomortis wrote:
King Author wrote:Unless you're talking about some other browsers I've never heard of?.

I'm sure you can use search engines as well as the next man to find open source browsers - turns out there are quite a lot!
Although you'll have to do a bit of work to check each browser for things you object to - turns out having principles isn't cheap - and because the marketshare for anything you find will be negligible, it's likely the occasional site will fail badly.
And remember that open source projects tend to favour linux, although at least some should support Windows (probably XP too).


I've always been aware of such browsers, but I always thought they were basically pet projects slash proofs-of-concept that one couldn't genuinely use as a general-purpose browser. Midori, Aurora or whatever, etc. I always thought they were basically not even intended to actually be used. Guess I'll give them another look.

The only dealbreakers for me are closed-source code and, now, EME compliance. I'm not thrilled with H.246 compliance but I'll accept it. With as much backlash against EME as there is, surely there's at least ONE browser out there whose developers have actively chosen not to support EME based on principle.

Xenomortis wrote:
King Author wrote:I also suspect websites not working with old browsers is artificial -- an attempt to force conversion to newer versions.

Having worked as a web developer, I can tell you that being told "you no longer have to support this browser version" is a joyous thing.


Heh, I do understand that, however, most of the stuff that gets added that requires new browsers is purely aesthetic and fancy-pancy. Email worked perfectly fine in 2004 and wasn't any less secure than it is in 2014. Having to have a modern browser just to use email is B.S. -- if email services didn't have all that fancy-schmance "Web 2.0" nonsense, older browsers would work fine.

Xenomortis wrote:
King Author wrote:Furthermore, in order to implement EME, Firefox has to include the closed-source code necessary to run it.

As a plugin, that you never need to download and use.


Yeah, apparently I was wrong about forced inclusion. So one could, theoretically, still use Firefox, just not download the DRM thing, and it'd be okay. But we're walking a fine, fine line here.

But regardless, all the problems with Firefox's EME adoption are still valid. It marks Hollywood's victory in the DRM wars, it destroys all incentive to develop DRM-alternatives like watermarking, it confirms that Microsoft and Google and such can bully the W3C into doing whatever they want. Even if I as an individual could still ethically use Firefox (though I won't anyway 'cause I loathe Australis, and can afford to choose my browser based on principle), that doesn't change the fact that Firefox caving to EME marks the first page in a very dark chapter in the story of the internet. A story which I now firmly believe has a definitive end, which I will see in my lifetime.

Xenomortis wrote:Remember that principles are easy for small companies and lone developers to follow.
It is much harder for large companies to allow their flagship product to fall far behind their competitors because they chose to stand on principles.


Not supporting EME wouldn't be allowing Firefox to fall far behind their competitiors. First of all Firefox's marketshare is already hovering around 20% just from their poor design choices and Chrome's ease-of-use, so it's not like we're talking about dropping from #1 to #50, we're talking about dropping from #48 to #50 at worst. A minor setback.

Secondly, despite it, that 20% marketshare isn't negligable to streaming content providers. If Mozilla refused to adopt EME, Netflix et. al. would have an incentive to develop alternative DRM that would be acceptable to Mozilla's principles.

Third, uh, hello? One could use Mozilla for general-purpose browsing and another browser just for streaming services. There's no rule that says you're only allowed to have one browser on your computer.

And additionally, see what I said about the disingenuousness of the numbers game Mozilla is playing. "1/3 of evening time broadband use is streaming services like Hulu, Netflix etc."

That 1/3 is only at a particular time of day.
It's across all devices (i.e. Xbox, PS4, tablets, smartphones in addition to computers).
It's across all OSes and browsers.

It's not as if 1 out of every 3 Firefox users spends 7~9 PM five nights a week on Netflix. Once you take into account all the platforms and such, maybe 1 out of every 20 Firefox users are Netflixing at peak hours. Most of those people are on their tablets and gaming consoles (I personally don't know a single person who streams to their compy; they all use their Xboxes and iPads).

So again, EME-noncompliance wouldn't equate the vast majority of Firefox users abandoning Firefox or even being inconvenienced.

More to the point, Firefox's own userbase has responded negatively to EME adoption, as they did to Australis, but Mozilla simply doesn't care. They're not listening. They're so high up in their ivory tower they've become completely and utterly out-of-touch with their users, and don't take their stated wishes into account.

I've decided. I'm abandoning Firefox. If they remove EME compliance and utterly abandon Australis, I'll come back. But I'm not holding my breath.

(Also...
*deep sigh*
...I guess I'll give Linux another shot.
*rubs temples*
This is not going to be fun.)
I have signitures disabled. If you do, too...you can't read this, so nevermind >_>

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:42 am UTC

It's not like insecure outdated versions of more popular browsers are very good at general purpose browsing, either, even if it were true that the open source options weren't.

As for Linux, I've had trouble getting wifi set up since it's never worked for me "out of the box", but I've also never found it to be a problem I couldn't solve by plugging in ethernet and downloading the driver I needed. After that, general purpose internet use has always been as easy as you could want.

Of course, Linux stuff isn't always pretty, so your apparently rigid hangups about browser UI might mean it's not really your thing even if you can get it online.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
King Author
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby King Author » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:33 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:It's not like insecure outdated versions of more popular browsers are very good at general purpose browsing, either, even if it were true that the open source options weren't.


Shrugs. I've never had a problem with Firefox 12.

gmalivuk wrote:As for Linux, I've had trouble getting wifi set up since it's never worked for me "out of the box", but I've also never found it to be a problem I couldn't solve by plugging in ethernet and downloading the driver I needed. After that, general purpose internet use has always been as easy as you could want.


I couldn't even figure out what drivers I was supposed to be looking for. Since there's fifty bajillion Linux distros, many of which have very regular and very minor updates, I spent hours sifting through how-to guides and dozens of websites hosting hundreds of drivers. In the end, I decided it wasn't worth the headache.

gmalivuk wrote:Of course, Linux stuff isn't always pretty, so your apparently rigid hangups about browser UI might mean it's not really your thing even if you can get it online.


I liked the look of several of the distros I tried. Puppy Linux was fine, Gnome and Ubuntu were fine, I can't remember the names of any of the others I tried, this was three or four years ago. Granted, I had trouble getting used to no Start Menu and no "C:/" at the beginning of windows address paths.

My main hangup is with "user-friendly" "Web 2.0" ish crap. Especially when, in the name of "ease of use," options and customization are hidden from or taken away from the end-user. Which is why I hate Windows 7 so passionately -- it's a "pretty" Windows XP with half the customization options taken away, presumably so as not to confuse old people that Microsoft imagines are baffled by these dangee moving picture boxes.

It's gonna be a headache. I've heard stirrings of several godawful UI rollouts in the Linux world recently. I'm going to need help. A lot of help. Guess I'll make a topic.
I have signitures disabled. If you do, too...you can't read this, so nevermind >_>

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:49 am UTC

So you don't like design changes made with "ease of use" in mind, but you don't use Linux because it's not easy enough to use?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
King Author
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby King Author » Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:42 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:So you don't like design changes made with "ease of use" in mind, but you don't use Linux because it's not easy enough to use?


I always put quotation marks around "ease of use" so as to imply that it's anything but. When they SAY "easy-to-use" or "intuitive" (<- a word I've come to DESPISE, a word that's a red flag signaling godawful UI design), what they really mean is "we're taking power and customzation away from the end-user so as not to confuse old people." I mean, for godsake, they took stuff out of ABOUT:CONFIG in FF29! How can they possibly justify that? How is removing stuff from about:config, which most people don't even know exists, "improving usability?" Insanity.

Also, Linux is at the far, far, far end of difficult-to-get-used-to, so it's a bad example for the point you're trying to make. I signed up for a large Linux forum the last time I tried to convert, and everyone admitted that Linux has a massively steep learning curve, and generally had a very "I feel for ya, bro" attitude towards my trivails.
I have signitures disabled. If you do, too...you can't read this, so nevermind >_>

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby Jorpho » Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:08 am UTC

Two words: Portable Firefox. You can download almost any version you like, unzip it anywhere you like, and in theory it will happily operate independently of anything else you may or may not have done to your system.

Another useful solution is to start Firefox from the command line with the -p switch, which will start up the Profile Manager that will, in theory, let you create a fresh new profile with default settings independently of anything else you may or may not have done to your system.

