Firefox setup

[marc]

Donn said...
> > I keep tripping over problems with Firefox (v1.5.0.9) that are wearing
> > me down. I'd like advice on the best setup for my needs. I'm using
> > Dapper.
> What have you done differently since last time you were here asking about 
> this? I recall no-one had a clear idea of what you could do. Did you file a 
> bug or contact the author of the extension you use?

Well, this is a different, more general, issue. Sure, the HTML Validator 
extension is still doing, imo, stupid things - works fine on XP and 
always has been trouble free - but I'm getting really ticked off with 
the amount of wasted time that FF on Linux is wasting.

Six months ago, Linux just worked. Today, it's one small issue after 
another, and they all add up to a lot of wasted time. I hate using XP, 
but that's where I'm spending most of my time right now, because that's 
where things are working.

> > As I understand it, I need the firefox package installed, otherwise
> > aptitude will remove ubuntu-desktop and others (I have ubuntu installed,
> > as well as kubuntu). I'm happy to install Firefox in /opt, but I'll get
> > to that.
> You can download Firefox 2 from Mozilla and install it in /opt or just in a 
> folder in your home directory (easier permissions) -- it runs from a script. 
> I would also backup the stuff in ~/.mozilla so that you don't break 1.5 when 
> you update/install again extensions for 2.0

Yup, I'm going down this route. The problem is that it's not a general 
solution. Part of my way of paying my way in this world revolves around 
recommending what tools to use, and since FF is, ime, so flaky of late, 
I've had to scrub (K)Ubuntu from the list. Frankly, FF2 on XP is not 
much better, and I'm increasingly having to use IE7, because it is more 
stable. This really sticks my gullet. But facts are facts. This is what 
I am seeing and experiencing. I haven't used IE, other than for testing, 
for years; not so right now.

> > However, I need to install extensions that are not packaged, and this
> > often seems to result in the extension not working in Firefox.
> I have never seen extensions that are packaged (not that I have seen much 
> really) - I am assuming you speak of apt-get packaging. I always just use FF 
> itself to go get extensions.

The DOM Inspector is packaged, as is Web Developer, I presume others are 
also. That said, this seems a daft way to do things - xref the last 
Firefox2 thread here and its comments about FF being self-contained.

> > In addition, after I run "Update all extensions", it's common that some
> > extension break. For example, I've just updated the "Web Developer"
> > extension, and it now reports that "This feature requires the DOM
> > Inspector to be installed" when attempting to use the View Style
> > Information function. (The DOM Inspector is installed.)
> This does happen. I don't know why. Perhaps you would get further by joining 
> some Firefox/Mozilla specific lists.

I've tried the FF lists, but there are a lot of fan boyz around. Report 
a problem that folk haven't seen and certain "names" appear to knock you 
back. I've no time for lists with that approach. If folk aren't prepared 
to take an issue seriously, then I'm out of there. Sure, I'm not perfect 
- shock, horror, but I've also been around the block. I don't report 
stuff for fun!

Anyway, onward with FF2 and I'll see whether this hacks around the 
problem. We need to get this sorted, imo; an OS without a reliable 
browser is next to useless in this day and age. (Please, no "It works 
here" replies :-) )

-- 
Cheers,
Marc