If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| No Style is needed more and more | these days. Mainly to stop popovers covering the viewing window from top | _and_ bottom; Lately I'm seeing a menu on the left a lot. I think it's probably designed for phones, to slide out when you touch the left side. But I see it stuck open, covering part of the page. Someone comes up with a gimmick and they all pass around the code snippet, without realizing they don't have wide compatibility. That lack of compatibility testing seems to be the main problem. I also see a lot of pages that are almost entirely covered with a blank overlay. But many are simply too big, designed for phones with big text and big spaces. That's also affected popular designs. The template du jour involves big headings over short paragraphs of giant text, either one big header or in threes horizontally. Typically there are testimonials. Nothing of substance. Just a simple salespitch meant to hook distracted phone addicts. A lot of software companies now use that layout. Where's the download link? Who knows?! Here's a use of that template that's actually fairly functional, though sparse and not very informative: http://www.pdfshaper.com/ Here's a more typical use that's just pointless fluff trying to sell memberships to a "meditation gym" to phone addicts, with the salespitch that you can help to wake up the world by giving them your money: https://www.thepeaceroom.com/ All purple. There's so much white space that I see more than a full browser height of white at the top. Their halfwit salespitch could easily fit in half a page view. Instead, the page is about 4-5 times the height of the window. I have to switch to no style, and scroll down past gigantic vector icons, or get used to reading billboards. Here's one from the Brits that seems to be deliberate: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015...-sleeping-mind In general I find BBC news pages work. Their site falls into the silliness trap by posting "top 10" stories and not putting so much attention into news. So they may report the latest tsunami. But if an article about a woman in York who saw Elton John's face in her McNugget sells better then I might not hear about the tsunami.... But at least I can usually read the page. The page above is an example of a secondary layout they use often, which seems to be designed to force script. What I see is a bad but functional layout. But the entire article has a medium gray background. #474747. It's readable, but not easily so. I have to switch to no style if I actually want to read the whole article. But it's often difficult to tell what's intentional and what's incompetence. Do they intend to make their interesting articles dysfunctional without script? Or is it that the web design "team" consists of 3 24-year-olds, pasting content into some kind of webpage-o-matic software, with no idea how it actually looks? |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | Whilst we all (im)patiently wait for Firefox to rush out | a patch, install Brave from http://brave.com. It is very | fast and has built in ad blocking. On first run it will | give you a shot at importing all your settings from a | browser of your choice (pick Firefox). Pay to browse by watching ads sold by them instead of ads sold by Google.... All set up on Google's spyware browser. What have you been smoking? that's not how it works. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | No Style is needed more and more | these days. Mainly to stop popovers covering the viewing window from top | _and_ bottom; Lately I'm seeing a menu on the left a lot. I think it's probably designed for phones, to slide out when you touch the left side. But I see it stuck open, covering part of the page. I'm probably not seeing it as it's covered by the bits coming from the bottom and the top. [] All purple. There's so much white space that I see more than a full browser height of white at the top. Their halfwit If I see a blank page, I tend to leave it, rather than try to do battle with it. salespitch could easily fit in half a page view. Instead, the page is about 4-5 times the height of the window. I have to switch to no style, and scroll down past gigantic vector icons, or get used to reading billboards. Yes, usually the Twitter (and other social media) icons. Here's one from the Brits that seems to be deliberate: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015...lers-guide-to- the-sleeping-mind In general I find BBC news pages work. Their site falls into the silliness trap by posting "top 10" stories and not putting so much attention into news. So they may report the latest tsunami. But if an article about a woman in York who saw Elton John's face in her McNugget sells better then I might not hear about the tsunami.... But Currently, they've gone into extreme mode: I turned on to the BBC news channel at 1400 (BST), to see if there was any more on the Russian 'plane crash and