Firefox 98 released
Posted Mar 9, 2022 5:52 UTC (Wed)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Mar 9, 2022 6:33 UTC (Wed)
by firasha (guest, #4230)
[Link] (8 responses)
I don't think that's true, at least according to Mozilla's Manage Downloads preferences using the Downloads menu panel page. See the section I want to configure a different behavior for some files. How do I do that without the dialog?: "This is where you can customize download actions for different file types as before, such as having Firefox always ask what to do when you download that type of file."
Posted Mar 9, 2022 6:34 UTC (Wed)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link]
Posted Mar 9, 2022 14:34 UTC (Wed)
by cesarb (subscriber, #6266)
[Link] (6 responses)
If you configure PDF files to "always ask", and when it asks you answer to "open it in Firefox" this time, it'll silently download the file to ~/Downloads (even if you have configured Firefox to always ask where to save downloaded files!), and then open it in a new tab. This is different from what happens when you configure PDF files to "open it in Firefox", since in that case it opens the built-in PDF viewer and loads the file in it without saving it to ~/Downloads.
The same issue when opening in an external viewer: instead of downloading the file to a transient temporary location where it'll get cleaned up after a while, it's silently downloaded to ~/Downloads (even if you have configured Firefox to always ask where to save downloaded files).
In the end, this will lead to ~/Downloads becoming full of random junk (which would normally end up on /tmp, but at least /tmp is automatically cleaned).
It's even worse if the reason you set up Firefox to always ask where to save is because you don't want anything to end up in ~/Downloads unless you explicitly put it there, either because you're afraid of it silently overwriting files there with the same name (which IIRC had been an issue some time in the past), or because just placing files there could lead to a security vulnerability (less of an issue on Linux, but on Windows where the DLL search path includes "the directory where the EXE file is located", this could easily be a problem), or because you have limited disk space on your /home partition (for instance, it's mounted via NFS from a file server with strict quotas, which was the case on the computer lab at the university I studied at).
That is: they are now treating ~/Downloads as if it was a temporary directory managed by the browser, instead of letting the user manage it.
I won't stop using Firefox as my main browser, but this is probably the first change in all the time since it was still called Netscape Navigator that made me reconsider.
Posted Mar 9, 2022 18:42 UTC (Wed)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
There are a few good (technical, security) reasons to want to keep all data in the user's homedir, but I get the feeling those weren't a factor in this change.
Posted Mar 10, 2022 4:46 UTC (Thu)
by sionescu (subscriber, #59410)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 10, 2022 15:41 UTC (Thu)
by sionescu (subscriber, #59410)
[Link]
Posted Mar 10, 2022 15:51 UTC (Thu)
by karkhaz (subscriber, #99844)
[Link]
Confirmed, I get the same behavior. This annoying but at least you can choose the directory---it doesn't have to be ~/Downloads. I've made it ~/tmp, which on some of my computers is mounted on a tmpfs and others not. (I also long ago deleted ~/Downloads and `chmod a-w ~`, so programs that don't respect XDG can't write to my home directory anyway).
Posted Mar 14, 2022 1:35 UTC (Mon)
by cypherpunks2 (guest, #152408)
[Link] (1 responses)
With that said, I still prefer Firefox, but only because their development model better suites me.
Posted Mar 17, 2022 8:51 UTC (Thu)
by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
[Link]
However, Google is digging their own grave with the next API that hamstrings what uBlock and the like are able to do (even compared to the current extension API). AFAIK, only Edge has committed to using the change though how long the Chrome-forks can maintain it against Google's wishes remains to be seen.
Posted Mar 9, 2022 22:05 UTC (Wed)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link]
I actually prefer this download flow, though it did take a bit of time to get used to it.
Posted Mar 9, 2022 7:42 UTC (Wed)
by wtarreau (subscriber, #51152)
[Link] (15 responses)
I find it amazing that seeing how their market share drops doesn't ring a bell somewhere that maybe they've caused this themselves by trying to constantly imitate competition instead of continuing to focus on what users *want*. Nowadays I'm spending most of my time trying to figure what tab is active because they seem to find it funny to make important stuff as invisible as possible. After every upgrade I'm wondering if it's still worth using that browser or if they crossed the point of no return.
Well, let's not start to fear the update again, we'll see...
Posted Mar 9, 2022 11:32 UTC (Wed)
by milesrout (subscriber, #126894)
[Link] (14 responses)
Of course they don't. They use Chrome. That's the only explanation that makes sense for me for why they seem to want to turn Firefox into Chrome.
What they don't seem to understand is that if they turn Firefox into Chrome, nobody will use Firefox, because if they wanted to use Chrome, they'd just use Chrome...
Posted Mar 9, 2022 14:35 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (13 responses)
Yes indeed, it just can't be that people have strong and differing UI preferences, that feels too pedestrian, it must be that they are secretly Chrome lovers who happen to be working on Firefox. Perhaps they work for Mozilla in the day and Google in the night. Given the inflation hikes, that would be a good economical decision.
Posted Mar 9, 2022 16:19 UTC (Wed)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Mar 9, 2022 17:21 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (10 responses)
Hmm, I guess that is why Linux's strategy of largely imitating Unix lost so heavily. If only there was more to a web browser than the UI, the chrome if you will.
