I'm all for somebody forking Firefox circa 3.6 and just backporting security fixes to it, but I suppose Pale Moon is as close as we'll get, which is fine.

You say a lot of things that sound like you're using them as insults, but I wouldn't really consider them so. That Mozilla has moved on from a good place in their development and now their new crazy schenanigans are no longer compatible with said "good place" is not really a criticism of a fork from that spot.

This seems like rather a contortion to place the blame on PM. In fact, Firefox is breaking compatibility with older versions of itself, and PM is just trying to tag along for the ride, while not just being a reskinning, which is of course the problem--if PM was just a reskinning, all the extensions would work. But the interface got so fucked with Australis that the whole point of PM was to point at Australis and say "not that."

And there's always the archives of previous versions of extensions, although a lot of those will presumably stop working as FF and PM diverge, if they involve a server component.

I'm not saying PM is the best way to go about the FF situation, but at a certain point people just started saying, "Fuck it; I'm tired of FF's shit." Which is a bit sad really, as we want to use FF but they keep poking us in the eye.

Hardware acceleration, security fixes, and (maybe) the leaks are rather user-opaque improvements, though. And to my knowledge the only "multi-threading" Firefox does is splitting out one process for plugins so far. I wouldn't say Firefox seems noticeably faster than the 3 era, but maybe that's just my ISP being shitty.

I don't really understand why the mass migration from Java and Flash to HTML5 either, as I'm not much informed on the topic. And they're talking about DRM-ifying HTML5 as well, so it hardly sounds all good.

I'm actually using Pale Moon, but whatever. Mostly because I hate Chrome's interface even more (and why I hate that Firefox's is inevitably converging on a Chrome reskin).

I just don't think I've ever met anyone who was non-religious who used the word before.

Inasmuch as all religion can be labeled "superstitious claptrap," sure.

This isn't the definition of "original sin" that I'm familiar with. The Christian definition of original sin is that humans are born with a nature that, if not kept in check, will do evil things. The only way "inheritance" is involved is inheriting that nature down the generations of people who've lived before them.

Well yeah, that's the fundamental question--do you draw your system of morals from an outside authority, or construct them yourself? The view of most of the western religions is that God is an oracle (to abuse computing terminology) that tells you what's right and wrong. Then the RCC and others decided to layer up a bunch of extra rules.

But how many steps removed is that from society telling us what's right and wrong, really? If you try hard enough you can justify almost anything using logic.

Yeah, conservative Judaism does seem to have a lot of funny rules. No argument there.

(sorry if this came off as a point-by-point picking apart of your post; I was just trying to separate out the relevant ideas)

Which was why I suggested the media server bit. From the "in the field" comment I'm wondering whether it's a professional concern.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

And I'd think the argument could be made for pederasty being a "moral" (or at least, socially accepted) form of pedophilia.

And segregation was not inherently bad, it was just that people are assholes and refused to make separate and equal things.

What do you use the photos for? Are you a professional photographer, or what?

Oh wow, I can't think of the last time I saw someone on /. say "just put it in the cloud" with a straight face.

Or was that a joke? It's always hard to tell.

*behoove

Muphry's Law

Why?!

Yes, when you purposely try to take up as much space as humanly possible, it ends up being really big. The least you could do would be leave the raw images on your home media server and keep versions of them compressed to a halfway sane size on the laptop.

You say there's nothing wrong with Firefox except the UI, then complain that it doesn't make sense people are using a fork that keeps all the features but unfucks the UI?

So how much pain is all the latest features worth?

Relatedly, name some features Mozilla has added since 3.5 that I actually wanted.

I don't get the big hullabaloo about who's "sponsoring" it. Is this all just about which search engine is selected by default when you install the browser? Within the first 5 minutes of using the browser I've probably changed it to Wikipedia anyway.

Although I suppose there will always be those users who never figure out the little triangle on the right side of the button means you can change it.

How is that any different? It still probably uses the copy-paste buffer.

Yeah, how the heck are they going to make it one click if everything must get rammed into the Hamburger of Awesome Apple/Chrome Imitation?

Ctrl+K to get to the searchbar
Ctrl+Up/Ctrl+Down to select the search site
Type
Enter

Admittedly I had a hard time finding out that Ctrl+Up/Down would change the search.