generally get news from around the world. The headline was that a young woman had gone into labour; I thought fair enough, we're going to get a few minutes' coverage of that binary fact before we get any other news. It's now 1517, and no sign that we're going to get ANY other news story. It's not even as if the coverage tells us anything new! There's just the binary bit about the labour, then 38 minutes in the father came out to tell us it's a boy and mother and baby are doing well. So that's two (or three) pieces of information (oh, we got the baby weight - though not in kg - so I suppose that makes 4). Which could be delivered, in an unhurried voice, in about half a minute; let's be generous and give them two or even five minutes. Eighty-one (so far!) is a teeny bit excessive .... at least I can usually read the page. I generally find bbc.co.uk pages are script-heavy and don't read properly (often having text that's in a one-character-wide column) in my default Firefox. [] But it's often difficult to tell what's intentional and what's incompetence. Do they intend to make their interesting articles dysfunctional without script? Or is it that the web design "team" consists of 3 24-year-olds, pasting content into some kind of webpage-o-matic software, with no idea how it actually looks? I very much fear that the second option is the commoner one, with intentional malfeasance very much in the minority. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; he who dares not is a slave." - Sir William Drummond Above all things, use your mind. Don't be that bigot, fool, or slave. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
On Sat, 4 May 2019 10:05:04 +0200, "R.Wieser"
wrote: (This is a repost of the the response I gave to the same post in the alt.os.linux newsgroup) As someone on slashdot mentioned, why are those add-ons even checked each-and-every time you start your browser ? Are they expected to mutate somehow (and no, I do not mean updates) ? All the thats that certificate /should/ be needed for is to make sure that you get & install the add-on as the developer has created it. In its current implementation its simply a kill-switch for anything Mozilla wishes to declare "obsolete". :-( And by the way: the work around is to go into about:config, find "xpinstall.signatures.required" and set it to false (which is actually the first thing I do when installing FF :-) ) Regards, Rudy Wieser Thanks |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| Currently, they've gone into extreme mode: I turned on to the BBC news | channel at 1400 (BST), to see if there was any more on the Russian | 'plane crash and generally get news from around the world. The headline | was that a young woman had gone into labour; I thought fair enough, | we're going to get a few minutes' coverage of that binary fact before we | get any other news. It's now 1517, and no sign that we're going to get | ANY other news story. | | It's not even as if the coverage tells us anything new! There's just the | binary bit about the labour, then 38 minutes in the father came out to | tell us it's a boy and mother and baby are doing well. So that's two (or | three) pieces of information (oh, we got the baby weight - though not in | kg - so I suppose that makes 4). Which could be delivered, in an | unhurried voice, in about half a minute; let's be generous and give them | two or even five minutes. Eighty-one (so far!) is a teeny bit excessive I think that's a different issue. You've turn monarchy into an entertainment industry. Though I should think there could just be a station for that. Just as C-SPAN constantly shows what's happening in Congress, you could have Rube-Tube, so the peasantry can watch what the queen is having for breakfast. Then *that* could be interrupted for the special report from the maternity ward. So, what percentage black is the kid? Isn't that the big question? Or maybe we have to say African-American rather than black. That's interesting. If he's part African American does that mean the royal line is now partly American? Good heavens! |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | Currently, they've gone into extreme mode: I turned on to the BBC news | channel at 1400 (BST), to see if there was any more on the Russian | 'plane crash and generally get news from around the world. The headline | was that a young woman had gone into labour; I thought fair enough, | we're going to get a few minutes' coverage of that binary fact before we | get any other news. It's now 1517, and no sign that we're going to get | ANY other news story. (Now 195 minutes and counting. Sky News too. I had to go to RT to get any other news; they're covering the 'plane crash as you might expect.) | | It's not even as if the coverage tells us anything new! There's just the [] I think that's a different issue. You've turn monarchy into an entertainment industry. Though I should think there could just be a station for that. Just as C-SPAN I would