Firefox 69: userChrome.css and userContent.css disabled by default - …

archived 26 May 2019 01:03:51 UTC

Firefox 69: userChrome.css and userContent.css disabled by default

by Martin Brinkmann on May 24, 2019 in Firefox - Last Update: May 24, 2019 - 63 comments
Mozilla plans to land a change in Firefox 69 that disables the loading of userChrome.css and userContent.css by default to improve performance.
The files userChrome.css and userContent.css are used to modify content of webpages or the browser itself using CSS instructions.
The option to do so is not removed but Mozilla plans to make it opt-in instead of opt-out. The organization states that not having to look for the two files on startup improves the start-up performance of the Firefox browser.
Firefox users who use the files already will have the feature enabled for them automatically to avoid disruptions to their workflows or expectations.
The preference needs to be flipped to True on new installations only starting with the release of Firefox 69.
Timeline for the change (proposed, subject to change):
  • Firefox 68: Firefox checks if userChrome.css or userContent.css exist. If yes, preference will be set to True to allow the loading of these files on browser start. If no, preference remains set to False (don't look).
  • Firefox 69: new installations will not support userChrome.css and userContent.css by default unless preference is set by the user.

The Preference that determines the state

firefox toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets
The preference in question is toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets. Here is how you change its value:
  1. Load about:config in the Firefox address bar.
  2. Confirm that you will be careful.
  3. Search for toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets using the search at the top.
  4. Toggle the preference. True means Firefox supports the CSS files, False that it ignores them.

Closing Words

Options to load userChrome.css and userContent.css won't go away but users need to be aware that they may need to change the preference to allow the loading of these files from Firefox 69 onward.
The organization announced no plans to retire the option in the future
Mozilla landed the User Scripts WebExtensions API recently in Firefox, but it appears unrelated to the change.
Now You: Do you use these files in Firefox?
Summary
Firefox 69: userChrome.css and userContent.css disabled by default
Article Name
Firefox 69: userChrome.css and userContent.css disabled by default
Description
Mozilla plans to land a change in Firefox 69 that disables the loading of userChrome.css and userContent.css by default to improve performance.
Author
Martin Brinkmann
Publisher
Ghacks Technology News
Logo
Ghacks Technology News
Advertisement

We need your help

Advertising revenue is falling fast across the Internet, and independently-run sites like Ghacks are hit hardest by it. The advertising model in its current form is coming to an end, and we have to find other ways to continue operating this site.
We are committed to keeping our content free and independent, which means no paywalls, no sponsored posts, no annoying ad formats or subscription fees.
If you like our content, and would like to help, please consider making a contribution:

