Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Tiny Extensions Which Should Be Merged Into Firefox
interwebsurfin.blogspot.com — Firefox while usually very intuitive, has some strange gaps in functionality which make certain tasks unnecessarily difficult. Here's a list of tiny extensions which fix it.
hobg- 1605 diggs
- digg it
- znxster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Some of those are worth it .. +digg .. Firefox extensions are intended as extensions, shouldn't be built in .. imho
- MellerTime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree. While I see that some of these would be useful to others, I don't use any of them (simply because, for me, there's no reason to). Keep it simple and leave FF as it is. It's annoying to have to load up my default set of extensions every time I do a new install, but I'd rather have to deal with that than grumble because I've got another bloated browser with more useless features than I need.
And if we're going to start adding extensions to FF, I say we pick some more useful ones than these... Fasterfox, Extended Statusbar, Tabbrowser Prefrences, Web Developer, FireBug... There are lots of better ones out there worth our time. - Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7i think the small useful ones should just be comebined into one big extention with the choice of removing features like a extention pack or something
- DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3here are a few I think they should add:
(2kb) FindBar Switcher
http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=2884
(8kb) Sort Bookmarks
http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=102
(12kb) Compact Menu
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/19/ - templest, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The only ones they should really add which should definitely be default behaviour is the expanding search-bar and the ability to delete search-engines from said bar. All the other ones are bloat.
- doolittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Another vote for adblock, in conjunction with the "filterset.g updater" which is strangely under mozilla suite addons...? I don't think I have ever installed ff w/o them.
- pile0nades, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CoLT - Copy Link Text is very useful.
http://www.borngeek.com/firefox/colt/ - Lemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3None of thsoe are essential at all. The only extension that I ever thought should be included by default is "show image" in the contextual menu for when images on a page stop loading. Very basic piece of functionality.
I'm all for leaving extentions as extensions... - brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Firefox extensions are intended as extensions, shouldn't be built in"
Maybe during install they could give you the option (unchecked by default of course) of installing a few of the lighter more popular extensions along with FF? - jameshales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@DigeratiPrime
Those first two extensions that you mention look pretty useless. Those sorts of functions are already in Firefox. 1) Open "Manage Bookmarks", right-click the bookmark list and there is a menu item for "Sort by Name". 2) Press Ctrl+F to open find bar, press Esc to close it. - alexkorova, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, one of the reasons I like Firefox so much is that you can customize it to the way you want, not what some people thing might be the best for "everyone".
- MellerTime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree. While I see that some of these would be useful to others, I don't use any of them (simply because, for me, there's no reason to). Keep it simple and leave FF as it is. It's annoying to have to load up my default set of extensions every time I do a new install, but I'd rather have to deal with that than grumble because I've got another bloated browser with more useless features than I need.
- kevin.gc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+49I'm in favor of keeping the bare bones firefox as light as possible.
- Randy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I completely agree with you, kevin.gc. I don't personally use any of these extensions, and I get by just fine. Keep this bloat out of future Firefox versions... That's the beauty of extensions with Firefox, you get what you want - no more, no less.
- twmsdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I'm with you. It's the reason I love firefox. I only use one extension. It's Adblock. I like simplicity of firefox. Rock on Mozilla.
- RandomSkratch, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27Aye
Pretty soon it's going to be Firescape Exfoxer - vexter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@randomskratch
Their is not enough +digging for humor ++++ - vexter, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2doh!!
- quentinmcalmott, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9kevin.gc: "I'm in favor of keeping the bare bones Firefox as light as possible."
The only problem with that is that the lighter you keep Firefox, the less functionality each user will have. An extension adds a lot more RAM usage, CPU usage, and potentiality to crash Firefox than it would if that functionality was incorporated into the browser itself. The more things that are not in Firefox, that means you have to add more extensions to get the same experience. The more things you add, the more unstable and more of a memory hog Firefox becomes.
And the average person won't install a bunch of extensions. So their view of Firefox will be that it just doesn't have the functionality needed to be their daily browser. - zybch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Of course, the most important extension you can add was left out!
AdBlock (plus the filterset) is a total MUST HAVE! - m85476585, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Mozilla probably can't include adblock because of legal reasons. If ads were blocked by default, advertisers would begin to notice.
- NoMoreNicksLeft, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree. This talk about including developer extensions (which do kick ass) is just silly... maybe 1 in 40 users are web developers.