very much prefer that! But even if I were to accept it as an entertainment industry, I don't see why it should dominate the so-called news channel *to the exclusion of all other news*. I can't think of any other entertainment industry event that has had so much saturation coverage with so little information actually being conveyed (it's a boy; 7 lb 3 oz; mother and baby doing well. Those are the ONLY facts so far!), and with the total exclusion of headlines. For example, Oscar/Emmy/BAFTA/Grammy, which do go on for several hours, would not get this level of coverage, and certainly would not squeeze out any other headlines. constantly shows what's happening in Congress, you We _do_ have such a channel - BBC parliament. (FreeView 232, also on FreeSat, Sky, and cable.) could have Rube-Tube, so the peasantry can watch what the queen is having for breakfast. Then *that* could be interrupted for the special report from the maternity ward. So, what percentage black is the kid? Isn't that the big question? Not here; I don't think the majority of Brits are as obsessed with that particular subject. (I don't think most Brits even think of Megan as other than white, unless reminded.) Or maybe we have to say African-American rather than black. That's interesting. If he's part African American does that mean the royal line is now partly American? Good heavens! The media are telling me he does have American citizenship. (And unlikely to be part of the royal line: he's seventh in line, so unlikely ever to be king. [Would be interesting if he became president though!]) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Bother," said Pooh, as he fell off the bridge with his stick. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
On Mon, 6 May 2019 10:11:59 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Apparently they have done a proper fix now Hi JP Gilliver, They even put a "download firefox" button in the canonical page Zag pointed us to a few days ago, so now there's only one location to go to in order to ascertain the current status: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-disabled-or-fail-to-install-firefox They're apparently still working on Android, where, interestingly, and rather oddly, they don't even _mention_ iOS, as if iOS doesn't even exist. The Tor Browser Bundle is still, apparently, stuck at version 8.0.8 https://dist.torproject.org/torbrowser/8.0.8/torbrowser-install-win64-8.0.8_en-US.exe Luckily, there's a TBB workaround which I explained prior. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
|I can't think of any | other entertainment industry event that has had so much saturation | coverage with so little information actually being conveyed (it's a boy; | 7 lb 3 oz; mother and baby doing well. Those are the ONLY facts so | far!) Be glad you're not here when a blizzard doesn't quite hit us but the local news has planned on "Breaking News" headlines and created graphics saying something like "The Mega Blizzard of 2018"... "We're going live now to Framingham, where Amaka Ubaka (Real name. Everyone has to be ethnic to work in news here.) is weathering the storm. Amaka?...." "Hi, Ted. As you can see, there are long lines at the stores here to buy batteries. We're going outside now... Wow! That breeze is only 10 mph now but it's deceptive. There's no reason it couldn't gust to 60. And if you look at the sidwalk here.... I'll have the cameraman zoom in.... you can see there are a few flakes already. We're here for the long haul so that our viewers will know what's happening outside, throughout this Mega Blizzard... this dramatic warning from Mother Nature. Reporting on the Mega Blizzard of 2018, this is Amaka Ubaka in Framingham. Back to you Ted." It goes on like that for hours, replacing planned programming, even though there's no storm! |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
The Tor Browser Bundle appears to have been updated today:
https://www.torproject.org/download/ Tor Browser 8.0.9 -- May 7 2019 o Bug 30388: *Make sure the updated intermediate certificate keeps working* Since they say "all platforms", that suggests all platforms but iOS (since iOS, as we know, lacks this key privacy functionality), where Android on Firefox has, belatedly, just been updated on Google Play: o https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.firefox While we all knew iOS lacks privacy functionality (despite Apple scdreaming to the contrary of their imaginary privacy), what's super interesting is that the Firefox canonical page makes absolutely no mention of iOS. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-disabled-or-fail-to-install-firefox o My iPad Firefox was currently version 10.6 (8836) o The iPad won't let me update the Firefox (likely because I don't pick up the latest iOS releases since they break connectivity in the real world, e.g., to Apple, the real world, e.g., Linux, is "not supported"). Just to be sure, I hit the "install & update" on Mozilla's iOS web page https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/products/ios It says the iOS Firefox was last updated a week ago to version 16.2 with no mention of anything but an app crash bug being fixed at that time. So it seems that everything has been updated on all five platforms o Except the Tor Browser Bundle (this key privacy doesn't exist on iOS) o Except Firefox on iOS (no mention of why) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
