Firefox not supporting clixaddon for me. it is saying this addon not from a trusted publisher. Any body having same problem.

I use Firefox, and clixaddon functioning normally.

The world of software is a disgusting, horrible place.

Commercial vendors lock you in to sell update versions that don't do anything except randomise the UI and break old formats for no reason. Open Source claims it comes to the rescue, and offers you freedom - but actually just replaces money with ego, and locks you in because somebody is using their software in lieu of a sports car.

Firefox has decided it's penis isn't big enough and has decided to create a walled garden to dictate which software you can and can't use. Look out for "Firefox exclusive!" software in the next few years.

And, I need a new job - this is seriously bad for my mental health.

In terms of Clixsense, Mitchell Baker hasn't given it her personal approval and signed it. You can just install it anyway. You don't need to wait for her. Yet.

I also use Firefox and it there and functioning.

I got this message also. since the clixaddon was not working fine with firefox the browser becomes creepy. ( my experience ) the buttons on the upper right portion ( minimize, maximize and close ) were gone. I had to click the start on the keyboard to see the the icons or tabs on the desktop.

@ BouldRake

Couldn't they do the about:config and change the settings within the FF source code and turn that OFF

No, or yes, depends.

In the ESR it's optional. In 42 it's mandatory.

Normally, I'd suggest a switch to PaleMoon - but the Clixaddon doesn't work there.

BouldRake wrote: No, or yes, depends.

In the ESR it's optional. In 42 it's mandatory.

One can read it here: Mozilla to require add-ons to be signed in the future - gHacks Tech News

ProAdCo wrote: @ BouldRake

Couldn't they do the about:config and change the settings within the FF source code and turn that OFF

And what to do: Fix for installing unsigned add-ons in Firefox Dev and Nightly - gHacks Tech News

My firefox clix addon is working now..

I go to Menu> Options> Security Setting> General> Warn me when sites try to install add-ons> I add www.clixsense.com on exceptions.. > Save Changes. I continue to install clixaddon again.

oberder wrote:

BouldRake wrote: No, or yes, depends.

In the ESR it's optional. In 42 it's mandatory.

One can read it here: Mozilla to require add-ons to be signed in the future - gHacks Tech News

ProAdCo wrote: @ BouldRake

Couldn't they do the about:config and change the settings within the FF source code and turn that OFF

And what to do: Fix for installing unsigned add-ons in Firefox Dev and Nightly - gHacks Tech News

Is Mozilla turning into..



MICROzilla?

Bugzilla is probably the right word . You can still allow the addon to be installed manually by allowing it . You are being asked when instaling it . You can also still activate it if already installed . Firefox 39 deactivates the addon wile updating Firefox .

AlienMommy wrote:

oberder wrote:

BouldRake wrote: No, or yes, depends.

In the ESR it's optional. In 42 it's mandatory.

One can read it here: Mozilla to require add-ons to be signed in the future - gHacks Tech News

ProAdCo wrote: @ BouldRake

Couldn't they do the about:config and change the settings within the FF source code and turn that OFF

And what to do: Fix for installing unsigned add-ons in Firefox Dev and Nightly - gHacks Tech News

Is Mozilla turning into..



MICROzilla?

From what I can make out of some Tech Blogs, it's like the current heads of Mozilla really wants Firefox to be like Chrome, and distance themselves from the ones that made Firefox a unique browser -- the Add-on authors

Too many hoops to jump through, eh?

On a offhand-note, not related to anything on this Thread, got this one as of late: Mozilla CEO threatens to fire person responsible for anonymous hate speech on Reddit | The Verge

They fired their CEO for having a different opinion to them. I strongly agree with those who opposed Brendan Eich's views, but you can't really claim to support freedom and then sack somebody for disagreeing with you over something completely unrelated to your job.

This may seem irrelevant, but it isn't - the mentality of the culture that creates software also creates the mentality of software development. Mozilla has "You're free - as long as you agree with us about everything all the time" mentality.

Lordy! I absolutely detest Chrome! Followed by IE.

Ummmm What on EARTH has political correctness to do with software and its development? Last I heard, a browser is pretty much deaf, mute, blind, and doesn't bleed.

I read all that diatribe (article/comments about it) and it's sickening! I *thought* Mozilla was for us not for pockets or political issues?

So, what delightful browser can we lowly users run to next? I just can't wait!

All browser suck.

I use Konqueror because it does everything. I can surf the web, use the file manager, access my cloud, play games, write code, watch videos, play music not just in the same program, but in the same tab of the same window. Playing games, watching video and listening to must at the same time isn't the best idea in the world, but I can if I want to. The downside is it's got a steep learning curve, and doesn't play well with Bootcrap - which is half the web. I haven't used it on Windows, but it almost certainly sucks rocks. Since it contains dozens of libraries it's not a simple port like a normal browser would be, and there are only about three developers interested in a Windows version.

Rekonq has excellent performance, but crashes a lot on Flash. It's probably even more unstable on Windows because it uses the same libraries as Konqueror. Less of them - because it's just a browser - but the same ones.

Opera is basically Chrome, but with a better skin, and worse performance.

Palemoon is a fork of Firefox. Performance is better, addon support is much worse. It also crashes with certain window managers.

Kazehazheczheasekesase or however you spell it is like Palemoon, but Japanese and forked years ago. It's like Firefox for people who think of Firefox 3.5 when they think of Firefox. It doesn't crash with certain Window managers, but addon support sucks, and it struggles with Bootcrap and Jquery. I think it's pretty much unsupported these days too.

W3M is one of my favourites. It's lightning fast, it can fit on a 3.5 inch floppy if you've got an ED format, and it can even handle javascript somewhat. But it's a console only text browser, so forget about all this modern crap like video, or pictures. But you can have colored fonts now.

Netscape still kinda works if you're stubborn. Sort of. But you're limited to low-tech sites.

They're pretty much all crap. The trick is to find one that's crap in a way that you hate less than the ways other browsers are crap.

All I have to say is


http://i.stack.imgur.com/Dd8b2.gif

AlienMommy wrote: Lordy! I absolutely detest Chrome! Followed by IE.

For me, Chrome has been in my opinion, known to take too many processes, especially with its plug-in/add-on components -- to see the behavior in Windows, one can open the Windows Task Manager -- press simultaneously CTRL+SHIFT+ESC ( this is applicable to most Windows from XP, all the way to the current 8.1 )

When the Windows Task Manager opens, click on the Processes tab, and you'll be able to see Chrome's processes -- compared to Firefox which would be one ( three, if Flash and it's Plug-in Container are active, though this quickly disappears if a web pages doesn't use Flash entirely ) -- Chrome would be running at at least three to four processes ( if you'd be one of the unlucky ones, there would be 5 to 8 processes ) Trying to manually disable one of these from Chrome can result to a browser crash. And if you have one of the older machines, with a limited amount of RAM... you'd get a bad performance behavior ( sluggish movements in programs that are currently opened and needed, for starters )

I had Chrome removed from my system; lately it has been a tad lagging, and the number of processes it was running made me shake my head ( "Why do you need so much?" ) -- No regrets when I gutted Chrome