Firefox considering off-by-default preference for loading user.js files

There are already third party utilities that inject dlls or monitor the mozilla windows to allow features lost when legacy extension support was removed.

I saw on ghacks the other day about ThunderBirdTray which is a 3rd party executable that watches Thunderbird to restore the functionality lost when MinimizeToTray stopped working.

Improved privacy, better download managment(DownloadThemAll what it used to be able to do), OS integration, ect have for the most part been eroded away.

Eventually things seem like they will escalate to the point you'll have to use CheatEngine, a suite of 3rd party programs running in the background, or special compiles of the browser made by 3rd parties like WaterFox or yourself to get chrome or firefox to do anything in addition to loading a webpage, and to stop it from doing a lot of unwanted things.

nzd · 6 years ago

I'm quite happy since the day I left official Firefox. First I disabled auto-updates at v55.0 for some long time and then switched to Waterfox. So far the switch is a peace of mind and I don't feel disrespected when I see news like this any more.

Mozilla is unfortunately losing its meaning since they decided to follow Google closely. Firefox one day will be a marginal browser. Or maybe it already is?

Polylactic_acid · 6 years ago

I have been very happy with firefox recently. All of my extensions like script blockers and tree tabs have been ported to the new system and the browser has been super fast and full of great new features/privacy improvements.

samantohermes · 6 years ago

Waterfox doesn't really have a future. However, Pale Moon has a maintained XUL platform and redundancy in terms of developers.

I am using ghacks user.js[1], which makes fingerprinting harder and improves my privacy online. Removing user.js would mean less privacy for me.

[1]: https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js

rasz · 6 years ago

I inject this into Chrome to hopefully achieve something similar:

    window.AudioContext = undefined;
    window.OfflineAudioContext = undefined;
    window.BaseAudioContext = undefined;
    navigator.getUserMedia = undefined;
    navigator.webkitGetUserMedia = undefined;
    window.MediaStreamTrack = undefined;
    window.RTCPeerConnection = undefined;
    window.RTCSessionDescription = undefined;
    window.webkitMediaStreamTrack = undefined;
    window.webkitRTCPeerConnection = undefined;
    window.webkitRTCSessionDescription = undefined;
    if (navigator.mediaDevices) navigator.mediaDevices.enumerateDevices = undefined;
    
    //https://googlechrome.github.io/samples/beacon/
    navigator.sendBeacon = undefined;
    //https://mathiasbynens.github.io/rel-noopener/
    window.opener = undefined;
    
    //https://demo.agektmr.com/storage/
    unsafeWindow.window.openDatabase = undefined;
    Object.defineProperty(unsafeWindow.window, "indexedDB", { value: undefined });
    
    
    //https://browserleaks.com/canvas
    //https://panopticlick.eff.org
    HTMLCanvasElement.prototype.toDataURL = undefined;
    HTMLCanvasElement.prototype.toBlob = undefined;
    CanvasRenderingContext2D.prototype.getImageData = undefined;

zamadatix · 6 years ago

You create your own customized identity to avoid being unique? Seems unique in itself.

samantohermes · 6 years ago

But some items such as privacy.ResistFingerprinting will probably be added to the GUI, as they are related to the Tor Uplift project.

iudqnolq · 6 years ago

Are you using the Firefox setting privacy.resistFingerprinting?

humaid · 6 years ago

Yes, but there are some things (like privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing) which are hidden preferences you won't find in about:config.

mrandish · 6 years ago

I worry that this is yet another reduction in degrees of user's freedom to tweak, tune and adjust FF. Back when FF killed all XUL extensions, it lost one of its most uniquely valuable propositions. Yes, the change was required to make the browser more secure but at the time we were assured that new APIs supporting the lost functionality would come. It's been nearly three years since the change was announced and the functionality of several of the most popular extensions (like Tab Mix Plus) are still impossible to implement in Firefox.

I strongly support the mission of the open web but as a heavy FF user I'm not happy with the prevailing attitude at Mozilla that seems either against user customization.

gowld · 6 years ago

Mozilla is desperately trying to keep up with Google Chrome, plus also adding privacy controls, but simply can't. One of the first victims that Chrome (and all mass market apps) sacrificed in the service of rapid development is user control over their experience.