The only one I think should be included by default would be Download Statusbar... I hate the stupid default download manager. - xs650, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One more post agreeing with you. I presently use 10 extensions. For the most part they aren't the same extensions I was using last year and won't be the same extensions I will be using next year.
Keep it light. Extensions are easy to find and easy to add. - salmonmoose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Whilst I'd like to see firefox remain bare-bones, I'd also like to see an effective way of releasing packs so that I can put all my favorite extensions in one installer rather than hunting them down all the time.
- squarehappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I'm in favor of keeping the bare bones firefox as light as possible."
Isn't that the point of this article? Tiny extra features that cumulatively improve the Firefox experience as a whole. As lazy as "Paste & Go" might seem, I found myself using it quite a bit in Opera, copying URLs from external sources. It varies from user to user, but that just drives the point home: just because you (think you) won't find it useful, that doesn't mean no one else will.
Is the overhead of these additional features that much of an impact? If they built this into the next Firefox release, would you complain or rejoice at the added functionality?
- john608, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15These are some really small extensions - I could see including some of them without hurting the performance or size of firefox. Read the article before totally saying they should not be included.
- cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Agreed, the only one that seemed a little much was the translate w/ babelfish extension. Also would like to see update notifier back as well (don't know why they removed that feature).
- netMASA, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I say no to search plugin hacks, I could never get it to work for me and Search Engine Optimization has those features and a lot more in a very clean menu and option box interface.
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Edit: Damnit... I didn't reply to this comment.
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Those extensions are pretty worthless. Somebody should tell that guy that clearing out your private data repeatedly isn't going to do much to make your browsing experience secure.
- Stoutlimb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18But it might help keep his visiting porn sites secure from his wife.
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4@Stoutlimb
If he's so insecure that he has to hide his internet habits from his wife, then he's got bigger problems than not wanting to download all his favourite extensions every time he installs Firefox. - poipoipoi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8never underestimate the importance of hding porn from one's wife.
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4As someone who's never been interested by porn, I guess I'm missing the point.
lol
I think I can comfortably say that if it were, it certainly wouldn't be something I'd be so ashamed of as to hide it from someone who was presumably important to me.
- greenbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25wouldn't it be possible, during setup of firefox for newcomers, to show a list of extensions they'd be interested? you know, just click on a check box of what extensions you might be interested in (with a description included, duh) and then download automatically when setups finish or something.
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think a link to Mozilla's plugin repository, addons.mozilla.org (which has a list of the 5 or 10 most frequently downloaded plugins on its main page) would be the best way to go.
- epohs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Agreed. I really like Firefox's minimalistic approach to let the user decide what functionality to add, and keep the experience lean for the folks that might not find these extensions useful.
That said, I think there is significant room for improving the discoverability of extensions. Many times there are extensions that would probably improve people's browsing experience that they just never find. - Darkhacker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Am I really the only one here who couldn't care less about Firefox features and more about the rendering technology, Gecko? As a web developer, an expanding search box or stupid little context menus for lazy people are the last of my concerns. The LAST thing I am looking forward to in Firefox 2 is these stupid little buttons and widgets and crap. I care more about having a standards complient browser. I do realize that this isn't exactly in Firefox's realm of development and that the Gecko guys aren't nessisarily the same people that work on Firefox the browser, although I think a 2.0 release should have something a little more worthy than THIS of all things. Someone wake me when Firefox passes ACID2. And don't try being the fanboy hero and saying that it does. If I hear another person say that Firefox passes ACID2 again I'll go crazy from these dorks that probebly don't even know what ACID2 is and probebly have never taken the test under Firefox.
- heinousjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5ACID2 doesn't matter, and anyone that uses it as the ultimate test of browser capability doesn't understand what it's actually about.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Darkhacker wrote: "Someone wake me when Firefox passes ACID2. And don't try being the fanboy hero and saying that it does. If I hear another person say that Firefox passes ACID2 again I'll go crazy from these dorks that probebly don't even know what ACID2 is and probebly have never taken the test under Firefox."
Better start going crazy then: http://flickr.com/photos/dbaron/126886608/
Of course, "does" isn't really the word to use here, since that's on a development branch. I believe an ACID2-compliant Gecko engine is scheduled for Firefox 3.0...
- CannonGod, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2These would indeed be nice touches to Firefox.