Comments

  1. Klaas Vaak said on May 24, 2019 at 6:58 am
    Reply
    I use userChrome.css, but the setting toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets does not occur in my about:config. Does that mean I have to create it in order to ensure I can keep using userChrome.css from FF69 onwards?
    1. Martin Brinkmann said on May 24, 2019 at 7:10 am
      Reply
      It will be created when you upgrade, if you use at least one of the files, it should be set to true automatically so that you don’t need to do anything.
  2. Dave said on May 24, 2019 at 7:06 am
    Reply
    I use them, otherwise FF like like crap.
    I’m using a gaming PC FFS not some dirt cheap cell phone. I want to see pretty 3D buttons.
    1. anon said on May 24, 2019 at 11:44 am
      Reply
      It has nothing to do with mobile. Skeuomorphic design is ugly and a performance degrader.
      1. Dave said on May 24, 2019 at 6:07 pm
        Reply
        It is not ugly, unless you perceive everything around you to be ugly.
        My PC has so much performance potential a skeuomorphic UI design does not degrade my performance enough to notice and…
        It totally has to do with mobile devices. They want everything to look the same and a skeuomorphic UI design would noticeably degrade the performance of those tiny wannabe PC’s and those cpu cycles are needed for far more important things like, targeted advertising and tracking your location. So they try to make the PC UI look like the mobile UI.
        They can’t make both look good so they try to make both look flat, lifeless, plain.
        PS My mobile devices look like the pads in Star Trek with every button functional, every readout realtime. It’s still flat, but at least it’s not so plain and lifeless looking.
      2. John Fenderson said on May 24, 2019 at 6:46 pm
        Reply
        @anon: “Skeuomorphic design is ugly”
        Not everyone agrees with this.
      3. Anonee said on May 25, 2019 at 12:19 am
        Reply
        @John Fenderson: “Not everyone agrees with this.”
        Not everyone disagrees with this.
  3. Kristoff said on May 24, 2019 at 7:19 am
    Reply
    Two thoughts on this:
    1. I sincerely hope Mozilla never eliminates userChrome.css and userContent.css functionality. That functionality is at least 75% of the reason why I don’t switch to Chrome.
    2. I find it interesting that Mozilla is claiming that trying to open these two files on startup makes any noticeable difference. Why? Because, on startup, Firefox opens/creates all sorts of files and databases related to functionality that the user is likely not using. And the time duration from when the user exits Firefox to when the Firefox process actually terminates can still be measured in full seconds. In other words, they aren’t fixing what is really causing noticeable performance issues.
  4. Shiva said on May 24, 2019 at 7:34 am
    Reply
    I read the title of the post in the feeds and “by default” was covered by ellipsis (…). No comment in that time frame!
    My god, I’m wrong if I say that chrome folder doens’t exist after Firefox installation? So userChrome.css and userContent.css are added after by users those want to use them for specific purposes, right? Why Firefox’s Team keep me busy another neuron of my brain by disabling that setting for start-up performance? It seems to me that start-up is already optimized, or not?
    If they would commit themselves to solve the reasons why a user choose to use these files (try to guess?) it would be a step forward…
  5. Iron Heart said on May 24, 2019 at 8:02 am
    Reply
    The first step towards its removal. The last possible method of interface customization gone, I totally don’t appreciate it.
    I hope this teaches a lesson to all those who have said: “Don’t worry, there is still userChrome.css.” when Mozilla disabled legacy add-ons. But I can imagine that those people will continue to say so until even the disabled by default preference gets removed as well.
    1. Jody Thornton said on May 24, 2019 at 4:38 pm
      Reply
      @Iron Haart
      No, you won’t hear that from me. I’ve cited that I love ESR v60, but I am concerned about what change ESR v68 might bring. If I can escape the userChrome.css deprecation for eighteen more months, all the better. But I must admit the Pale Moon 28.5 has been kinda working well. And it now has the Photonic theme, so it can look like Quantum.
      1. Peterc said on May 24, 2019 at 9:40 pm
        Reply
        @Jody Thornton:
        “I must admit the Pale Moon 28.5 has been kinda working well. And it now has the Photonic theme, so it can look like Quantum.”
        Thanks for pointing this out. I’ve been using the Compact Moon theme and extension since I discovered them, and my Pale Moon still basically looks like pre-Australis Firefox (only, well, more compact, with more real estate available for content on moronically ill-conceived 16:9 laptop screens, and room for a *lot* more pinned tabs and toolbar buttons). I’m *very* happy with Compact Moon and I never check out other themes, so the Photonic theme was news to me.