Arlen G. Holder wrote on 5/4/2019 :
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/03/firefox-extension-add-on-cert/ The event occurred as the clock rolled over on UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, aka GMT or Greenwich Mean Time), and impacted users quickly narrowed it down to "expiration of intermediate signing cert" -- as it's described on Mozilla's bug tracker. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1548973 So... is this it? No patch for old versions other than an unwanted upgrade to the newest? Need to decide between uninstalling FF and reinstalling 53.03 (or 52.9) or just moving on to something else. This has been hosed since Saturday and nothing I try seems to work on v53 Win7. There are other things to do in life beside mess with FF... it is why I came to FF and then became why I would not upgrade... and now it looks as though it might be why I leave. How is WaterFox or whatever it is called? |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
On Wed, 08 May 2019 06:49:32 -0400, Jess Fertudei wrote:
How is WaterFox or whatever it is called? I agree with those who are starting to believe that Firefox is going the way of ES File Explorer or CCleaner, over time. Luckily, there are _plenty_ of Mozilla-based browsers, Chromium-based browsers, and even a few Microsoft-based browsers. My suggestion? Instead of dealing with extensions which allow you to treat sites differently, simply set up any or each of the dozen or more main browsers specifically to a single web site or type of web site or type of task (your choice depending on your needs). I'm sure there are times you _may_ still need extensions even after doing so, but you'd have to give me a logical argument as to why. For example, ad blockers aren't needed, IMHO, at least not in my experience. Script blockers aren't needed either, AFAICT. Having said that, it could be that you do, with extensions, something that browsers can't do, alone perhaps? What does an extension do that you can't find a browser to do if you limited that browser to one type of web site? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
"Arlen G. Holder" wrote in
: On Wed, 08 May 2019 06:49:32 -0400, Jess Fertudei wrote: How is WaterFox or whatever it is called? I agree with those who are starting to believe that Firefox is going the way of ES File Explorer or CCleaner, over time. Luckily, there are _plenty_ of Mozilla-based browsers, Chromium-based browsers, and even a few Microsoft-based browsers. My suggestion? Instead of dealing with extensions which allow you to treat sites differently, simply set up any or each of the dozen or more main browsers specifically to a single web site or type of web site or type of task (your choice depending on your needs). I'm sure there are times you _may_ still need extensions even after doing so, but you'd have to give me a logical argument as to why. For example, ad blockers aren't needed, IMHO, at least not in my experience. Script blockers aren't needed either, AFAICT. Having said that, it could be that you do, with extensions, something that browsers can't do, alone perhaps? What does an extension do that you can't find a browser to do if you limited that browser to one type of web site? I have used IE, Chrome, and Firefox (my preferred) browsers. Sitting at the end of a low bandwidth internet connection, ad blockers DO make a difference, and following all the current recommendations LastPass is a must as well. Outside of the PITB aspects of the current debacle, I don't understand what all the continued fuss is about. Someone FUBARed a certificate. It happens - rarely - but it happens. They could have easily FUBARed the main certificate for Firefox, ore someone could have done the same for any of the available browsers. It is just a fact of life and a vulnerability of the current infrastructure. Until the Internet is redesigned with security and privacy baked in at the most basic level, it is a possibility we are going to have to live with. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired
On Wed, 08 May 2019 18:57:31 GMT, lonelydad wrote:
