I wish it was a bit more aggressive. For that I have an additional plugin ClearURLs (as linked by someone else in the replies BTW), but don’t know if its actually better or not.

Hmm thinking about it, maybe it does not run the updated code. Ah, got it. Normally when you update Firefox, then try to open a webpage in the “old version” that is currently running in memory, then you can’t show the page; one MUST restart in order to use Firefox further. So this change maybe changes this “forced restart”. This is probably more inline with the other programs in your system, that you can still use and need to restart in order to use the new version. Which makes totally sense. It’s not what I thought, but it probably is.

Firefox 141.0 also no longer requires a forced restart after an update has been applied by a package manager.

As an Archlinux based user, I appreciate this.

Unless its coded with JavaScript (me mocking the date function). Not that I am a JavaScript programmer, I just happen to know its totally broken.

Could someone explain what’s going on with this comment and why its upvoted so much? It’s a genuine question. What’s wrong with his phone (and how do you know what he uses)?

Firefox literally supports tech that Google tries to get rid off, such as ad blockers and Manifest v2. I do not think that Google pays Mozilla to do what they want, its just for the default search engine (which can be changed anytime anyway). Unless your point is proven, I put it in conspiracy category (nothing wrong about talking conspiracies, I do this myself too). It’s just important to have a distinction between facts and opinions.

I know the title itself will result in a ban

We are not in Reddit my dude. Criticizing something in a productive way without being toxic should never be banned, even if the moderators disagree with your opinion (I assume).

I am a diehard Firefox user since its inception at version 1! And admittely there are couple of problems, especially with the company itself. Even me thinks about switching to a fork, but I still want to keep using the Firefox eco system and dislike the idea of a Chrome based browser.

I am responding to your points. These are no personal attacks or like that and I hope you take my points to heart as I did yours and treat with respect. Just because you encountered some troublesome people in the past does not mean I am one too. I am criticizing some of your critique (and agree on some).

1. the design is shittier every iteration.

It’s not that bad for me and it looks similar good to all other browsers. But I am also a person who make modifications in the default configuration and even go so far as to change settings via userChrome.css (no this has nothing to do with the Chrome browser, its just named like that). But your argumentation is understandable here.

2. the tech behind the design is shittier every iteration.

I don’t understand this point much. On my system the theme uses “System theme – auto”, which will make it look exactly like what the operating system decides to look for all applications. If you make changes to your operating systems theme, then this should be reflected in Firefox. And this is the correct default configuration every browser should do in my opinion. If you want some specialized settings that look different in your browser, then you have the ability to use other themes.

How does the system theme make Firefox unusable? Are all other applications using the system theme unusable too?? So as said, I don’t get the problem here.

Moz again went full god mode and make all decisions for you

Not really. It uses what YOU have decided to use your operating system.

3. the people behind the tech behind the design are shit.

This is just an insult point without explaining anything. This is one of those points that could lead to a ban. And that would be a good reason to! If you do not criticize with respect, then you won’t get respect either. Do not insult and then say you got banned.

4. the company behind the people behind the tech behind the design is shit by definition.

By your definition. There are good and bad things of the design people. And we are talking about the designers here right? Not the management. The management of the main company Mozilla is awful, I agree. And the decisions the Firefox team makes are sometimes bad too. So I don’t think putting all of them together into one bucket and insult them is a productive comment.

Removing an extension should not have a huge impact on the RAM usage. I assume Outlook in the browser just requires a lot of RAM. Browsers and huge browser apps require ton of RAM, that sounds normal to me. Especially if you have lot of RAM, then Firefox will make use of that more, because a lot is available. That ensures a fast operation. Reducing the RAM usage might cause Firefox to cache data on the filesystem, then it will get slower, if it really needs that much RAM.

For testing purposes create a new fresh Firefox profile, which is basically what you get when you install Firefox new without your personal configuration and extensions. Try using Outlook in a fresh profile. Also try a different browser that is not based on Firefox (in example Brave) to see if it requires that much RAM too. This way we know if its because of the App, because of your profile or because of Firefox.

Dolphin filemanager from KDE. Nowadays I default to “compact” view without “preview” enabled. This is similar to “Icon” view, but the icons are small. Lot of files scrolls horizontal instead vertical.

• filenames in compact mode can be longer in one line, which is kind of similar to the look as “details” view, but are all displayed in a multiple rows instead one row
• preview disabled, because this is extremely fast, as I have ton of files that do not even have a preview image

That’s my default. Occasionally I enable preview image and switch to bigger “icon” view when I look into images or videos. Or sometimes I enable “details” view when needed. In normal usage I don’t need the details anyway.

Yes, I use shellcheck in the editor. Its pretty useful. But running (a little bit more complex commands) in the terminal directly won’t help with shellcheck. That’s why I also have a functionality to directly load and edit the current command in the terminal in (Neo)vim and edit and when closing Vim the command gets executed. The benefit doing this is getting checked by shellcheck in the editor and also it makes it easier to one-off complex commands.