But if Firefox could iron out the memory leaks first....? - b7illsmith, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I am of the opposite opinion. I think that any function that could be made into an extension should. The sidebar with history and bookmarks for instance. Both history and bookmarks could probably benefit from being seperated from the browser. Competing development could lead to better bookmarking and history management. Other things like View page source and style would also be better off as an extension. For me, it is the extensions that make firefox such a good browser. Customizability - is that a word? :-)
- cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can see your point, and many of the functions you mentioned are already modified by extensions, but there becomes a line where it would be too much work for an average person to get what would be basic browser functionality installed. That is a fine line that I'm sure the Mozilla team has to balance every day.
Other options would be somebody, even Mozilla, making another version - maybe FireFox Lite - that does exactly that, similar to the Portable FireFox project - take the source code and modify it to fit a niche market. Also it was suggested above to have the installer itself offer common extensions to be installed. Ain't open source software great? - Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is an extension that I've heard of (but sadly don't have a link to at the moment) which bundles all of the extensions you currently have installed into a single XPI that you can pop on your thumb drive or web server and install wherever you like.
That seems a far better and more flexible solution to the "I hate having to redownload all of my favourite plugins" problem than putting it all into Firefox's core distribution. - Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@b7illsmith
(I still can't get used to Digg's new comment edit length)
I don't think that History and bookmark functionality should be removed from Firefox as they're both key and expected parts of standard browser behaviour (I'm pretty sure that even Lynx supports bookmarks). I do see where you're coming from though and agree with what you're saying.
- cecil_t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can see your point, and many of the functions you mentioned are already modified by extensions, but there becomes a line where it would be too much work for an average person to get what would be basic browser functionality installed. That is a fine line that I'm sure the Mozilla team has to balance every day.
- detrate, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20The best part about firefox is you get to CHOOSE what to add. I'm certainly not going to use all those, why do I need them built into my browser?
- antdude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yep, I don't want bloated browsers!
- rmccabe916, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's not exactly about bloating the browser, but implementing the features in the best way possible. Some features should definitely stand out from the others and they should be easily found by a user, yet others should be hidden from view until needed. One of the reasons I use Opera (It's MY preference; YOURS may be different. :p), is that most of it's features are hidden away until someone finds them and actually wants to use them. As Firefox adds on more and more features, I hope that it can implement them in the best way possible, and even possibly in ways never thought. Competition among the browsers would increase, and hopefully innovation would follow.
- nogami, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The only thing I wish was added was the "copy as plaint text" as a built-in option. I very, very rarely want to copy something and maintain the formatting and fonts. I'd much rather it defaulted everything to copy as plain text (infact I'd love a windows/mac util that would sit on the clipboard and auto-strip text formatting out of anything it finds).
N.
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Not really anything there that's fixing a "strange gap in functionality". About the only useful thing is the Paste and Go plugin, and since that doesn't appear to have a hotkey setup for it, it's useless (faster to Ctrl + V -> Enter than to right click and hit Paste and Go, at least for me). No digg.
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I never really understood the point of having the "Go" button at all. I sit there and watch my boss at work manually drags the mouse to select all the text in the address bar then he, get this... moves his hand to the keyboard and hits backspace, then right-click and paste, then moves the mouse clear over to the right and clicks "Go".
I tried to show him Ctrl-L, Ctrl-V, Enter, but he says it's too hard to move his hand from the mouse to the keyboard. YOU HAVE TWO FREAKIN' HANDS, and one of them is right there (left there?) on the keyboard anyway, not to mention he's already moving his hand off the mouse to hit backspace (totally unecessarily).
I guess I just don't see how moving your hand to the keyboard for 3 key combinations can be more difficult than the overly elaborate hand weaving that he goes through.
Some people.
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I never really understood the point of having the "Go" button at all. I sit there and watch my boss at work manually drags the mouse to select all the text in the address bar then he, get this... moves his hand to the keyboard and hits backspace, then right-click and paste, then moves the mouse clear over to the right and clicks "Go".
- Celeron, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Fantastic. You just got to love Firefox.
- spyres, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9This guy is a dumb *****. Why does one need a "clear private data" button when one can already set the private data to clear automatically every time you close Firefox or with a preexisting keyboard shortcut?
- samy293, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Also his blog's Title is " Surfin teh Interweb" - Digg 3.0 has definitely attracted a lot of attention for sure!!!
- rekka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Why does one need a "clear private data""
um, because he's a pervert and he can't stop browsing pr0n on the library computers.
- Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8...the hell?
Search Button: "Useful when there's already some text in the search bar but you don't want to take your hand off the mouse to hit Enter. (We really are very lazy!)"
