![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My main Firefox browser that I use at work, which is on an ESR update channel, was finally updated from a pre-Quantum version to version 60.
I found that there is actually a way to get back a status bar, for displaying URLs when hovering over links, rather than having the URLs pop up and disappear:
http://www.optimiced.com/en/2018/02/11/restore-status-bar-in-firefox-quantum/
It sounds like there's even a way to put add-on buttons on the status bar too. But I haven't tried this yet, so I'm not sure:
https://www.reddit.com/r/FirefoxCSS/comments/8bfxji/been_trying_to_revive_the_addon_bar_statuspanel/
Hmmm. I'll need to see if there's a way of changing the status bar color. I don't like it being gray.
I found that there is actually a way to get back a status bar, for displaying URLs when hovering over links, rather than having the URLs pop up and disappear:
http://www.optimiced.com/en/2018/02/11/restore-status-bar-in-firefox-quantum/
It sounds like there's even a way to put add-on buttons on the status bar too. But I haven't tried this yet, so I'm not sure:
https://www.reddit.com/r/FirefoxCSS/comments/8bfxji/been_trying_to_revive_the_addon_bar_statuspanel/
Hmmm. I'll need to see if there's a way of changing the status bar color. I don't like it being gray.
Mozilla/Firefox did it again
Date: 2018-09-16 08:11 am (UTC)From:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1455601
"Since the release of Firefox 57, we are seeing AutoConfig being used by bad actors. Because of that, we are going to be sandboxing AutoConfig to only its original API in Rapid Release version 62. We are not sandboxing on the ESR."
As this comment mentions, that means a lot of tweaks are no longer possible, unless there's some other workaround (but if there is, it probably won't be allowed for long either):
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1455601#c11
I had started thinking that if this status bar tweak works, I might consider using FF as my main browser again. But now I'm exasperated. I finally find a way to get one thing that used to work, working again, but in its place another thing is taken away. I'd have to stay on the ESR channel, just to have my new tab page work like I want it to. Or maybe the Developer version; I'm not clear if that one has the restriction or not. This is ridiculous.
Re: Mozilla/Firefox did it again
Date: 2018-09-16 08:46 am (UTC)From:Tustamido also campaigned for AutoConfig to remain unsandboxed in Nightly, Betas and so on, but no one ever said if it would be or not. I'd continue to pursue workarounds for Nightly or Betas but I just don't see myself jumping backward for an ESR (I'm already using Waterfox just to edit CSS because tools I'm comfortable using/that do what I want literally don't exist outside of it, and Waterfox is slow/insecure/backwards enough as it is. It's actually really awful).
Re: Mozilla/Firefox did it again
Date: 2018-09-16 06:32 pm (UTC)From:Per this page:
https://malwaretips.com/threads/firefox-quantum-v62-0-released.86481/
There is currently a flag (general.config.sandbox_enabled) to disable the sandboxing, but it's temporary and won't be supported for long.
I will probably keep FF ESR as a secondary browser (I'd been using the pre-quantum ESR for that but now I can at least update it to the latest ESR), and Waterfox as my primary. I like Waterfox and haven't had issues with it; my main concern with it is that it doesn't get the security updates as quick. But that's a risk I'm willing to take as long as FF keeps being annoying like this.
Re: Mozilla/Firefox did it again
Date: 2018-09-17 04:21 am (UTC)From:Re: liking Waterfox, I might too if I'd never moved on to using Quantum (which I started doing pretty much as soon as it came out, if not sooner (I can't recall now if I grabbed any Betas or Nightlys before it did)).
I didn't realize Waterfox was slow except by comparison. Quantum's so fast it makes Waterfox look like a turtle. Maybe on better hardware, though, its slowdowns/bottlenecks/general lagginess might not be as noticeable.
Re: security on Waterfox, that's why I keep it strictly for DW coding (mostly while logged out) - I figure me and the browser just can't get into too much trouble right here. :)
Re: Mozilla/Firefox did it again
Date: 2018-09-18 12:23 am (UTC)From:Edit: in my first swipe through Google I found the Beta release notes: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/62.0beta/releasenotes/ which say the same thing official release notes do about the flag, so are we supposed to create the flag ourselves? The way it's worded on both pages I thought it was already baked in.
Edit 2: they haven't updated their official FAQ, either, to explain AutoConfig's soon to be limited to ESR, only: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customizing-firefox-using-autoconfig
Edit 3: created the flag (New > Boolean), set it to true, created a Chrome folder and userChrome.css using these instructions: https://www.howtogeek.com/334716/how-to-customize-firefoxs-user-interface-with-userchrome.css/, then copied/pasted the CSS from the first link in your top post into it and it worked. Immediately disabled the flag, restarted Firefox, and the userchrome.css is still working, so apparently userChrome.css isn't dependent on AutoConfig.
I was going to put off messing with Firefox internal CSS (I have a hundred linkposts I'm clearly never going to make) but wondering if userChrome.css is dependent on AutoConfig to work just blew that idea to bits. At least now I've got that answer. Now I might as well see how the add-on icon CSS works, since I'm in there anyhow.
Re: Mozilla/Firefox did it again
Date: 2018-09-18 03:53 am (UTC)From:It's odd that they named the flag "general.config.sandbox_enabled", when by default without the flag, sandboxing is supposed to now be enabled. So I guess one has to add it and set it to false, to disable it. But it sounds like in the Beta version which you are using, it has no effect either way... or maybe the CSS that you used isn't affected by it, if the CSS only includes tweaks still supported by the API.
Re: Mozilla/Firefox did it again
Date: 2018-09-18 05:05 am (UTC)From:The JS and CSS in the first link in your top post didn't work, but for some reason this identical JS did (I've done a line-by-line comparison and can't find any errors in the first. I could run an actual diff but don't _think_ I have to?): https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/8kxpbc/is_there_any_extension_that_can_create_a_status/dzbzw9v/ (parent: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/8kxpbc/is_there_any_extension_that_can_create_a_status/) Edit: ran a diff but it just brought up spacing and comment variations that shouldn't affect the result.
It looks like the instructions there are incomplete so I got the JS at the second link to work only by accident by adding and deleting other files before I added the bottombar JS: you need that and the CSS they give you, but you also need an XML file found here: https://github.com/nuchi/firefox-quantum-userchromejs
(and you might also need the userChrome.js file found there, but until I can clear Fx script cache a few more times, I won't know for sure!)edit: you don't need it, actually, just the JS, CSS and XML files mentioned are needed.Screen cap, with a few add-on icons dragged over for demo purposes: https://intoolate.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/bottombar.png
Turns out AutoConfig and userChrome.css can control very similar things so maybe that's why people get them mixed up: https://www.userchrome.org/what-is-userchrome-js.html. As far as I can tell one seems to have no dependency on the other, while AutoConfig can do things like set browser preferences that I'm thinking userChrome can't.
Re: Mozilla/Firefox did it again
Date: 2018-09-19 03:32 am (UTC)From:Re: Mozilla/Firefox did it again
Date: 2018-09-19 06:28 am (UTC)From: