Discussion:
Firefox user data autofill doesn't work as before
(too old to reply)
Peter Nabbefeld
2017-03-08 20:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello,

before latest update, firefox filled my login credentials automatically
into the appropriate fields. Now I've first to select the user in a
dropdown list - how can I revert this behaviour?

Kind regards
Peter
Stephan Fischer
2017-03-08 21:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hey,

according to the Firefox 52 changelog [0] this only happens on
"non-secure HTTP pages with logins". It's a feature and AFAIK there's no
function to disable that.

[0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/52.0/releasenotes/

-- Stephan
Post by Peter Nabbefeld
Hello,
before latest update, firefox filled my login credentials
automatically into the appropriate fields. Now I've first to select
the user in a dropdown list - how can I revert this behaviour?
Kind regards
Peter
Ralf Mardorf
2017-03-08 21:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Nabbefeld
before latest update, firefox filled my login credentials
automatically into the appropriate fields. Now I've first to select
the user in a dropdown list - how can I revert this behaviour?
During the years Firefox made that much steps into the wrong
direction, that I'm surprised that a user still cares that much about
new issues introduced by a Firefox update.

One of the most worse steps IMO was the step that after selecting a
link in the history, the cursor in the history does lose focus. IOW if
you searched an hour to find a segment with several wanted links, after
clicking one link, the selection gets lost and you need to search
again. I'm not aware of any other browser with this abstruse behaviour.

Many other users dislike that they need to check about:config against
google safebrowsing spyware again and again.
Eli Schwartz via arch-general
2017-03-09 00:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralf Mardorf
Post by Peter Nabbefeld
before latest update, firefox filled my login credentials
automatically into the appropriate fields. Now I've first to select
the user in a dropdown list - how can I revert this behaviour?
During the years Firefox made that much steps into the wrong
direction, that I'm surprised that a user still cares that much about
new issues introduced by a Firefox update.
One of the most worse steps IMO was the step that after selecting a
link in the history, the cursor in the history does lose focus. IOW if
you searched an hour to find a segment with several wanted links, after
clicking one link, the selection gets lost and you need to search
again. I'm not aware of any other browser with this abstruse behaviour.
Many other users dislike that they need to check about:config against
google safebrowsing spyware again and again.
Did you just post here to make a completely unrelated rant, or what?

You may not have realized this change is a positive security
enhancement, as Stephan Fischer posted about it mere minutes before you,
but, really, you were clearly not even trying to be helpful at all.

...

Also, I am not really sure what your complaint about the History is,
generally I *want* to go to the link I clicked in the foreground... but
okay, switch back to the History window if you really need to.

If you really wanted to complain about something, maybe you should
complain about the fact that the History only "remembers" the last time
you visited a link... i.e. right "now", when you clicked on it in the
History window.

So maybe brush up on your effective-complaining skills, in addition to
your relevancy skills...
--
Eli Schwartz
Ralf Mardorf
2017-03-09 03:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eli Schwartz via arch-general
Post by Ralf Mardorf
Post by Peter Nabbefeld
before latest update, firefox filled my login credentials
automatically into the appropriate fields. Now I've first to select
the user in a dropdown list - how can I revert this behaviour?
During the years Firefox made that much steps into the wrong
direction, that I'm surprised that a user still cares that much about
new issues introduced by a Firefox update.
One of the most worse steps IMO was the step that after selecting a
link in the history, the cursor in the history does lose focus. IOW
if you searched an hour to find a segment with several wanted links,
after clicking one link, the selection gets lost and you need to
search again. I'm not aware of any other browser with this abstruse
behaviour.
Many other users dislike that they need to check about:config against
google safebrowsing spyware again and again.
Did you just post here to make a completely unrelated rant, or what?
You may not have realized this change is a positive security
enhancement, as Stephan Fischer posted
Ok I understand, https://aur.archlinux.org/login/ is an insecure web
site, since the issue mentioned by the OP happens with this login.
However, for my taste it's not a problem to select the user name, but
this history problem is an issue for me, as well as the safebrowsing
that gets added, even if you removed it. Some of many issues, that
are reason for me to use other web browsers. Could you explain what's
actually insecure with https://aur.archlinux.org/login/ ? It's a https
page, not a http page.

The history once upon a time worked as the history still works for
nearly any other browser. Fortunately there are other browsers we could
chose and a lot of people migrated to other browsers. It's not an
unrelated rant, since the OP dislikes two changes, I try to explain
that many users discontinued using Firefox. By the pulseaudio thread I
already mentioned other firefox based and firefox alike projects. That
web browser developers go different ways in general is not only an
issue for firefox, that's why there's vivaldi ;).

However, in regards to security firefox would be the last browser I
would use. Java script settings were removed and since they by default
anyway use google's safe browsing, users at least should consider to use
the security advantages of chrome. Btw. for some tasks I'm still using
firefox, but security isn't one of those tasks.
Eli Schwartz via arch-general
2017-03-09 03:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralf Mardorf
Ok I understand, https://aur.archlinux.org/login/ is an insecure web
site, since the issue mentioned by the OP happens with this login.
However, for my taste it's not a problem to select the user name,
but this history problem is an issue for me, as well as the
safebrowsing that gets added, even if you removed it. Some of many
issues, that are reason for me to use other web browsers. Could you
explain what's actually insecure with
https://aur.archlinux.org/login/ ? It's a https page, not a http
page.
I cannot, in fact, explain what is insecure about
https://aur.archlinux.org/login/ but this is probably because it works
perfectly for me...

You are dreaming. Please wake up.
Post by Ralf Mardorf
The history once upon a time worked as the history still works for
nearly any other browser. Fortunately there are other browsers we
could chose and a lot of people migrated to other browsers. It's not
an unrelated rant, since the OP dislikes two changes, I try to
explain that many users discontinued using Firefox. By the pulseaudio
thread I already mentioned other firefox based and firefox alike
projects. That web browser developers go different ways in general is
not only an issue for firefox, that's why there's vivaldi ;).
Yes, please let's answer the OP by telling him to find an alternative
browser. Thanks for clearing that up, I was *wondering* what your post
was getting at. :)
Post by Ralf Mardorf
However, in regards to security firefox would be the last browser I
would use. Java script settings were removed
Isn't that what NoScript is for? Sorry, I don't really understand this
tangential issue since I kind of like Javascript (at least in the sense
that I like pages looking the way they are supposed to, and the really
offensive sites I don't even visit anyway...)

Also, apparently Internet Explorer has moved up in the world! :p
(I assume you aren't just going to compare Firefox to the webkit-based
family of clones, this at least gets us three options to quibble over.)
Post by Ralf Mardorf
and since they by default anyway use google's safe browsing, users at
least should consider to use the security advantages of chrome. Btw.
for some tasks I'm still using firefox, but security isn't one of
those tasks.
Well, clearly if Firefox uses Google's Phishing Protection[1] then that
proves Google Chrome is far more secure, so I guess that settles it.

Sorry for talking. And even more sorry for using such a clearly inferior
(from a security perspective) web browser.

But really, you should have said so in the first place, instead of
wasting our time discussing silly things like the "abstruse behaviour"
of the featureset of such an insecure browser.
.
/s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s
/s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s
/s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s


[1] Safe Browsing (since renamed to the far more accurate Phishing
Protection) has *nothing* to do with security[2].

[2] Certainly not for Firefox, anyway.
--
Eli Schwartz
Ralf Mardorf
2017-03-09 04:39:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eli Schwartz via arch-general
I cannot, in fact, explain what is insecure about
https://aur.archlinux.org/login/ but this is probably because it works
perfectly for me...
You are dreaming. Please wake up.
In 7 days the screenshot automatically gets deleted, so you've got 7
days to share the dream:

Loading Image...
Post by Eli Schwartz via arch-general
[1] Safe Browsing (since renamed to the far more accurate Phishing
Protection) has *nothing* to do with security[2].
It has to do with security for the user.

1. It adds security since users gets warned against evil webpages.
2. It removes security since providing this feature is coupled with
data mining, spying.

However, I referred to Chrome's security features, not to safe browsing.
If somebody has got no concerns against e.g. Googel's safe browsing,
then why not taking advantage of Chrome's sandboxing?
Peter Nabbefeld
2017-03-09 07:23:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Eli Schwartz via arch-general
Post by Ralf Mardorf
Ok I understand, https://aur.archlinux.org/login/ is an insecure web
site, since the issue mentioned by the OP happens with this login.
However, for my taste it's not a problem to select the user name,
but this history problem is an issue for me, as well as the
safebrowsing that gets added, even if you removed it. Some of many
issues, that are reason for me to use other web browsers. Could you
explain what's actually insecure with
https://aur.archlinux.org/login/ ? It's a https page, not a http
page.
I cannot, in fact, explain what is insecure about
https://aur.archlinux.org/login/ but this is probably because it works
perfectly for me...
You are dreaming. Please wake up.
Post by Ralf Mardorf
The history once upon a time worked as the history still works for
nearly any other browser. Fortunately there are other browsers we
could chose and a lot of people migrated to other browsers. It's not
an unrelated rant, since the OP dislikes two changes, I try to
explain that many users discontinued using Firefox. By the pulseaudio
thread I already mentioned other firefox based and firefox alike
projects. That web browser developers go different ways in general is
not only an issue for firefox, that's why there's vivaldi ;).
Yes, please let's answer the OP by telling him to find an alternative
browser. Thanks for clearing that up, I was *wondering* what your post
was getting at. :)
Post by Ralf Mardorf
However, in regards to security firefox would be the last browser I
would use. Java script settings were removed
[...]
So, I wonder why Firefox is in a "preferred" registry (extra), while
Opera is in "community" and Vivaldi is in "aur".

As far as I can see, Vivaldi is an Opera clone. I cannot see, how to
replace Google as a search engine in Opera - what about in Vivaldi?

Kind regards
Peter
Jelle van der Waa
2017-03-09 08:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
So, I wonder why Firefox is in a "preferred" registry (extra), while Opera
is in "community" and Vivaldi is in "aur".
Well it's not even Open Source software, so why would someone be happy with a
blob.
--
Jelle van der Waa
Ralf Mardorf
2017-03-09 11:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jelle van der Waa
Post by Peter Nabbefeld
So, I wonder why Firefox is in a "preferred" registry (extra), while
Opera is in "community" and Vivaldi is in "aur".
Well it's not even Open Source software, so why would someone be happy
with a blob.
The OP should consider to find a new browser, that fits most good to
his needs. There are a lot of browsers available and a lot are open
source.
Eli Schwartz via arch-general
2017-03-09 10:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Nabbefeld
So, I wonder why Firefox is in a "preferred" registry (extra), while
Opera is in "community" and Vivaldi is in "aur".
As far as I can see, Vivaldi is an Opera clone. I cannot see, how to
replace Google as a search engine in Opera - what about in Vivaldi?
I really have no idea. Firefox makes me happy enough to not consider
considering any other browser.
--
Eli Schwartz
Martin Kühne via arch-general
2017-03-09 10:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I actually tried Vivaldi for a while. It's pretty cool for the
features it delivers out of the box, and it uses DDG by default.
However I found that Firefox' memory management turns out preferable,
since I had a few points where vivaldi would choke on too many tabs.

cheers!
mar77i
Ralf Mardorf
2017-03-09 11:52:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Martin Kühne via arch-general
I actually tried Vivaldi for a while. It's pretty cool for the
features it delivers out of the box, and it uses DDG by default.
However I found that Firefox' memory management turns out preferable,
since I had a few points where vivaldi would choke on too many tabs.
The OP is a little bit lazy. I launched opera and have taken a look for
around 2 seconds at opera://settings/.

opera://settings/ > Browser > Search

Set which search engine is used when searching from the combined search
and address bar
Peter Nabbefeld
2017-03-09 12:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ralf Mardorf
Post by Martin Kühne via arch-general
I actually tried Vivaldi for a while. It's pretty cool for the
features it delivers out of the box, and it uses DDG by default.
However I found that Firefox' memory management turns out preferable,
since I had a few points where vivaldi would choke on too many tabs.
The OP is a little bit lazy. I launched opera and have taken a look for
around 2 seconds at opera://settings/.
opera://settings/ > Browser > Search
Set which search engine is used when searching from the combined search
and address bar
I'm not very sure, I tried this about a year ago ... I could replace the
search engine in one place, I think, but not in the other (IIRC this has
been for new tabs).

Regards
P.
Ralf Mardorf
2017-03-09 13:02:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Nabbefeld
Post by Ralf Mardorf
Post by Martin Kühne via arch-general
I actually tried Vivaldi for a while. It's pretty cool for the
features it delivers out of the box, and it uses DDG by default.
However I found that Firefox' memory management turns out
preferable, since I had a few points where vivaldi would choke on
too many tabs.
The OP is a little bit lazy. I launched opera and have taken a look
for around 2 seconds at opera://settings/.
opera://settings/ > Browser > Search
Set which search engine is used when searching from the combined
search and address bar
I'm not very sure, I tried this about a year ago ... I could replace
the search engine in one place, I think, but not in the other (IIRC
this has been for new tabs).
It depends on what you actually want. You could disable the "Search
box", but I don't know how to change it. As an example, you could add
e.g. StartPage with a keyword to the address bar search, you could as
well add the xquick (startpage) toolbar by an extension. But as
defaults you perhaps only could select between the given defaults,
Google, DuckDuckGo etc., but e.g. not StartPage. However, I only spend
1 minute with this, I'm not an expert, even not an user of nowadays
Opera.

Guus Snijders via arch-general
2017-03-09 10:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
2017-03-09 8:23 GMT+01:00 Peter Nabbefeld <***@gmx.de>:

[...]
So, I wonder why Firefox is in a "preferred" registry (extra), while Opera
is in "community" and Vivaldi is in "aur".
That is how ArchLinux works:
The developers are volunteers who choose for themselves which packages
they maintain. Community is run by Trusted Users (also volunteers), Extra
is for "official" developers.
AUR is a sort-of public playground; anyone can publish PKGBUILDS there.

If $dev decides to adopt Vivaldi for example, it might show up in Extra.
If no dev decides to do this, then it won't show up in Extra either.


mvg,
Guus Snijders
Ralf Mardorf
2017-03-09 11:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Nabbefeld
So, I wonder why Firefox is in a "preferred" registry (extra), while
Opera is in "community" and Vivaldi is in "aur".
As far as I can see, Vivaldi is an Opera clone. I cannot see, how to
replace Google as a search engine in Opera - what about in Vivaldi?
I don't know, you need to find out yourself. Most likely it's possible
to replace search engines, but I've got a different workflow. I'm using
search engines by loading their websites.
Loading...