Posted Mar 9, 2022 19:47 UTC (Wed)
by milesrout (subscriber, #126894)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 9, 2022 20:27 UTC (Wed)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
I will still stick with it did largely imitate Unix. A few exceptions doesn't change that
Posted Mar 10, 2022 8:39 UTC (Thu)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link] (7 responses)
Firefox is competing with free-beer Chrome and free-speech Chromium. Many Firefox users, including me, use it because we like its UI better, and we put up with minor incompatibilities. If the UI is a clone of Chrome, I may as well use Chrome.
Posted Mar 10, 2022 10:27 UTC (Thu)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (6 responses)
So imitation can be a competitive strategy depending on context. It is so wildly successful that it is used repeatedly.
> And the BSDs are examples of why you can't compete by just being "the same but better. OpenBSD distinguished itself with its focus on security; but that wasn't really enough."
Let's not kid ourselves, the lawsuit was far the major reason. If not, you will have to find an explanation of why FreeBSD didn't succeed.
> If the UI is a clone of Chrome, I may as well use Chrome.
Two things a) It isn't a clone 2) If UI is the only reason holding back, you might as well as switch and move on.
Posted Mar 10, 2022 13:35 UTC (Thu)
by rschroev (subscriber, #4164)
[Link] (3 responses)
The lack of a free Unix allowed Linux to succeed, and the success of Linux made it difficult for other free Unix-y systems to flourish. The BSD's tried, after the lawsuit was over, but by then the segment of free unix-y systems was already filled.
Posted Mar 10, 2022 13:52 UTC (Thu)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (2 responses)
What I don't buy his notion that "BSDs are examples of why you can't compete by just being "the same but better"
Posted Mar 10, 2022 14:00 UTC (Thu)
by rschroev (subscriber, #4164)
[Link] (1 responses)
Linux on the other hand was also more or less the same as the existing Unixes, but it was free while the others weren't and that was enough of an advantage for it to succeed.
Posted Mar 10, 2022 14:07 UTC (Thu)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
I can look at Linux and say Linux is the same but better (part of the better is the licensing aspect - GPL (not just any permissive license) but not limited to that, plenty of other differences including the model of development) than Unix, so it serves a great counter example. So I conclude that they are a very good counter example. See my point? That's the problem with oversimplifying things and say imitating something isn't a competitive strategy.
Posted Mar 11, 2022 1:57 UTC (Fri)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link] (1 responses)
1. As a desktop OS it was simply inferior to Linux, in terms of hardware support and also stability. It had a bug for years where you could panic the system by pulling out a mounted USB drive (or just jiggling it accidentally). Such bugs were simply not priorities for FreeBSD folks. On the server side with high-end hardware, FreeBSD is still a good choice.
2. The online community tended to be a bit hostile to new users, especially those who had Linux experience ("eww stop the linuxisms") which probably limited their developer pool. They also fetishized "real Unix" despite the GNU versions of many tools being much better/nicer/more user-friendly.
3. The fragmentation with NetBSD, OpenBSD, and later Dragonfly BSD (a direct result of FreeBSD's alienation of one of their most brilliant developers, Matt Dillon)
4. I think the Linux funnel-type model, where patches get piped via subsystem maintainers upstream eventually to a single point (Linus), has proved to actually be better than the FreeBSD collaborative model where dozens or hundreds have "commit bits" and can contribute directly. This resulted in less, not more, thorough vetting and inferior quality for FreeBSD. The recent FreeBSD Wireguard fiasco was evidence of it.
All that said, if there had been a free BSD system in 1991, Linux would not have happened, and if it had happened, it would not have gained the rapid popularity that it did.
Posted Mar 11, 2022 10:33 UTC (Fri)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Maybe. As I have noted before and as you have adequately illustrated yourself, there is a lot of factors involved so if any or combination of them would have made enough of a difference to outpace is hard to say. I will leave it at that.
Posted Mar 10, 2022 8:32 UTC (Thu)
by oldtomas (guest, #72579)
[Link]
Of course, "they use Chrome" could be characterized as hyperbola. Perhaps it is even unfair, I don't know.
But it points at a real problem [1]. And you contribute to hiding it with your snark.
C'mon. You are smarter than this.
[1] I think Firefox losing "market share" is a symptom of that problem.
Posted Jan 17, 2023 22:45 UTC (Tue)
by galens (guest, #23805)
[Link]
I recall reading about this issue when it showed up here at lwn.net, but it really didn't register at the time. In the past few days I noticed that my Downloads directory was cluttered with *many* pdfs that I had no intention of keeping around. This caused me to investigate further, and I stumbled upon this *huge* discussion under a mozilla bug.
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1738574>
To summarize, many longtime users were not pleased with the new behavior. After much back and forth, the developers relented and added an about:config setting to allow for the old workflow. If you are like me and want the old behavior, I recommend reading comment 133, where the new config setting is explained. I believe this new setting was added in version 102.
TL;DR, set browser.download.start_downloads_in_tmp_dir to true to get the old behavior.
Firefox 98 released
> Apparently there is no way to get the old behaviour back.Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
> That is: they are now treating ~/Downloads as if it was a temporary directory managed by the browser, instead of letting the user manage it.
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released
Firefox 98 released