Firefox esr 52 






=>  http://ciohemenpank.nnmcloud.ru/d?s=YToyOntzOjc6InJlZmVyZXIiO3M6MjE6Imh0dHA6Ly9iaXRiaW4uaXQyX2RsLyI7czozOiJrZXkiO3M6MTQ6IkZpcmVmb3ggZXNyIDUyIjt9




































Edit: I just read your other post in this topic, so consider my question answered! Oracle has no current plans to certify new Firefox personal releases on the Rapid Release channel with the E-Business Suite. When Firefox warns me of a malicious site I go there just as a big F.
Mozilla Firefox is a fast, full-featured. Customization is bloat, even the smallest trace of it. They lobby lawmakers and file friend of the court briefs on things like consumer protection, privacy rights, software patent law, and net neutrality.
Themes Make over Firefox to suit your mood! Remove browsing information from your computer after the fact. Prettier error pages, more Luna-like Winstripe theme did not blend well with the Classic theme. But Mozilla wants its user base back. Software sometimes has false positives. Now you can with our geometry editor.
Mozilla Firefox 52.9.0 ESR (Extended Support Release) - Pure Windows 8 without the 8. Not gimped, broken, or useless, and one or more of them improve my life every single day.
Sept 5, 2018 is release day for Firefox 60. If you want to keep your legacy addons, turn off update now see below for details. You firefox esr 52 read more about security patches from Waterfox developer MrAlex94 in the discussion below. After installing Waterfox, make sure that multiprocessing is enabled. Helpful links: Articles about Waterfox from ghacks. You can download any Firefox version from here: Be warn: these Firefox versions do not have any more security updates, so they could be unsafe to work with. You can have multiple Firefox profiles for different versions. You can also turn off updates in about:config. Not everyone apprecaites the changes made to the browser, and forks should be embraced, not frowned upon. You think they need support. On the one hand, you keep pushing change for the sake of change. On the other, you go around claiming that anyone not using your product is using something insecure. This is irresponsible behavior, especially in the free software world, where modified versions are an essential part of the culture, and how a lot of improvements happen. Waterfox's main selling point is that it keeps legacy compatibility, but it's going to have to also keep up with Firefox mainly security updates, but also engine improvements and the like in order to stay relevant. It gets more difficult as Mozilla is removing or changing parts of code that Waterfox needs to keep legacy compatibility. As I understand it, Waterfox is a one-man project and he does it basically a side project. As a free software advocate and enthusiast some might say zealot I think the freedom to fork is important, and it's good that Waterfox is an option for people who feel that they need that capability - but forks become a more significant maintenance burden the further they drift from the source, and Waterfox is approaching that point if it hasn't already Specifically regarding security, I have no hard data about the security of Waterfox relative to Firefox, but consider that Waterfox is downstream of Firefox and thus necessarily gets security updates after Firefox does, and since it's forked off an unmaintained version of Firefox, the Waterfox guy firefox esr 52 to put in the effort to backport those. Again, unless Waterfox keeps up to date with Firefox, security updates will only get harder to backport. I'll do my best to answer :- Not the guy you replied to As I understand it, the main problem with Waterfox and other forks of its ilk is that it's just unsustainable. Waterfox's main selling point is that it keeps legacy compatibility, but it's going to have to also keep up with Firefox mainly security updates, but also engine improvements and the like in order to stay relevant. It gets more firefox esr 52 as Mozilla is removing or changing parts of code that Waterfox needs to keep legacy compatibility. I agree, and it's a battle I want to avoid. And keeping up with security updates is also fairly straightforward, e. Also I do get a fair few contributions from people as well. As I understand it, Waterfox is a one-man project and he does it basically a side project. As a free software advocate and enthusiast some might say zealot Firefox esr 52 think the freedom to fork is firefox esr 52, and it's good that Waterfox is an option for people who feel that they need that capability - but forks become a more significant maintenance burden the further they drift from the source, and Waterfox is approaching that point if it hasn't already It has been full time for a while, and I've been getting help as well. Main goal is towards a small team which is actually coming to fruition. It does take time though. Also so far, the code changes have been trivial. Specifically regarding security, I have no hard data about the security of Waterfox relative to Firefox, but consider that Waterfox is downstream of Firefox and thus necessarily gets security updates after Firefox does, and since it's forked off an unmaintained version of Firefox, the Waterfox guy has to put in the effort to backport those. Again, unless Waterfox keeps up to date with Firefox, security updates will only get harder to backport. It has been pretty smooth sailing. This greatly increases the chance than an unintended bug slips into Waterfox that either corrupts your profile, crashes Waterfox, or worse, is a security issue. On top of that, Waterfox gets Firefox's security patches days or weeks later, and doesn't have the most recent security improvements. Waterfox has never to my knowledge been audited, nor even stood up at an event like Pwn2Own. This, plus a multitude of philosophical differences, is why Waterfox is not safe to use, and I worry about people downloading it without fully understanding the risks. The same goes for palemoon, but worse. This greatly increases the chance than an unintended bug slips into Waterfox that either