This is the cost of converting from a pragmatic power user tool to a slick Eternal September consumer product.

torstenvl · 6 years ago

> My main assumption is that 3% of users shouldn't want/need this thing, and 97% of users shouldn't be paying startup costs for it.

Removing user freedom because "users shouldn't want/need this thing" seems like a Google move.

vidarh · 6 years ago

If that one stat is actually significant, I'd understand it, but strace'ing Firefox during startup on my machine gives ~2500 stat calls, split between ~1400 stat(), and the rest roughly evenly spread between lstat and fstat.

Obviously that will vary between platforms and depending on what you have installed, but the one stat() needed to determine whether or not user.js is present would not seem to be the right thing to focus on.

addicted · 6 years ago

If that is indeed the case, the 3% is the only reason Firefox has the remaining 97%. If it wasn’t for the “freedom” types everyone would be recommending everyone to simply use Chrome and save themselves the support hassles when a Chrome optimized site doesn’t load on their parents’ laptop.

Deleted Comment

gdulli · 6 years ago

Firefox has definitely become synonymous to me with loss of functionality and control.

zzo38computer · 6 years ago

Yes, I thought, instead the browser should be made, increase the functionality/control availability to the user, make less things available to the document author.

zo1 · 6 years ago

All the major browsers are doing it.

lousken · 6 years ago

The biggest problem with user.js is the documentation, or rather lack thereof. Instead, mozilla should provide full documentation on how this file works and mainly which fuctions are available (FULL LIST) and what they do. In general, the config in firefox is a hot mess and user.js is not the problem.

yoklov · 6 years ago

I think it’s just pref/user_pref and such. Despite the name it is not a js file and is not parsed like one. I think the file extension is entirely vestigial.

But still, there's no complete list of these and only some of them are properly documented. I've tried to look up some prefs about half a year ago and couldn't find it anywhere. There's just a wiki that mentions some of them and on various blogs you can find a mention of what something does here and there, but that's about it.

molticrystal · 6 years ago

8bitsrule · 6 years ago

I understand the point of having the file every time I switch the FF version or the machine I'm running it in. It's portable and keeps me away from having to get near the teeth-grindingly awkward 'about:config' interface.

"checking for this file needlessly causes additional IO early on startup" is probably the lamest reason to get rid of it.

This is how user-control enabling features get removed, with barely a whimper. And it appears to be done by people that are looking for easy-hanging fruit to promote their brand from the look of it.

A_Parr · 6 years ago

I've lost my voice from all the other features they've dropped over the last decade plus. It's all fallen on deaf ears, anyway.

They don't care about Firefox users, because they're not Chrome users.

We are talking tens of miliseconds wasted every single day!

gray_-_wolf · 6 years ago

I doubt that it's 3% of users, I have user.js and also disabled telemetry. I would suspect there is not small amount of people who have both user.js and telemetry disabled same as me...

Tbh if you disable telemetry you don't really get to complain that your usage didn't get considered when you explicitly refused to tell Mozilla which features you use.

CamJN · 6 years ago

In that case Mozilla doesn't get to market themselves as giving a shit about privacy.

feanaro · 6 years ago

Yes, it's disturbing how the submitter entirely ignores the possibility of users who have telemetry disabled, as if it is not even a possibility. Since 3% is still too high for his agenda, he then begins throwing unwarranted conjectures that most of those 3% use a `user.js` against their own volition.

In fact, it seems obvious that this is a highly biased sample and probably in the other direction, at that. It seems a reasonable assumption that people who have turned off telemetry are those that would be more likely to use a `user.js` file.

I'm never sure what base Firefox is targeting. Sometimes with changes like these it seems like the casual user base but then you look at the changes they advertise (e.g. built in privacy) it's not stuff casual users care about. In the end the statistics show it's not attracting either side.

It's gotten to the point non-Google Chromium based browsers have higher usage share than Firefox. It makes me wonder how much longer Google will keep shoveling cash over to Mozilla as the numbers drop.