Unless they've been involved in some horrible accident or have a birth defect, most people have... two... hands. Click, Enter (with opposite hand) is a lot faster than Click, Move, Click...- wmansir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The author is just saying a Search button should be an option. Look at some of the default buttons that are available and tell me they are more useful than a "Search" button. Copy/Cut/Paste buttons? Does anyone use those?
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Or do what I do - right hand left-thumb the Enter key on the numpad
- NiGHTSChao, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Why bother with a button that clears all data when you can just push Ctrl+Shift+Del and it clears it without question?
- degree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Something tells me the author doesnt have a keyboard..
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I have times when my desk is covered in papers and I can't quite reach my keyboard without starting a landslide. There are those who don't have keyboards, and those poor suckers who can't use half the keys on their laptops with numlock turned on. Not to mention those who use those cool tongue mice thingies.
A go button for the search bar would be good.
- rtphokie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5These dont need to be in Firefox, that's why they are plug-ins. Duh.
- Raian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not really an extension--- but they REALLY need to include firefoxy's widgets in the Mac OS X version
- kalphegor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You like those extensions, good for you. We don't or we like others, so Firefox must be clean.
- bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Lets see, I think the clear private data button, the search button, and being able to manage search plugins should really be default. Other than that, I'm not so sure. Saying that they should keep the program clean of these is kind of odd to me.
- kaidadragonfly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think that search plugins should either be extensions themselves, or managed like extensions under their own menu entry (like themes).
Then again, I just search via bookmarks, and so I've stopped using search plugins. (I believe they were included in a tech demo folder at one point).
- kaidadragonfly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think that search plugins should either be extensions themselves, or managed like extensions under their own menu entry (like themes).
- nicksmooth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Please don't add junk that isn't needed to make the browser function. If you like what the extension does add it to your own version of firefox but not mine please.
- MomentDEFINED, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1No one is forcing you to download any of these things.
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ MomentDEFINED think you missed the point, which was that the author of this article was saying that all the extensions mentioned should be something that all Firefox users should be forced to download (ie: including them in the official build rather than having them as extensions).
- Haroldx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Right Click Link > ALL
- MrEcho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I dont know if most of you know this, but the interface to Firefox is just one huge script.
its one huge XUL script, which pretty much like javascript.
Just take a look for yourself http://kb.mozillazine.org/Dev_:_Firefox_Chrome_URLs
chrome://browser/content/browser.xul - spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wish someone would come up with an extension to make tabs focus on mouseup so that they didn't pop up when I dragged them. It really should be an option in the preferences, actually.
- Loonacy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Tab Mix Plus? I can drag tabs all I want and they don't get focus. Not sure if it's TMP or something else, though.
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree with Greenbox, that there should be something (perhaps a link to https://addons.mozilla.org/) to help point newer users towards extensions during setup.
I'm thinking that most of these should stay as extensions.
Reasoning (which anyone's welcome to disagree with) follows.
Clear Private Data Button:
If you're keen on constantly clearing your cookies/caches, then chances are you're also savvy enough to know where the Clear Private Data button hides and/or know where and how to download extensions.
Context Search:
Context search seems like it could be worthwhile and not too much trouble to build in. The search bar already implements 90% of this feature. That said, cluttering context menus isn't necessarily a good idea.
Paste and Go:
Stealing functionality from competitors' gear isn't necessarily the best way to create a product. The 'search the web for [selected word]' context menu within the browser handles most of that gracefully. I can undertsand how some might prefer the extra context menu clutter, but that's best kept for an extension. Text boxes generally get focus when stuff is pasted into them, so as far as 'paste and go' functionality goes, all it saves you is a keyboard carriage return or a mouse click. Why bother putting something that trivial into the main trunk when it's apparently doing alright as an extension?
Search Bar Autoresize:
I know that having the search bar mutate as I type would really get on my nerves. It's not standard behaviour for a text box and is probably best left as an extension.
Search Button:
Currently there's no way to use the mouse to activate a search in the search bar. A button here would be good thing in my opinion. I've always thought that accessibility should support mouse OR keyboard, not mouse AND some keybaord.
Search Plugin Hacks:
A context menu within a drop down menu?? I agree that there needs to be some nice and easy way to manage configured search engines, but come on.
Translate:
This would tie Firefox to Altavista's Babelfish product much in the same way having Google configured as the default search engine ties Firefox to Google. There'd need to be some real thought before something like this could be brought into Firefox itself.- shumacher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3On paste and go: Opera did give us a number of modern browser features, like tabbed browsing. Opera 9 uses the Firefox RSS icon. I think Firefox is probably safe implementing a feature that safes a keypress, even if you have a good point.