        Pale Moon was already my default browser much of the time even *before* Firefox went Australis (because it was somewhat faster and much more stable), and a fully customizable pre-Australis GUI is what *I’m* used to and appreciate. But the new Photonic theme might make switching easier for more recent adopters, kind of like LibreOffice’s optional NotebookBar GUI might make switching easier for MS Office refugees who were used to the Ribbon.
        Anyway, it’s a useful tip for users who like Photon and are worried about Firefox GUI customizability eventually going away entirely.
  6. SocialMediaGrandpa said on May 24, 2019 at 8:44 am
    Reply
    It’s a great idea. Make the world’s fastest browser. By removing all functionality. Woosh.
  7. SpywareFan said on May 24, 2019 at 8:53 am
    Reply
    Yes, Chromification is P1, not security issues like CSP… ( https://www.ghacks.net/2019/05/23/firefox-csp-issue-may-cause-extension-conflicts/ )
    And that’s only to make it harder for people who like tabs below toolbar because of startup performance? With modern hardware? And maybe with 3 conflicting extensions?
    Haha, liars.
  8. FI-Flex said on May 24, 2019 at 8:56 am
    Reply
    I was scared for a second when I read the title thinking they disabled it permanently!
  9. Antony said on May 24, 2019 at 9:54 am
    Reply
    For performance reasons? Well, I find that hard to believe. A lot of customization is being phased out and I don’t like that all. Currently, I use userChrome.css with just one rule to hide the menu button with the three lines in the top right corner in a portable Firefox for an elementary school, so that kids don’t screw around with it. I wish this won’t go away.
  10. John C. said on May 24, 2019 at 10:13 am
    Reply
    Yes, I use those two files in the current release version of Firefox. And although Mozilla may not have announced any plans to remove options to load userChrome.css and userContent.css in the future, they haven’t said that they won’t either. I’m not sure if the User Scripts WebExtensions API will be a worthy alternative, but hopefully it will be.
  11. Pedro said on May 24, 2019 at 10:40 am
    Reply
    I hope they don’t mess with this much more. I really like Firefox how it is, but I did a couple of changes to userChrome.css to make tab close buttons only visible when hovering the mouse over them (useful when you have lots of tabs open), and to give color to the bookmark folders. But there’s some really cool set-ups around.
  12. Tom Hawack said on May 24, 2019 at 10:46 am
    Reply
    “Mozilla plans to land a change in Firefox 69 that disables the loading of userChrome.css and userContent.css by default to improve performance.”
    To improve the performance? Is this a joke or, as suggested by ‘Iron Heart’ above, “The first step towards its removal.” even if the article states that “The organization announced no plans to retire the option in the future”? No plans now, or no announced plan. But then, why such a move?
    I use both user userChrome.css and userContent.css and they bring more than plain cosmetics.
    Frankly, as i see it now, should these two assistants be fired that I’d unsubscribe from the company.
    No performance issue here. “Issue” means issue, not a lost of a few tenths of a second.
    With userChrome.css, userContent.css, Autoconfig and Policy Templates, 45 extensions… Firefox 67 loads immediately, or perceived as such.
    I don’t understand this obsession of speed, “Speed Superstar” so to say. Speed is a parameter as well as comfort. Firefox pre-Quantum was so slow to start that speed at that time was required, needed to be considered. But faster than fast is obsessional.
    Of course a naked browser, ran out of the box, will break records. But what’s the point if the user wishes to fine tune other considerations ? If the trend is to aim a robotic world all of uniformity conceived for robotic users then count me out.
    1. anon said on May 24, 2019 at 12:02 pm
      Reply
      Mozilla has to balance customizability, maintenance, and user experience. Firefox will always be more customization-friendly than Chromium-based browsers.
      1. Iron Heart said on May 24, 2019 at 1:11 pm
        Reply
        @anon
        Once userChrome.css is completely removed, Firefox will be less customizable than Vivaldi. Vivaldi is based on Chromium.
      2. ShintoPlasm said on May 24, 2019 at 3:35 pm
        Reply
        After removing legacy add-on support, (potentially) the .css files and the more limited amount of available APIs, how much customisation-friendly will Firefox really be?
        Also: “The organization states that not having to look for the two files on startup improves the start-up performance of the Firefox browser.”