Also, I'm sure there's someone out there who has probably already compiled an "EME Free!" version of Firefox, if there is in fact something concrete to be removed. (Perhaps you've heard of IceWeasel, a build created because someone thought the trademarked nature of the FireFox name rendered it sufficiently impure for inclusion in some distro or another?)

And lastly, Opera's not dead; they've simply switched to the Webkit rendering engine rather than using their own. Chrome and Safari are also Webkit-based, as are numerous other open-source browsers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_we ... bKit-based .

User avatar
eviloatmeal
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:39 am UTC
Location: Upside down in space!
Contact:

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby eviloatmeal » Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:31 am UTC

Jorpho wrote:Also, I'm sure there's someone out there who has probably already compiled an "EME Free!" version of Firefox, if there is in fact something concrete to be removed.

There must be, right? With that many people involved in using and tinkering with it, surely one of them has had this idea. I wonder if that's true for Chrome as well. Might be worth looking into for the future.

King Author wrote:Heh, I do understand that, however, most of the stuff that gets added that requires new browsers is purely aesthetic and fancy-pancy.

It's actually not so much a question of the fancy new things that get added, but the fact that for the longest time browsers just didn't speak the same language at all. There was no such thing as "standards" or "compliance" in practice. It was all dirty hacks and tedious boilerplate to get the simplest things to look consistent across multiple browsers.

I'm not a web developer, but I've played around with it enough to encounter things such as:

Spoiler:
Telling the browser what kind of language you are trying to speak, for HTML4:

Code: Select all

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

Basically you have to give the browser a link to the grammar book just to stop it from making up its own language, and it's a thousand line text file that describes all the elements and how they're supposed to work, and it's a messy line that you have to paste at the top of every page.

For HTML5:

Code: Select all

<!DOCTYPE html>

Yup, that's it. You just tell the browser one thing; you're speaking HTML. The browser should know what this means, because HTML5 shouldn't be particularly ambiguous.

Other horrifying stuff, such as:
Copied this example from here.

Code: Select all

<!--[if IE 6]>
<script src="DD_belatedPNG.js"></script>
<script>
  DD_belatedPNG.fix('.png');
</script>
<![endif]-->

Which is a conditional comment that only gets read by IE6, and gives it a javascript script which helps it figure out what to do with PNG images.

And this crazy mess to make something transparent in various browsers:
Copied this example from here.

Code: Select all

.transparent {
   /* Required for IE 5, 6, 7 */
   /* ...or something to trigger hasLayout, like zoom: 1; */
   width: 100%;
      
   /* Theoretically for IE 8 & 9 (more valid) */   
   /* ...but not required as filter works too */
   /* should come BEFORE filter */
   -ms-filter:"progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(Opacity=50)";
   
   /* This works in IE 8 & 9 too */
   /* ... but also 5, 6, 7 */
   filter: alpha(opacity=50);
   
   /* Older than Firefox 0.9 */
   -moz-opacity:0.5;
   
   /* Safari 1.x (pre WebKit!) */
   -khtml-opacity: 0.5;
   
   /* Modern!
   /* Firefox 0.9+, Safari 2?, Chrome any?
   /* Opera 9+, IE 9+ */
   opacity: 0.5;
}

Yes, all that just to make an element transparent.

The first block seems to be a hack to make old IE browsers a little less grumpy. The next block seems to be some IE-specific way to make transparency. The third block does the same, this one might be redundant. The fourth one is only for old Firefox browsers. Five is only for old Safari browsers, and finally the sixth block is the "proper" way to do it, for every other browser.

Thus, when a client / boss says, for example "you can stop supporting IE 5 / 6 / 7", you no longer have to add that entire first or third block of stuff into your projects, which is a relief, because it might be one less thing that is prone to break in very confusing and hard-to-diagnose ways.

That example might be a little bit exaggerated, but I have come across situations where I have had to do this in practice:

Code: Select all

.transparent {
    -moz-opacity: 0.5;
    -webkit-opacity: 0.5;
    opacity: 0.5;

the -moz- to force Firefox to work, the -webkit- one to make Webkit browsers work, and the plain one for anything that could understand it, and finally, just simply saying "screw it, I can't be bothered acknowledging that IE7 exists".
(Trigger warning: Ugly HTML/CSS inside.I mean, spoilered for length.)

