[arch-general] Firefox user data autofill doesn't work as before
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
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 Am 08.03.2017 um 21:40 schrieb 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
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 21:40:37 +0100, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
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.
On 03/08/2017 04:20 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 21:40:37 +0100, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
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
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 19:46:49 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
On 03/08/2017 04:20 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 21:40:37 +0100, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
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.
On 03/08/2017 10:07 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
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.
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. :)
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.)
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
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 22:49:27 -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
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: http://picpaste.com/Screenshot_2017-03-09_05-36-09.png
[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?
Am 09.03.2017 um 04:49 schrieb Eli Schwartz via arch-general:
On 03/08/2017 10:07 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
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.
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. :)
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
On 03/09/17 at 08:23am, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
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
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:19:48 +0100, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
On 03/09/17 at 08:23am, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
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.
On 03/09/2017 02:23 AM, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
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
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
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:18:29 +0100, Martin Kühne via arch-general wrote:
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
Am 09.03.2017 um 12:52 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:18:29 +0100, Martin Kühne via arch-general wrote:
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.
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 13:07:46 +0100, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
Am 09.03.2017 um 12:52 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 11:18:29 +0100, Martin Kühne via arch-general wrote:
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.
2017-03-09 8:23 GMT+01:00 Peter Nabbefeld
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
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 08:23:06 +0100, Peter Nabbefeld wrote:
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.
participants (7)
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Guus Snijders
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Martin Kühne
-
Peter Nabbefeld
-
Ralf Mardorf
-
Stephan Fischer