        On a modern computer, looking for two text files in a specific folder takes an infinitesimal amount time and energy. Mozilla’s excuse for this move is beyond pathetic.
      3. John Fenderson said on May 24, 2019 at 5:01 pm
        Reply
        @anon: “Firefox will always be more customization-friendly than Chromium-based browsers.”
        So what? Firefox is less customizable than it used to be in ways that are important to me. I don’t care about how it compares to Chromium.
      4. anon said on May 24, 2019 at 11:22 pm
        Reply
        @John Fenderson Endless and senseless customizability hinders maintenance, which then degrades the user experience. At least we still have a Firefox because they finally decided to create a new, unified, and well thought-out add-ons system.
    2. Richard Allen said on May 24, 2019 at 1:31 pm
      Reply
      “It might go away someday, but I know of no active plans to do that.” Mike Conley @mike_conley (Mozilla software developer, FF front end)
      If userChrome.css or userContent.css are added AFTER the release of v69 then the config setting will need to be flipped to true. When my install of Nightly was updated to v69 the css files continued to work without any interaction on my part.
      Depends on the hardware but on my desktop (4 core cpu, ssd), after removing the “chrome” folder from my profile that contains the css files I’m not sure if there is Any improvement in startup time. If there is an improvement it’s less than a tenth of a second. Maybe one of the slower dual core laptops with a 5400 rpm HDD will see more of an improvement in startup times but even then I wonder what the improvement would be. Quarter of a second… more, less?
      1. Richard Allen said on May 24, 2019 at 1:42 pm
        Reply
        Couldn’t find it earlier but here’s the relevant tweet:
        “https://twitter.com/FirefoxNightly/status/1131287595563065344”
    3. 99 said on May 24, 2019 at 1:37 pm
      Reply
      One thing to note is that Firefox 68 is going to go out with bug 1550157, which automatically sets that pref for users that have a pre-existing userChrome.css or userContent.css file, so we expect that to help avoid annoying most people who have those types of customizations already – they shouldn’t notice a difference.
      — Mike Conley (:mconley)
      – they shouldn’t notice a difference. = there is no reason for you at all to complain.
      1. Stan said on May 24, 2019 at 10:29 pm
        Reply
        Yes there is, Mozilla have a history of speaking with forked tongue, I’m surprised the usual ‘security’ excuse wasn’t used, speed’s a new one.
        Why the hell do you think this suddenly came up, of course they’re angling to remove the option.
        Insert Pinocchio GIF here…
    4. Anonymous said on May 24, 2019 at 4:03 pm
      Reply
      “Firefox pre-Quantum was so slow to start that speed at that time was required”
      Try Waterfox, it starts 2 seconds for me and you can customize everything with Classic Theme Restorer.
      1. Tom Hawack said on May 24, 2019 at 10:16 pm
        Reply
        @Anonymous, here Firefox 67 starts quasi instantaneously, even with all the luggage I mentioned above. Running on a PC which is not particularly powerful, but having my Firefox profile on a RAM disk may helop slightly (RAMDisk mainly intended to avoid the heavy disk usage when browsing, moreover disk cache disabled).
        Firefox now is better than great in my view, which is why I wouldn’t like “fundamentals” IMO to disappear. And userChrome.css together with userContent.css are fundamental. More than cosmetics, I happen to run several userChrome scripts which bring a lot.
        I’m sure Waterfox is nice, I had tested it several years ago (far before the Quantum era) and left it then because it didn’t appear to me any faster than Firefox.
      2. Anonymous said on May 25, 2019 at 5:58 am
        Reply
        “I’m sure Waterfox is nice, I had tested it several years ago (far before the Quantum era) and left it then because it didn’t appear to me any faster than Firefox.”
        “I don’t understand this obsession of speed”
        Isn’t it ironic that you’re obessing with speed yourself? 1-2 seconds faster won’t make any difference.. How many times do you open the browser a day?
        “Firefox now is better than great in my view, which is why I wouldn’t like “fundamentals” IMO to disappear. ”
        Firefox fundamental was its customization. When Firefox abandoned the powerful addons system for the sake of 1-2 seconds, it’s not Firefox anymore.
        So what we see here? Firefox keep on removing features here and there for the sake of ‘speed’.
        When a smartphone is almost as dumb as dumb phones, can you still call it smartphone?
      3. Tom Hawack said on May 25, 2019 at 9:40 am
        Reply
        @Anonymous, speed was a problem with older versions of Firefox when it’d take 6-7 seconds here to get it started, which is why it was of my concern at the time and led me to try Waterfox.