corrupts your profile, crashes Waterfox, or worse, is a security issue. There shoudn't be any functionality changes. I don't see the relevance of build infrastructure though in regards to quality. I'm still using the same profile from Waterfox 4. Plus Sync still works ; On top of that, Waterfox gets Firefox's security patches days or weeks later, and firefox esr 52 have the most recent security improvements. Waterfox has never to my knowledge been audited, nor even stood up at an event like Pwn2Own. I would definitely like to get an audit though. This, plus a multitude of philosophical differences, is why Waterfox is not safe to use, and I worry about people downloading it without fully understanding the risks. On top of that from what i can tell the user base is very technically literate. The same goes for palemoon, but worse. No comment there, firefox esr 52 gone down a completely different route with different goals. So question, would you have the same points against browser such as Opera, Vivaldi and Brave. I think most of your new users from the past 10 months are escapees from Firefox who didn't like the removal of legacy extensions. Edit: I just read your other post in this topic, so consider my question answered. Thank you for the elaborate explanation. I truly hope firefox esr 52 developers will follow up on Waterfox. This greatly increases the chance than an unintended bug slips into Waterfox that either corrupts your profile, crashes Waterfox, or worse, is a security issue. There shoudn't be any functionality changes. I don't see the relevance of build infrastructure though in regards to quality. I added some emphasis because it seems like you're either missing or ignoring the point. Not to speak forbut the fact of the matter is Waterfox runs a code configuration Mozilla has never tested and you have not replaced their testing process or infrastructure with your own. Considering the defects typically become public knowledge when Mozilla publishes the Security Advisory or else Mozilla would have done a chemspill release and every vulnerability immediately becomes a 0-day for Waterfox. The fact that you're so cavalier about both of the above is telling. Why should it be automated. For me it would be additional costs for no reason. Not to speak forbut the fact of the matter is Waterfox runs a code configuration Mozilla has never tested and you have not replaced their testing process or infrastructure with your own. Sure, but in the spirit of openness Mozilla have compartmentalised everything. There are a million different built flags and guards that can be toggled, in the spirit of going out there and testing it all. Considering the defects typically become public knowledge when Mozilla publishes the Security Advisory or else Mozilla would have done a chemspill release and every vulnerability immediately becomes a 0-day for Waterfox. The fact that you're so cavalier about both of the above is telling. Do you receive crash reports. As for the security holes, once they are publicly disclosed they are often added immediately to attack packages,so even a few days of the bug being in the wild is too long for your user's. Yes, Waterfox is word of mouth, but many people here are reccomending it simply as a way to run legacy add-ons, but firefox esr 52 elaborate the additional concerns and trade-offs. No I don't have similar concerns with Opera, Vivaldi and Brave, as they are being run as professional, real products with testing and support from an organization that knows what they are doing. While I see your goals, I think you're in over you're head. I think that you think you can continue to have a browser that is on par with Firefox in terms of performance and have legacy add-ons, while my claim is that's impossible. You'll continue to fall further and further behind until you can't continue. If that was a realistic option, we would have done it. Do you receive crash reports. Why must those specifically be used. As for the security holes, once they are publicly disclosed they are often added immediately to attack packages,so even a few days of the bug being in the wild is too long for your user's. As for that last statement I know a few would disagree with that. Of course at this point its more a philosophical discussion. No I don't have similar concerns with Opera, Vivaldi and Brave, as they are being run as professional, real products with testing and support from an organization that knows what they are doing. While I see your goals, I think you're in over you're head. I think that you think you can continue to have a browser that is on par with Firefox in terms of performance and have legacy add-ons, while my claim is that's impossible. You'll continue to fall further and further behind until you can't continue. If that was a realistic option, we would have done it. I guess all my experience consulting for companies and education at Oxbridge is worthless. And all the external help I receive as well must be pointless. I guess open source is useless then, as it seems unless an large organisation is behind it there must be no point in developing anything as a million things firefox esr 52 go wrong. It really was incredible the amount of support I received, and even now when I ask questions the Eng team are more than helpful. I'm going to have to call you out on this claim. Firefox on Android uses a staged rollout for main releases, which can take over a week to rollout to everyone. Your mobile users would be left vulnerable during that time if the danger were severe. As a user: I don't care. I need a browser that runs my addons. Is using my addons more important than that to me. So I use the browser that can provide this in a sandboxed environment, because I don't trust any browser. Everything there is either broken or gimped to point of being useless. Even basic things like mouse gestures now spawn context menu which doesnt go away on use, stop functioning in many tabs and pages. The hotkey rebinding is either broken, or not functional. I was postponing uninstalling Firefox as long as