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm not saying that copying the Paste and Go feature would necessarily incur any legal wrath, just that the "My other browser has this feature" justification isn't enough on its own.
- jdkane, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It's a different twist on the same type of story we've seen here recently. It boils down to a list of "My Top X Firefox extensions', although I admit this discussion is good. Anyway, I'm going to bury extension lists for a while ...
- briansorders, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The -Paste And Go- extension is sweeeet!
- shumacher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It's one of the reasons I prefer Opera. I didn't know about this extension before reading the article. I'll be installing that.
- shumacher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It's one of the reasons I prefer Opera. I didn't know about this extension before reading the article. I'll be installing that.
- Estazor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I think Firefox relies too much on extensions....
- takatsuki06, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1kevin.gc, I agree with you too. the main reason firefox goes slow on me is because all of those extensions.
- Splizxer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The search bar auto-resize is great, the others are pretty lame though.
- hiscity, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You can have it all.
Download Firefox as a portable app. Make several copies of the directory. Tailor each one with extensions the way you want. Put shortcuts to the differently tailored Foxes anywhere you like.
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/browsers/portable_firefox
And you can always make a copy of one install as a backup when you upgrade another, since not all extensions will work in a new upgrade. Also, switches in firefox can be set to allow multiple instances to be run at the same time.
I've got three foxes: one with adblock, one with a a fairly bare 1.5.0.4 install, and one with these extensions:
IE Tab (opens a tab in explorer)
IE View (launches a link in explorer)
DownThemAll (speeds up downloads)
Image Zoom (resize images)
SessionSaver (restores sessions when ff crashes)
Tab X (adds a close x to each tab)
ScrapBook (saves a copy of the page)
Greasemonkey (user scripts)
Screen grab (takes a screen shot using java)
Nuke Anything Enhanced (kill adds, etc.)
Table2Clipboard (for copying html tables into excel)
OpenBook (eases bookmark management)
Backgroundimage Saver (saves the image behind the overlay)
McAfee SiteAdvisor (alerts about spam, hijackers, etc. on links)
RubNub for YubNub (streamline your web experience)
Have fun! You can experiment with extensions to your heart's desire. It's a joy!! - oslointhesummer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Adblock..Search Plugin Hacks...a better download manager..and maybe image zoom (at most).
- sonoca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I hope they get built in just because i cant use them since 4 versions ago. :'(
- Phoenixfury, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What's good for you may not be good for someone else. Not everyone would enjoy the milkshake recipe of extensions I use, but I sure love how I have my browser setup! The only thing I feel is missing is a spell checker that can check forms. I really wish I could find a spell checking extension. I just for some odd reason can't find one. Surely there's got to be one out there.
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's some search results for "spell" from Mozilla's plugin repository at addons.mozilla.org (admittedly, not all of them look useful, but there's a couple there that look like they might suit your needs)
https://addons.mozilla.org/search.php?q=spell&type=A&app=firefox - wmansir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In addition to those, I recommend trying out the Spellbound dev build linked in the Mozilla's Extensions sub-forum. It adds check as you type (like Word) and I haven't had any stability issues.
- Darkdata, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1riteoftongue the best extention for spellchecking.
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's some search results for "spell" from Mozilla's plugin repository at addons.mozilla.org (admittedly, not all of them look useful, but there's a couple there that look like they might suit your needs)
- siouxmoux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Add Copy as plain text extension to that list. I use this tiny useful one everyday.
- Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Extensions that should be added, need to be added by how popular the extension is....since we all have different tastes etc.
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's a democratic approach, but it doesn't make for nice browsing.
FlashGot and NoScript, two plugins that bring a fair amount of context menu clutter and make some fairly radical browser behaviour changes between them are the two most popular plugins on addons.mozilla.org, and they're both plugins that I don't use.
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's a democratic approach, but it doesn't make for nice browsing.
- ThunderIT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3none of these are that useful to me
the entire point of extensions is that you do not include anything that isn't critical in the base application, in order to make it faster, leaner, and more stable- boltsmb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Exactly, while all of those are neat extensions and I actually use a couple of them, I don't think my parents have any need for any of them. Any feature in firefox should be usable by the least common denominator. Not everyone search for obscure things only found in other languages. If you like the extension, install it, otherwise leave Firefox lean and mean.
- wmansir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, but you reach a point where in order to get competitive functionality out of the browser you have to install half a dozen extensions of dubious quality. I love customizing my browser and I have over a dozen extensions installed. As a result I find is extremely usable, but it's also bloated and occasionally crashes.