        As I mentioned it, the problematic is IMO excessively focusing on a parameter without balancing it with other ones. Firefox Quantum speed is now a no-problem so, IMO, pulling on other parameters (userChrome.css and userContent.css being disabled, by default or not) to gain a few milliseconds seems to be a non-argument.
        A browser’s fundamentals? Security, privacy, customization, speed as I see it. Firefox Quantum honors all four, I wouldn’t want the customization area to be discredited on the ground of speed and, if the reason was security and/or privacy then theses reasons would require explanations (today’s world is full of anti-progress explained by security, which is maybe not always the right explanation).
        Concerning Firefox : let’s not take for factual what is not even announced not what is announced as possible. We’ll see. But I maintain that, for my concern, usage, Firefox Quantum is the ultimate at this time. Of course perfection is not of this world but, globally, Firefox undeniably IMO is the leader. In My Opinion :=)
      4. Klaas Vaak said on May 25, 2019 at 9:54 am
        Reply
        @Tom Hawack: that sums it up. What is less clear, and therefore of concern, is what is Mozilla’s strategy. Lately they have been implementing measures that are confirmation, or an indication thereof, that they care less about what makes FF unique, esp. the customisability, which can also be used to improve privacy, security, and even speed. That customisability is what in commercial terms is called a “unique selling point”, or USP.
        Whether because of strategy or for other reasons, Mozilla’s actions are/will reduce that customisability. That, in combination with nefarious activities like telemetry, already have and will continue to put users off. Now, maybe that is part of the strategy, we don’t know, but it sure reminds me of how Microsoft seems intent on putting users, esp. home users, off Windows, although that strategy, if it is one, has not been revealed as such.
        I do agree that for now FF’s USP is its customisability, which is 2nd best to none.
      5. Tom Hawack said on May 25, 2019 at 3:00 pm
        Reply
        @Klaas Vaak, I do agree with your perspective. Presently I perceive Mozilla’s strategy concerning Firefox (and possibly upcoming Thunderbird as well in July) as contradictory at times. There is obviously an effort on speed, security and privacy but meanwhile telemetry is gaining ground. If I was a lawyer defending a strategy I’d suggest that if tracking requires telemetry on the other hand telemetry is not as such systematically aimed at tracking, may be processed anonymously. The problem for us all is that this argument is the very one of most companies which deny tracking on the ground of simple, anonymous telemetry ‘to improve the user’s experience”. Who’s lying and who’s honest? As in life, hard to say without factual evidence.
        Hard to say which is why, without being cynical, I just cannot proceed otherwise than banning/disabling any form of telemetry I may find, and that includes Firefox. But what if I was mistaking?
        Concerning Firefox’s future, as you I have no idea. I guess many of us are in a wait and see position and I deplore comments which announce the worst as the best with no other evidence than their deep conviction : innocents have been sentenced to death because of deep convictions, those of the jury.
        Carpe diem. Let’s enjoy what we have, remain critic and cautious, keep the best and avoid the less good of our browsers. Tomorrows will come soon enough and then, as always, we’ll improvise and adapt. Just hoping that the great capacity of humans to adapt doesn’t mean to resign.
      6. Klaas Vaak said on May 25, 2019 at 3:56 pm
        Reply
        @Tom Hawack: +1
      7. 99 said on May 25, 2019 at 1:38 pm
        Reply
        @Tom Hawack said on May 25, 2019 at 9:40 am
        pulling on other parameters (userChrome.css and userContent.css being disabled, by default or not) to gain a few milliseconds seems to be a non-argument.
        You miss the entire point of this new preference toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets
        The preference tells the broser on startup, if the files “userChrome.css” and “userContent.css” exists or not. In case not, there is no need to scan the harddrive if this files exist or not. That’s a leaner startup with less potentially hiccups and not holding back the parent process and content process, an improvement for the majority of users. And that’s an argument!
        Speaking about “userChrome.css and userContent.css being disabled, by default”