So it's really not a question of "let's include this cool new feature that doesn't work in older browsers", it's very much the case of "we can finally stop doing these crazy MacGuyver things to make stuff that should just work, actually work, in older browsers". For the longest time, just making a website render on current browsers was a lot of boilerplate and ugly tricks, and when getting into actually developing back-ends, I imagine a few cases of "// here be dragons" - meaning code which isn't fully understood, and may break a wave of things if you change it.
*** FREE SHIPPING ENABLED ***
Image
Riddles are abound tonightImage

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby Diemo » Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:32 am UTC

How is removing stuff from about:config, which most people don't even know exists, "improving usability?"


How is it not? Persumably that stuff is now somewhere which people know exists.
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

FLHerne
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 9:44 pm UTC

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby FLHerne » Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:59 pm UTC

Diemo wrote:How is it not? Persumably that stuff is now somewhere which people know exists.

You...seem to have missed quite a lot of internet fury. :roll:

They removed (totally) any direct access to a whole range of customisation options, making it almost impossible to sanely configure the interface without extensions. All the features are still there of course, and accessible to addons, but with their about:config switches arbitrarily removed. :x

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby cphite » Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:09 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:As for Linux, I've had trouble getting wifi set up since it's never worked for me "out of the box", but I've also never found it to be a problem I couldn't solve by plugging in ethernet and downloading the driver I needed. After that, general purpose internet use has always been as easy as you could want.


I couldn't even figure out what drivers I was supposed to be looking for. Since there's fifty bajillion Linux distros, many of which have very regular and very minor updates, I spent hours sifting through how-to guides and dozens of websites hosting hundreds of drivers. In the end, I decided it wasn't worth the headache.


Check out Linux Mint at http://www.linuxmint.com/download.php - I recommend the MATE desktop variation. You can stick it on a bootable USB stick and run it from there, rather than actually installing it, in order to check it out first. The look and feel is more "Windows-ish" than many other distros.

Based on the things you say you use your computer for - web browsing, listening to music, watching videos, and writing what I am assuming are manifestos of some sort (kidding!) it should work out nicely. It's extremely secure, and very stable. And you might be pleasantly surprised at the performance you gain on an XP-era machine.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby cphite » Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:49 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
If that doesn't work, you may need to re-install the OS... or learn to accept change. Whichever.


Not loving your tone. My problem isn't an inability to accept change. It's an unwillingness to use awfully-designed software and a resentment of being strong-armed into as much.


Hate to break this to you, but most of those awfully-designed software changes are the result of developers responding to consumer demand. Software developers don't just throw in changes because fuck the users, let's watch them squirm... well, okay we do sometimes but not for popular stuff like browsers.

Things change. Hardware changes. Tablets are the new thing, so developers are putting more and more emphasis on design that works on a desktop or a tablet for example; it's just too expensive to support multiple formats. Stuff like DRM is being included because all those pesky artists and their producers have the audacity to demand that they be paid for what they've produced.

In short, the web is a constantly changing environment. And honestly... your claim that you aren't adverse to change is not supported by all of your ranting about change.

I'm a man of principle. I stopped using YouTube altogether after Google merged it with Google+. And you know, I was actually going to try converting to Google+? But I absolutely would not stand for them trying to strong-arm me into using Google+ by subsuming YouTube and cutting off all methods of interacting with the site other than through Plus.


What in the HELL are you talking about? Sorry if that comes across as rude but... what in the HELL are you talking about? You can access YouTube without a Google+ account. If you choose to sign in to YouTube, your account is now handled by Google - so what? How does that actually change anything about using YouTube?

I understand standing on principle; but I'm having a hard time figuring out just what principle you're standing on... the fact that the screen says "Google" when you sign into your YouTube account?

Everything sucks. YouTube used to be awesome, then Google got their grubby mits on it, now it's borderline-unusable.


In what way? How has it actually changed, aside from having better frame rates?

Firefox was the darling of open-source code, and now it's become the very thing it was designed to unseat. (I really, REALLY hope a new browser comes along to do to Firefox what Firefox did to Internet Explorer back in the day.)


