The Anon I replied to alleges that addons cover extensions (ABP, Betterprivacy, Ghostery, Skype, etc.) AND plugins (Flash, Shockwave, java - anything that uses the NPAPI).

So if my initial interpretation was correct (same as yours- this is for extensions not plugins), that won't be a problem; if his interpretation is correct (keeping in mind that he challenged mine - plugins/extensions are under the addons umbrella, both appear in the addon manager, etc.) it would be.

I guess the only way to find out will be to install a copy of the beta and then a plugin or two.

The development cycle is better but using major numbers is stupid and has rendered it meaningless IMO. Chrome ratchets up the version number similarly, they just don't trumpet it and instead silently update (which Mozilla is deeply opposed to).

Honestly I think the default option should be default stealth update like Chrome and, during install, ask if people want continuous silent updates. Let the nerds opt out if they have concerns and let everyone who doesn't like to know about every update get it.

If that's true, then it's as comprehensive as I'd hope. I just wonder if Firefox will whitelist certain addons at the risk of seeming to play favorites (if people don't check to enable Flash and then try to go to Youtube, it won't work).

Either that or prompt when a plugin that's present but default disabled would be used and ask if they want to enable it with a notification. Not sure of the handling code for that, but I can't imagine it being impossible.

Mozilla blog mentions that it's for addons, which are different from plugins (plugins use NPAPI - Flash, Java, Shockwave, etc. - vs XPIs). They are separately listed in the addons manager for that reason. At this point, I'd say it probably doesn't apply to plugins, but the page doesn't give enough context to determine that.

Chromium does, they're just doing it at a more frequent rate. People acclimate to minute changes made very often (every few days) over bigger/more changes made at once (even if it's every few weeks instead of every year or so).

eBay changed the color on the background of a part of a page from one color to another - IIRC it was yellow to purple - and users flipped so much they changed it back. Then, over the course of several weeks, they did many intermediate colors, changing it a couple days a week. Suddenly, no one noticed the page they complained about in the past had, again, changed color completely.

The Chromium team has done a great job in that regard.

It's an addon/plugin/profile issue. I'd argue the last one is probably the worst because it's hard to diagnose without creating a new profile.

If you update everything (Flash/Shockwave/Java/etc. - I'd recommend Secunia's PSI to check your programs, including plugins, for updates) and it doesn't help stability, I would disable all addons and browse until you find the one causing the problem.

You may say "Why bother?". As a nerd, I enjoy addons with no comparable functionality in Chrome/Chromium and I support Mozilla. My FF7 installs work very well although I won't lie and say Firefox has been problem free (no browser has been). It may be worth examining if you liked Firefox as 7 is a good improvement over 6 even despite the development time. I don't seem to have the stability/bloat issues others complain about.

Anyhow, up to you if you want to examine it for you. In the end, whatever works for you works for you and you are either going to try to diagnose Firefox or ignore it.

Define better. It really depends on the usage scenario. Not in RAM usage or ability of addons to modify browser behavior beyond the highest level.

I have IE, Chromium, Firefox, and Opera installed and they each have strengths and weaknesses. However, my primary browser is Firefox.

8 is adding some neat features, but I think a quarterly check-in would be more appropriate. However, 8 beta does add some features Firefox users have been seeking for a long time, like opting into addons installed by third party programs.

Yeah, addons that added themselves outside the normal system weren't always removable (through Firefox) and Firefox never asked about them. Yahoo Toolbar, Bing, etc.

Change for the better. Users who don't explicitly want something are unlikely to approve it (since it's disabled by default), and users who don't know better are more likely to ignore it (again, disabled by default). I think you'll have few "click-throughers" that will check the box to enable the addon then hit continue.

However, they're talking addons at this point (Adblock Plus, BetterPrivacy, Greasemonkey, Skype etc.) - NOT plugins (Flash, Shockwave, Java [except the Console, which is an addon], etc.). In the comments somebody asked if it applied to plugins and they said "Skype is an addon so it will have this" - I'm guessing it won't ask for plugins.

That was a more recent Iron addin then when that article was written, but even then modern versions change very little. With the WebRequest Experimental API and Adblock Plus for Chrome using it in dev builds now, blocking is essential comparable (and unlike beforeLoad, the webRequest API doesn't have a really shitty success rate).

It changed barely anything, in essence; three options plainly visible and easily disabled in Chrome/Chromium's options (persistently disabled between upgrades, I might add) were removed, the rest were copyright notice changes and resource changes (e.g. "Chromium" to "SRWare Iron", icon, etc.). Calling it a true privacy fork is disingenuous when it disables three user accessible options and is otherwise just rebranded, persistently behind in version/security updates, etc.

Chrome doesn't accept toolbars, has a minimalist fixed interface (a lot of printer drivers & other shit install addons), updates Flash & such automatically, etc.

Plus advertising helps Chrome tremendously.

Most problems I've had with bloat in Firefox relate to bad plugins (Shockwave, Flash, etc.) and bad addons.

If you've updated all your plugins to their latest versions, disabling all of your addons and enabling them one by one until you find what's leaking can be helpful.

In my experience, Firebug is an awesome and flexible tool, but it leaks. I only enable it when I need to. That's one example.

SRWare Iron is a joke; go with a Chromium build if you're looking for a completely open source version of Chrome, then disable the four options SRWare codes out entirely. They'll remain persistently disabled between installs (I just use the builds of Chromium provided by Google and update occasionally).

The WebRequest API (experimental) is promising but at this time it doesn't touch what Firefox has; Chrome/Chromium simply do not permit extensions the same level of access.

There are only a few real world browsing scenarios that I have encountered with Chrome (vs. FF7) that Chrome is faster, and sometimes I have encountered the inverse. However it depends on the machine; on slower machines, Chrome is a lot faster, and Opera is great for older PCs because it'll run circles around both.

Adblock Plus for Chrome is incomplete and cannot block many elements properly, including those loaded by legitimate resources (say, a Flash player); see the many issues merged into this Chromium issue.

RequestPolicy works great in conjunction with NoScript. Don't know if it works with Firefox mobile (doubt it), but it's great for site specific permissions on the desktop.