Firefox 57

Mozilla doesn't care. They run in a world of their own, isolated from any input from their users. The same thing happened with Ubuntu and the Unity platform. They went off in some wierd direction that few people liked.

You have to capture the best of their offerings and ignore the rest.

I use Firefox 12. All the addons work, but later versions killed them off.

The addons were the most valuable part of Firefox. The authors got tired of having to constantly update their extensions, and eventually most of them quit. Can't blame them.

Firefox 12? How do you get passed all those websites that demand you use the latest browser? I upgrade when I can no longer use businesses I need on the internet.

grrrrr

They said that would happen.

I haven't used Firefox in years. First I switched to Palemoon and then I switched to Waterfox. Waterfox though is now moving to its last version and they are going start a new browser. Here the thread on switching from ff57 to waterfox.

I don't like it one bit, either, but for purely functional reasons.

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

I use 18. I heard that 23 was the last good version.

I have found that Firefox 51 32 bitt version is the latest I can use and still works with my webcam plugins for some reason.

Why did Mozill stop letting plugins work ? I am guess too much to do with security crap. Give me a warning first, that's fine, but lLet ME decide if I want to let something through or not.

off. "

then they would forever have to waste time maintaining support for somethin g that few still uses

Thanks. That link explains it. I'm sure that Foscam will eventually have an update to their cameras.

Win10 has gone the same way.

Back in the 'old days' of limited graphics capability and color rendering, people went to great lengths to make apps 'pretty' with good colors and rounded shapes, etc.

Now we have the graphics cabability, everyone seems to have gone back to square corners, and limited color range.

Obviously technology no longer drives the market, only fashion.

Why would you think "technology" was different from anything else if life?

Maybe look at Opera. It is a Chrome clone as far as I can tell. Maybe it doesn't phone home.

I disagree, when the people who knew how to make and use technology were in control of their designs, then we saw real advances in how things were done. Now most of that control is left to marketing and fashion droids, we get crap, as expected.

What I find amazing is that you don't expect people to react the same way to technology that they do to bread. Technology isn't important for technology's sake. It's important for how it can change our life. It's a tool. Nothing more.

The droids are whiplashed by unpredictable popular fads.

So is the stock market.

Every once in a while I need to fire up the Windows 10 box to use an app that ain't available for Linux. This necessitates me turning off my WIFI as I regard anything from the likes of MS or Google or Apple etc etc as weapons grade spyware. But I can't turn off the neighbours' WIFI, some of which is not password protected, so it's deeply unsatisfactory. If I had something genuinely illegal to hide it wouldn't bother me; I'd accept it as just a price to be paid for being naughty. Sadly the fact of the matter is these nosy bastards have shown they just listen in to random people for their own entertainment, like when they got caught out earlier this year using a drone to spy on couples having sex in their back gardens and women sunbathing topless. The situation has got totally out of hand and no one in government seems to want to do anything about it. I've decided I may build a low-power 2.4Ghz jammer and leave it by the Win10 box for those odd times when I need it. Anyone know of a suitable active device for an oscillator for that frequency? Only needs to be a fraction of a Watt.

Spark gap ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson

I don't think they use AM any more though, Jim. ;)

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.