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Extensions like this are a better answer to the "I don't want to have to download my favourite extensions" problem (which seems to be where things like this article come from) than bloting the core distribution.
http://customsoftwareconsult.com/extensions/cleo/cleo.html - decadentmint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I would like IE View to be something that could be integrated more somehow that it could sense if a page was going to be rendered incorrectly (how??) theres a sweet page that has some navigation that renders badly in firefox but "fine" for IE http://www.bryanpkelly.com
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some people use Firefox to get away from IE's shortcomings.
So far as I know, IE View is really only popular within web development circles (so that Firefox users who write web sites can see how their pages look in IE without separately launching another application), and of course doesn't work with Mac OS or Linux. - t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wouldn't sites trigger the IE-rendering on purpose to exploit firefox by exploiting IE?
- Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Some people use Firefox to get away from IE's shortcomings.
- shumacher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Let's build-in leetkey. 7h3n 3v3ry0n3 w1|| 7yp3 |1k3 7h15!
- knutties, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The Web-Marker extension (https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2679) would be nice default addon too. It lets you create links to user selected portions of web pages.
- CaptainMordecai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2hmm Clear Private Data Button. Why not just set up the browser to clear cookies on close?
Search Button? So i type in a search, and then click the button with the mouse. This is faster than hitting enter how?
Kinda poor suggestions i think...- theantidote, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not faster but it's more user friendly. Imagine someone just learning how to use a computer, are they supposed to expect that Enter will perform magical hidden commands? Also this would make it easier for the blind or seeing impaired.
- M2Ys4U, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you are already typing in the box, surely it is faster to just stay on the keyboard and hit enter...
Though, for accessability reasons maybe a button should be integrated.
OR, have the "go" button change to a "search" button when the search box has focus!
- billyswong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What? "Clear Private Data Button"? Give me a break. A way to save one click is not something that "should" be merged into Firefox.
However, there are definitely *some* extensions that should be merged in.
- Show Image: a context menu item which appear when an image is broken which let the browser retry downloading. Existed in IE.
- AutoHide: let you autohide the navigation toolbar when fullscreen. Similar function existed in IE too.
Both of these two extensions are simple and do not introduce any clutter to the UI. IE had them long time ago. These are real *core* functions, unlike that silly "Translate" which I have no use of.- billyswong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0forgot to mention "Right Encoding". It adds the Character Encoding menu to the context menu. Without it, it would be impossible to set the encoding of individual frames for stupid websites. Oh, this exist in IE too.
- garethevans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't think the author has the correct concept of Firefox in mind - from the interviews with developers that I've seen, I've interpreted that they intend it to be as modular and lightweight as possible (I could of course be wrong). These extensions seem frivolous.
- stepnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think things that EXTEND functionality should be extensions - but there are somethings that fix already existing functionality - like the search plug in hack. If you can add a search plug-in without an extension - you should be able to delete without one too.
I - ohnodoctor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In linux, or any system that runs an X11 window manager, you can simply middle click in the firefox window to go to whatever URL is in your highlight-clipboard, much like 'paste-and-go.' Note that this is disabled by default in Ubuntu, but you can turn it back on in about:config.
- amoeba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These Firefox backup extensions could be included in the core (backup profile, extensions etc...)
http://customsoftwareconsult.com/extensions/cleo/cleo.html
http://customsoftwareconsult.com/extensions/febe/febe.html - digitallysick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love ad block plus, and filter set G updater (updates a list to filter out most ads), script block is ok, but kinda annoying to enable or disable, but i kinda liked it, foxit is nicee
- moeq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"clear private data" is already built into Firefox.
The rest of that stuff is either useless or trivial. - leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1
What I love about this thread is that everyone has their own favorite extensions and wants those included in firefox. If we tried to please everyone firefox would need next year's hardware to run like we want it to. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Darkhacker wrote: "Someone wake me when Firefox passes ACID2. And don't try being the fanboy hero and saying that it does. If I hear another person say that Firefox passes ACID2 again I'll go crazy from these dorks that probebly don't even know what ACID2 is and probebly have never taken the test under Firefox."
Better start going crazy then: http://flickr.com/photos/dbaron/126886608/
Of course, "does" isn't really the word to use here, since that's on a development branch. I believe an ACID2-compliant Gecko engine is scheduled for Firefox 3.0...
(God damnit, Digg... This was a reply. Yeesh.) - rmccabe916, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Digg edit problem, please digg down. :p
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by