        From Firefox 69 on, in case of a fresh install – e.g. with a brand new Profile – the preference is set to “false” for the simple reason: On a fresh install there are no “userChrome.css” and no “userContent.css” yet. For the simple reason, they must be created by the user first. Logic, isn’t it? … and by no way “userChrome.css and userContent.css being disabled, by default”.
        If a user is savvy enough to create this files, one could expect that he is also able to flip the preference to “true”.
        Once this is done, the user may flip the preference later on to “false”, par example for testing purpose. In this case and only from this moment on – upon a user action! – you can call it “userChrome.css and userContent.css is disabled”.
        In summary, the majority of users is pleased with a leaner browser startup. The tiny group with pre existing customization stylesheets are not affected at all by this changes. On top of that, this minority of “power users” gain an easy switch to disable and enable theirs existing stylesheets with this new preference.
        That’s an improvement for everyone.
        Any thing wrong with that?
      8. Klaas Vaak said on May 25, 2019 at 4:03 pm
        Reply
        @99: it seems to me that it is you who misses the real point entirely.
        On start-up FF does NOT need to scan the entire hard drive, but just the profile folder, which is where those 2 files reside if they are present. Therefore, scanning for those 2 plain text files does not take a long time, i.e. it takes a few microseconds.
        So, disabling the loading of those file will NOT contribute any perceptible improvement to the start-up time at all. This measure by Mozilla does not make any logical sense; either this is part of the ever more pervasive window dressing drive, or there is something more sinister behind it. To use a very “profound” cliché: time will tell.
    5. John Fenderson said on May 24, 2019 at 4:58 pm
      Reply
      @Tom Hawack: “I don’t understand this obsession of speed”
      I think that Mozilla believes that speed is the thing that will drive users to Firefox over other browsers. I think that they’ve wrong about this, too.
      1. Tom Hawack said on May 24, 2019 at 10:24 pm
        Reply
        @John Fenderson, speed is important but it’s only a parameter among a few others. I’m not sure users consider their browser as a dragster, nor do they wish it to be a snail. Now that we have speed may the company consider that the price to pay for a few extra milliseconds is maybe not worth preventing users from accommodating their van as they like it.
        But, again, nothing is officially mentioned about removing userChrome/Content CSSs. Let’s wait and see. This said, those who do use theses “assistants” must be a minority.
  13. Anonymous said on May 24, 2019 at 11:45 am
    Reply
    “The preference in question is toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets.”
    That kinda says it all. It’s a “legacy” option. Only a matter of time before it’s completely removed.
    1. 99 said on May 24, 2019 at 1:31 pm
      Reply
      That kinda says it all. It’s a “legacy” option.
      It’s marked legacy because it’s a technology that’s been around for a _verrrrry_ long time, and we’ve allowed it to limp along for years.
      It might go away someday, but I know of no active plans to do that.
      Source: Mike Conley via twitter
      1. Stan said on May 24, 2019 at 11:11 pm
        Reply
        That sounds like Dotzler Speak to me.
  14. Sam said on May 24, 2019 at 12:34 pm
    Reply
    What about removing themes? Because the browser loads faster without.
    And addons? Who cares bout them btw?
    Seriously Mozilla…
  15. Allen said on May 24, 2019 at 1:09 pm
    Reply
    I expect Mozilla would make users optional if they could. They deserve their dwindling market share.
  16. Sound Judgment said on May 24, 2019 at 2:15 pm
    Reply
    Time saved by the removal of these two files from FF Browser Startup:
    0.00000000000000000001 mSec.
  17. Steve#99 said on May 24, 2019 at 2:52 pm
    Reply
    The past five years of Firefox have been an uninvited/unwanted fight of Mozilla verses power users. I’m done, Mozilla won: I tapped out yesterday after reading this latest feature removal. Instead of Firefox not establishing 20 TCP connections to various domains upon startup, which would save far more than 20ms, Mozilla instead choose a user hostile method of shaving those 20ms by removing functionality. “Because no one uses it”, userChrome/userContent.css will be extra user.js settings today and gone tomorrow feature. The last few months of using Firefox have destroyed every last ounce of love I once had for it. I’m done, bye FF.
    I switched yesterday to the portable version of the Iridium Browser, which is a Chrome Clone. After shutting out google (see below), Iridium is dead silent with zero internet connects; unlike Mozilla’s products which are telemetry sucking / sending beast. The rest of this post is about Iridium, which I have zero connection with but came to it after spending a few hours compiling ungoogled-chromium which was not a simple task, taking 7+ hours. Note, Chrome & its clones are no where near as customizable as Firefox, but the writing is on the wall: Firefox wants to be Chrome and is no longer interested in being Firefox.
    * Get Iridium here:
    * For windows, you can lock google out of your Iridium business using the below Win7 firewall cmds (you can do near the same with ufw rules in ubuntu). Note, you will not be able to use gmail, youtube, google.com, et al in the iridium browser if you issue the below cmds, but that is the absolute intent of them – to keep your data private from google. The formatting might get hosed in this post due to html/web rules, so lookup how to issue WFW commands and correct all of the quoting. The below rules assume Iridium is here “C:\Program Files\Iridium\” . Delete rules precede the actual rules so you can place them in a cmd file; that way they won’t clutter your fw rules with multiple entries if clicked on more than once. Remove “,80,8080″ if you always use https and never use http.
    netsh advfirewall firewall delete rule name=”Iridium”
    netsh advfirewall firewall delete rule name=”GoogleBlock”
    netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name=”Iridium” dir=out action=allow program=”C:\Program Files\Iridium\iridium.exe” enable=yes protocol=tcp remoteport=443,80,8080 description=”See also GoogleBlock and IridiumBlock”
    netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name=”GoogleBlock” dir=out action=block program=”C:\Program Files\Iridium\iridium.exe” enable=yes remoteip=172.217.0.0-172.217.255.255
    * Because of the above firewall rules, we won’t be able to visit google playstore (really, why would we want to). Instead, install addons the more private way from a file. For instance, do the following to install uBlock-Origin.
    i. Download uBlock from the link below. Get the latest release version; careful not to choose the dev version unless that is what you want…
    ii. Unzip uBlock, remember the location
    iii. In Iridium, go to this “web address”
    chrome://extensions/
    and check the box to allow Developer mode in the top right.
    iv. Click the Load unpacked extension button and select the uBlock unzipped folder from step 2 to install it.
    * If you don’t want Iridium calling home with its minor telemetry, issue these 2 cmds
    netsh advfirewall firewall delete rule name=”IridiumBlock”
    netsh advfirewall firewall add rule name=”IridiumBlock” dir=out action=block enable=yes remoteip=88.198.85.193
    I’ve been using Iridium for the past 2 days now. It is refreshing not to fight a browser, not to have to be an expert at the innards of a browser, and not keeping track of 100s of user.js rules just to do a simple thing: browse.
    1. Jake said on May 25, 2019 at 9:52 am
      Reply
      do you know if portable version of that browser is truly portable or does it make “Register stuff”..
  18. John IL said on May 24, 2019 at 3:12 pm
    Reply
    I don’t live in a Google world myself, but I don’t understand Firefox’s thinking anymore. They seem to be just randomly trying stuff now days to see what strikes a cord. What happened to their vision?
  19. Anonymous said on May 24, 2019 at 7:42 pm
    Reply
    about:config just searching “toolkit” you have already a vague idea of what kind of spyware you have installed.
  20. Ben said on May 24, 2019 at 8:49 pm
    Reply
    Will be funny when Mozilla removes both files in the future.
    Fanboys who said addons gone was not a big deal because of userChrome will finally see the problem with the bullshit Mozilla is doing.
  21. Ben said on May 24, 2019 at 8:50 pm
    Reply
    The reason is obviously bullshit too, only a step to removing the files altogether in the future.
  22. to improve performance. said on May 24, 2019 at 9:42 pm
    Reply
    to improve performance.
  23. Vítor I said on May 24, 2019 at 10:24 pm
    Reply
    Another feature heading to the death row…
  24. Stan said on May 24, 2019 at 11:21 pm
    Reply
    Not that hard to figure out.
    They used the ‘community’, became rich, then screwed the ‘community’.
  25. Greg said on May 25, 2019 at 12:32 am
    Reply
    Mozilla will eventually perm remove these 2 things, this is just the start of the removal.
  26. StopPopups said on May 25, 2019 at 2:15 am
    Reply
    If there is another option than
    #PopupAutoCompleteRichResult { display: none !important; }
    to get rid of auto-complete popups, all is set.
  27. ULBoom said on May 25, 2019 at 5:42 am
    Reply
    If mozilla can beat chrome, chromedgium, safari, whichever in some of those weird “standardized” tests sites like to publish, maybe they’ve convinced themselves they will take over the world, IDK.
    How long FF takes to start is affected by much more than those two files, network connection availability being one, the OS doing who knows what in the background when FF is launched, OS prefetching, VPN active, etc, lots of things.
    MY FF is ESR60 on a NVMe SSD in a gaming laptop. Should be enough hardware, I think. Sometimes it launches seemingly instantaneously; other times, in a second or two. That’s fine. If these changes make it launch faster than instantaneously, who cares? They won’t affect the two second launches in any noticeable way.
    FF out of the box isn’t much different than one of the better chromia. What it offers is customizability and privacy both attained with user changes; add ons and about:config mods.
    Mozilla advertises privacy but only delivers a smattering of it through Options. I doubt the average chrome user ever changes any settings (Argh! They’re scary!), only adds extensions that increase spying but look cute.
    Mozilla should give customers the privacy they promise with a version of FF that has the same config settings privacy conscious users make. The difference is very noticeable browsing; it’s faster, too. D’oh!
    Who’s got the big ones at Mozilla? Double dog dare you!
    1. lk34lkn5k34n said on May 25, 2019 at 11:23 am
      Reply
      Firefox development has gone from a usable browser to a developer circlejerk in recent years. The UI changes to match every passing trend. Every UI is “ugly” as soon as the next one comes out. Change for the sake of change. Customization becomes worse and worse. Features keep getting removed to shave off precious nanoseconds.
      Devs only care about the things that users do NOT care about. They don’t care about what users think, because it’s not for the users. It’s for the devs.
  28. Alanf said on May 25, 2019 at 1:57 pm
    Reply
    But…
    … will any point upgrades to Firefox 67 (or later), resolve the irritating issue of the the obscure, and essentially meaningless message
    “Your organisation has disabled the ability to change some options”
    that appears a the top of the Options, (about:preferences), page.
  29. Lord-Lestat said on May 25, 2019 at 3:18 pm
    Reply
    Logical steps for a feature removal:
    1) First telemetry is gathered about specific features
    2) Afterwards it becomes an opt-in
    3) then deprecated
    4) then removed
    Chrome does not have advanced customization – So Firefox has to remove it too. Any more questions?
  30. Lord-Lestat said on May 25, 2019 at 4:16 pm
    Reply
    Anyone remembers which hip catchwords have been used so that it was possible that the removal of XUL and XUL-add-ons was justified?
    Yes that’s right: Security and performance.
    Now guess what Mozilla is using again in this case! Like it or not, this customization option too is gone in a couple of versions. Now where it will be deactivated for most users – and most will not turn it on as they do not know it – it is the perfect reasoning Mozilla has for removing just another minor used feature. And with that it rises Mozilla’s hope that more Chrome and simple users will join Firefox as the last remaining amount of “bloat” will be removed at some point in the future.
    Same old story.
  31. Phylis Sophical said on May 25, 2019 at 5:12 pm
    Reply
    Yep. Use it for Tabs on Bottom.
  32. Marja Erwin said on May 25, 2019 at 5:28 pm
    Reply
    When Mozilla introduced the new extra-painful tab throbbers, and users started suffering migraines from those tab throbbers, the official fix involved userChrome.css.
    It wasn’t a very reliable fix, either. It wouldn’t necessarily load while the tabs were loading and the tab throbbers were firing.
    A lot of accessibility and safety fixes rely on userChrome.css and/or userContent.css. Yes, css is hard to learn and easy to screw up, but browsers and websites which inflict migraines are harder to use.
    I use userChrome.css to set a font and font size I can read, try to block tab throbbers, and some minor fixes.
    I use userContent.css to set a font and font size again, though I can’t use one front for all scripts, and to block a ton of migraine triggers, and some minor fixes.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Check the box to consent to your data being stored in line with the guidelines set out in our privacy policy

Please note that your comment may not appear immediately after you post it.

Be polite: we do not allow comments that threaten or harass, or are personal attacks. Please leave politics and religion out of discussions!

Advertisement

Spread the Word

Ghacks Newsletter Sign Up

Please click on the following link to open the newsletter signup page: Ghacks Newsletter Sign up

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

About gHacks

Ghacks is a technology news blog that was founded in 2005 by Martin Brinkmann. It has since then become one of the most popular tech news sites on the Internet with five authors and regular contributions from freelance writers.
© 2019 gHacks Technology News. All Rights Reserved.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%