Thanks to shellcheck I got in the habbit to always enclose variables in ${var}. And recently learned from a community member that using [[ expr ]] style has basically no downsides against using [ expr ] directly.

If you want to do a Bash like management and programming, that is not dramatically different but fixes some irritations, then Fish is an alternative. Obviously it will not fix all issues, but there is no paradigm shift in handling streams. nushell is dramatically different and at that point, I would rather use a programming language to do the stuff. Speaking of programming language, there is also Xonsh (basically Python+Bash like combination as a system shell).

All these alternatives have a singular big flaw to me: they are not the standard tools on the system, which defeats the purpose of a system shell to me. In the end, without changing the core system that these shells are built on, I don’t think its possible to make a really well made language that interoperates on system level like a shell does at the moment.

That’s the reason why I got a bit more into Bash to understand some flaws, to understand how to use regexes inside Bash and variable substitutions and a few other concepts that are very useful to know. But man… there are so many traps… like looping over a wildcard for files (such as for file in *.txt) and if the wildcard does not match, then the loop consists of the wildcard as a literal word as if “*.txt” was a filename. What a stupid idea. There is an option to change that, but that’s the issue. The language is filled with traps and optional options and you have to know all of them.

Edit: Added example code why default behavior sucks:

$ for file in *.ABCD; do echo "${file}"; done
*.ABCD
shopt -s nullglob
$ for file in *.ABCD; do echo "${file}"; done

The difference is:

• robots.txt is a promise without a door
• Anubis is a physical closed door, that opens up after some time

The quoted image does not say so, they do not say the native packaging from your distribution is borderline unusable. That judgement was added by YOU. The devs just state the package on Archlinux is not officially supported, without making a judgement (at least in the quoted image).

As for the Fedora issue, that is a completely different thing. That is also Flatpak, so its not the package format itself the issue. Fedora did package the application in Flatpak their own way and presented it as the official product. That is a complete different issue! That has nothing to do with Archlinux packaging their own native format. Archlinux never said or presented it as the official package either and it does not look like the official Flatpak version.

So where does the developers say that anything that is not their official Flatpak package is “borderline unusable”?

And then there is software like OBS, which is known for being borderline unusable when not using the only officially supported way to use it on Linux outside of Ubuntu – which is Flatpak.

But why is that? I mean just because it is packaged by someone else does not mean its unusable. So its not the package formats issue, but your distribution packaging it wrong. Right? In installed the Flatpak version, because they developers recommended it to me. I’m not sure why the Archlinux package should be unusable (and I don’t want to mess around with it, because I don’t know what part is unusable).

Those mystical average people would probably stay on Windows, if they don’t care or cannot learn basics of other systems. Its really not hard to explain and understand, even for “average person” that there is an universal source for applications and there are packages designed and managed by your operating system. I think its important for people to learn basics and we should teach them, not dumb them down like on Windows. Soon people won’t be able to eat themselves anymore…

Flatpak have their own set of issues. One thing is, that Flatpak applications do not integrate that easily and perfect like a native package. Either rights are to given, you need to know what rights are needed and how to set it up. Theming can be an issue, because it uses its own libraries in the Flatpak eco system instead your current distributions theme and desktop environment.

But on the other hand, they have actually a permission system and are a little bit sandbox compared to normal applications. Packages often are distributed quickly and are up to date directly from the developers, and usually are not installed with root rights.

I’m pretty much a CLI guy as well and prefer native packages (Arch based, plus the AUR). But I also use Flatpaks for various reasons, alongside with AppImages.

I like get triggered. This reminds me that I’m alive.

I think before this happens, a company would purchase Oracle, because all the tech they have. Oracle has a lot of enterprise and database stuff that I’m not familiar with. The only thing that counts to me is Java. So which companies has the money and knowledge and interest to buy Java rights?

I’m not sure if this would be a good idea, but I can see Google to buy Java. The Android system is based on Java and they need the stability of the rights to not get in conflict with Oracle or any other company again. Also this would give Java some better development I guess.

Beyond raw horsepower, 7-Zip quietly tightens its handling of several legacy formats. Support for ZIP, CcPIO, and FAT archives has been refined, smoothing edge-case extractions that previously required third-party tools.

Over the years there was a few .zip archives that 7z could not handle for whatever reason. For these cases I had to use another application, but don’t know the reason. And my bad to not keeping copies of these files for future testing.

I use Thunderbird for a decade, not sure maybe less, but it feels like a long time. I use Thunderbird exclusively for mail. But feels like this is the wrong place to ask, isn’t it?

Also Thunderbird is Mozilla’s most successful product. Meaning it is self sustainable.