possible. This is unusable piss with no recourse to fix this. No wonder firefox is losing marketshare. There's absolutely no reason to use Firefox over say Chrome if you're fine with gimped WebExtensions. Everything there is either broken or gimped to point of being useless. Not gimped, broken, or useless, and one or more of them improve my life every single firefox esr 52. Even basic things like mouse gestures now spawn context menu which doesnt go away on use, stop functioning in many tabs and pages. The hotkey rebinding is either broken, or not functional. Okay, now that is valid, and it's completely understandable that they both matter deeply to you. Handling user input is something that reaches deep into the platform and apparently has serious security considerations clickjacking, keylogging, etc. Mozilla has big changes planned for the guts of Firefox Stylo already delivered, WebRender coming soon, more of Servo to follow and they've been clear for 3 years that park of moving on those plans means no longer letting add-ons fondle said guts. For whatever it's worth, the issue with the context menu popping up was supposedly fixed a year ago and included in Firefox 59, so you might want to give it another chance: No wonder firefox is losing marketshare. First of all, your pain is not everyone's pain. The majority of Firefox users have never installed an add-on. It will always be an uphill battle for them. Then there's the fact that Google has been using its web properties to push users to Chrome for years. When YouTube does a redesign and suddenly sucks on everything but Chrome because YouTube decided to use a version of Web Components only Chrome implemented making other browsers use slow shim codeusers switch to Chrome. When users try to enter a Hangouts meeting only to be told they must use Chrome, they switch to Chrome. In fairness, Google was doing this at the same time Mozilla had its identity crisis, and Google was smart to include central policy management way sooner than Mozilla to pick up those corporate installs. I have plenty of reasons. There's the fact that Firefox is the only major browser not built by an enormous corporation with a history of trying to push users to the owners' walled gardens. Mozilla exists for the public good, not to profit their investors. Then there's the fact that Firefox is continuing to extend WebExtensions to add capabilities Chrome doesn't have. I can and will continue to be able to do things with Firefox that I can't do with Chrome. Maybe not Vimperator-level things, but it's still the most configurable secure browser available to me. I know other firefox esr 52 with Retina Macs have had performance issues which are supposed to have had a lot of fixes in 62 and 63but apparently I'm lucky or old enough that I don't use the sites they've had issues with, such as Facebook and Twitch. On which planet is rebinding keys an advanced feature. It shipped with the browser. Security is really poor argument for removing Legacy Extensions. Out of the box configuration of Firefox is outright hostile to privacy, and it ships in a configuration which is anything but secure. Mozilla exists for the public good You surely can't firefox esr 52 this naive. If you took away your tunnel vision, you will find yourself in the tiny minority who do this. On which planet is rebinding keys an advanced feature. Which planet would you like. It's your own fault for not paying attention in the first place. It was never that high to begin with. It shipped with the browser. And even then, Opera had a tiny market share for a browser you had to pay money for. Security is really poor argument for removing Legacy Extensions. If that was true, nobody would be using it now would they. You surely can't be this naive. I agree with you, there. That last statement of his sounded a bit too altruistic and ridiculous. It shipped with the browser. And Firefox has an open feature request to do the same, but I doubt it's a priority given how much other fundamental firefox esr 52 they have in flight. I also notice that Chrome, Safari, and Edge all lack mouse gestures. That isn't a great argument in favor of it being simple. No, it's 2018 and browsers are complex things with collections of processes talking to each other and user input is one of the things that spans a ton of those processes. Unless you're capable of adding these features to Firefox yourself, I have serious doubts about your qualifications to judge what is and is not simple. Your certainty isn't evidence firefox esr 52 anything. Security is really poor argument for removing Legacy Extensions. Don't put words in my mouth. Out of the box configuration of Firefox is outright hostile to privacy, and it ships in a configuration which is anything but secure. Mozilla exists for the public good You surely can't be this naive. They've spent two decades fighting to keep the web from firefox esr 52 a monoculture, first against Microsoft and now against Google, and as the only non-profit in the big leagues they are doing so with a fraction of the competition's resources. They lobby lawmakers and file friend of the court briefs on things like consumer protection, privacy rights, software patent law, and net neutrality. They have funded projects focused on, among many other things, protecting user privacy and producing new video codec to avoid continuing to have key web content encumbered by patents. Firefox esr 52 they, collectively and individually, live up to every facet of every second of every day. On the add-ons part: I take legacy extensions with more permissions but decent pre-publishing review over WebExtensions with only an automatic review at any time. I haven't enabled it it Waterfox, but I was using it in 56 Nightly with no problems at all. It's in the details :P Firefox esr 52 didn't know about any security issues though, that's a bummer. At the time, I chose to not re-enable the feature — to be free from the risk of an application crash. With hundreds of tabs in a session, and many extensions, unplanned restoration could be tedious.