I have used IE, Chrome, and Firefox (my preferred) browsers. Sitting at the end of a low bandwidth internet connection, ad blockers DO make a difference, and following all the current recommendations LastPass is a must as well. Do browser-based ad blockers work any better than a good MVP Hosts' file? Outside of the PITB aspects of the current debacle, I don't understand what all the continued fuss is about. Someone FUBARed a certificate. It happens - rarely - but it happens. I like to think strategically, about good strategic use models. There are TWO possible high-level strategic use models when it comes to what "extensions" do. 1. You could try to make one browser do everything, or, 2. You could set up each browser to do what it does best. Each strategic method has pros and cons, where, for example: A. A con of making one browser do it all, is you have to deal with extensions and exceptions (e.g., whitelists, blacklists, etc.). B. A con of setting up separate browsers is that you have to THINK more, about how to properly set up a browser to do what you want it to do. Each has pro's also: a. A pro of having one browser do it all is that you only have to learn the intricacies of one browser, for example. b. A pro of having the best browser do the job you need done is that you set it up once and it works without having to deal with extensions. These are just examples, as there are multiple pro's and con's to each strategy, but I don't know of any other high-level strategy that doesn't really, in the end, fit into the "more browsers" versus "fewer browsers" strategic breakdown. They could have easily FUBARed the main certificate for Firefox, ore someone could have done the same for any of the available browsers. It is just a fact of life and a vulnerability of the current infrastructure. Until the Internet is redesigned with security and privacy baked in at the most basic level, it is a possibility we are going to have to live with. While the certificate issue didn't greatly affect me, I think it affects others because they don't use the strategy I use, which is zero additional addons to make a browser do what I need it to do. The question is still open as to whether there is _anything_ that an extension actually does that you can't get a browser to do all by its itty bitty self. Is there? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired New version corrected problem
Mayayana wrote on 5/5/2019 :
"Keith Nuttle" wrote The the bug in Firefox was corrected and 66.0.4 allowed ALL of my addons to be become active. This included Clippings Adblock, Google Translate and a half dozen other addons. Good to know, but in the time I was using 66 I didn't much like it compared to 52.9. I had to give up a lot of extension functionality and didn't find any way to remove tabs. There were also various minor irritations. For instance, the update options no longer include not checking for updates. And that was just with occasional use. I only tried it on my test machine that I use on an occasional basis. The addons I use are mainly NoScript, DownloadHelper, and various things for privacy and GUI repair. (Bringing back the status bar, removing the tab bar, etc.) I have a nice one called Secret Agent that offers lots of privacy options but never came out as a signed version or as a new-style crippled version. I think a lot of the functionality in those older style extensions is just blocked now in later versions. The 'Mozilla Add-ons Blog' has an update published last night that says: "For users who cannot update to the latest version of Firefox or Firefox ESR, we plan to distribute an update that automatically applies the fix to versions 52 through 60. This fix will also be available as a user-installable extension. For anyone still experiencing issues in versions 61 through 65, we plan to distribute a fix through a user-installable extension. These extensions will not require users to enable Studies, and we’ll provide an update when they are available. (May 8. 19:28 EDT)" We've waited nearly a week for them to at least say they are working on a direct fix for older versions... wonder how long it will be until it actually appears. I have been avoiding the affected machine for browsing purposes but can't keep doing that for long. Once this is straightened out, I guess it is time to test-drive some other browsers. Shame, though, 53 pretty much fit my needs exactly. This is no longer any better than the problems that MS used to create with IE... forced and coreced updates, unauthorized access to my software, fixes that don't just unfix things but that cripple functionality. Ah, well... .. .. Cue Tom Petty 'The Waiting is the Hardest Part'. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Firefox disabled all add-ons because a certificate expired New version corrected problem
"Jess Fertudei" wrote
| | The 'Mozilla Add-ons Blog' has an update published last night that | says: Very informative. Thanks. I don't have any further problems with 52.9 and I like the old extensions better, but apparently some extensions are still broken. This is the first I've heard of "Studies". It seems the Mozillians just can't resist being as intrusive and beta-crazed as Microsoft. It reminds me of the old saying that mothers use: "If Microsoft decided to jump off a cliff, would you do that, too?!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|