Firefox is still open source... the only change is that it now interacts with third-party programs that aren't open source, because otherwise the folks who use Firefox (besides you) would be unable to access large swaths of online content. The good people at Mozilla decided "Hey, since a whole hunk of our users want to play protected movies and such, maybe we ought to... you know... make that work?" And it was agreed that that was a good idea.

I even remember the days when GameFAQs was a fun place, until CJayC sold out to IGN or whatever and they corporate-ed it up.


Yeah... it's just too bad the developers couldn't keep working for free forever...

And don't get me started on the Oculus Rift. It's not even OUT yet and it's already been ruined. Such a tragedy, too. It was going to be our thing, you know? Now it's just going to be another corporate admachine.


Ruined how, exactly? Did you really think this thing was going to just be developed and given away, I dunno... to be nice? Bunch of developers and financiers got together and said "Hey, we have this $90 million just sitting here... let's make this awesome thing and then just give it away!!"

Well, maybe some of them DID say that, but if so, they were promptly fired.

And why? Why does everything on the internet eventually, inevitably go to shit? Corporate greed and individual unprincipled...ness. CJay sold out for money, YouTube sold out for money, the Rift guys sold out for money, Firefox is going closed-source and compling with EME for monetary issues. No matter how passionate you are and how awesome your product is, if the corporations bang on your door and waft billions of dollars under your nose for long enough, you will cave in.


Once the GameFAQs website became enormously popular, it was only a matter of time... it costs money to host a high-volume website. Same goes for YouTube, the more videos they had, and the more users watching those videos, it was only a matter of time before you need serious money just to keep it up and running. Firefox isn't "going closed source" they're simply working with new technologies that are required for them to serve their user base at large.

I just wish things were different. I'm so unhappy with the direction technology is taking. Don't even get me started on that supreme court decision. At the risk of sounding sensationalist (as if I didn't already by ranting about "teh c0rporation$"), 2014 seems like the year the internet dies :(


The internet will be fine; the effects of the net neutrality thing have been massively overblown.

Sorry. Just feeling blue over all this. I'll try nuking FF completely. As completely as it'll let me, anyway. And I'll try out some newer-versions of Firefox, since you're so adamant about it. But I absolutely will go no further than FF28. No matter what, I cannot be complicit with the EME.


In all serious, do you even know what "the EME" actually means?

Basically, all Firefox did was allow people to access content that is protected by EME. You aren't required to access that content; hell, you aren't even required to install the plugin that does it. They've simply given you the option to do so.

I honestly don't see why this is objectionable.

EvanED
Posts: 4331
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:28 am UTC
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Firefox won't properly downgrade.

Postby EvanED » Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:07 pm UTC

I'm not King Author and not interested in getting into most of this debate, but I enjoy complaining, so... :-)
cphite wrote:What in the HELL are you talking about? Sorry if that comes across as rude but... what in the HELL are you talking about? You can access YouTube without a Google+ account. If you choose to sign in to YouTube, your account is now handled by Google - so what? How does that actually change anything about using YouTube?

I understand standing on principle; but I'm having a hard time figuring out just what principle you're standing on... the fact that the screen says "Google" when you sign into your YouTube account?
To be fair, the G+ integration is incredibly annoying, particularly the fact that Google's programmers seem to have deliberately programmed their cloud with Alzheimer's for some reason, and thus it keeps pestering you to "use your real name" "no I don't want to use my real name" "c'mon use your real name" "no" "are you sure???" "it sounds like you're getting desperate" "is that giving in I sense" "go jump into Mount Doom, please" "after use your real name."

In what way? How has it actually changed, aside from having better frame rates?
Better framerates aside from the times the player decides to stop working entirely. It's gotten a bit better from its low point, but for quite a while I had common problems, on multiple browsers on multiple computers, with basic things like seeking. Or I'd hit the replay button and it would give an error. And that's not even getting into the annoying thing they did where they stopped letting videos actually, you know, load before playing. A few years back it was common for me to pre-load a couple videos to watch on the bus ride to or from work. Just open up the page a while before leaving, pause the video when it starts playing, and then go watch it while disconnected. You can't do that now. Now you have to resort to youtube-dl.


Return to “The Help Desk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests