Firedog 1.2 - a smarter, faster, more stylish browser suite

[DMcCunney]

Mel Reyes created an extension called Tech Toolkit to assist in managing extensions and themes. One of the things TT can do is turn off [extension] compatibility checking, so you can successfully install an older extension and test it.

If it doesn't work, you can uninstall it again. If it does work, you can right-click it's entry in the Add-ons list and select Make Compatible to turn off the incompatibility message.

Meanwhile, I'd suggest making NoScript a part of the default Firedog install. It blocks script activity from any site not in a user maintained whitelist, and can block JavaScript, Java, Flash, and Microsoft Silverlight.

Tech Toolkit sounds like a good tool, I think I will look into it. I hope it's not too big!

Functionality trumps size. "It's tiny" should not be the only criteria for inclusion. I'd pay more attention to the total number of extensions. Remember, FF must load and initialize each upon startup. Back in the FF 1.X days, I had an "Everything including the Out house sink" profile that had 115 extensions. (I did it mostly to see if I could, and the "production" profile was a lot slimmer.) It took 45 seconds for FF 1.X to load and initialize, on a reasonably fast machine at the time...

You can provide the functionality of Tech Toolkit manually. You need to download a local copy of the XPI file, open it (it's a Zip archive), extract and edit the Install.rdf file with a text editor to change the values for oldest and newest versions of FF it will run in, save the altered Install.rdf back into the XPI, then do a local install. This process is called "bumping", and it was a popular sport when FF 2.0 came out, to see which older extensions would work and which were broken by underlying changes.

Tech Toolkit simply makes it more convenient, and has other features like automatically saving a local copy of the XPI in a designated directory when you install an extension from the Add-ons site. You don't have to go online to retrieve another if you create a new profile, or trash your old one and have to rebuild.

Also, I'll probably include noscript as default in Firedog 1.3.. Although most extensions I've included are much smaller. However I do understand its usefulness for many.

Anyone have any advice, requests or suggestions for Firedog 1.3?

I use the following in FF 3.5: (List created by Tech Toolkit. Italicized descriptions by me.))
Generated: Wed Jan 20 2010 14:18:51 GMT-0500 (Eastern Enabled Extensions: [11]
- All-in-One Sidebar 0.7.11
Comprehensive sidebar control, so you can do things like open the Add-ons and Downloads windows in the Sidebar.

- Brief 1.2.5
RSS feed reader. I used to use Sage, but that has issues under 3.5 and hasn't been updated in a while. For FF 2, I still prefer it.

- CuteMenus - Crystal SVG 1.9.3
Icons for just about every menu item.

- Ghostery 2.0.2
Display "tracking" cookies

- Gmail Notifier 0.6.4.1
Status bar icon to notify of new Gmail and automatically log in to read it.

- Greasemonkey 0.8.20091209.4
Run arbitrary JavaScript (called UserScripts) based on the page you are viewing. Many UserScripts exist.

- Image Zoom 0.4.2
Image size manipulation I think should be built into FF.

- MR Tech Toolkit 6.0.4
Tech Toolkit, mentioned previously.

- NoScript 1.9.9.36
Block all scripting activity unless the site is in a whitelist.

- Stylish 1.0.7
Run arbitrary CSS (UserStyles) based on the page being viewed. I don't use AdBlock. I substitute Stylish with Ad Blocking Filterset P. Filterset P defines a large number of ad server sites, and simply doesn't render content served by them. It's not as comprehensive as AdBlock, but it doesn't impose the overhead of actively scanning each page with JavaScript looking for ads to block. It can also be used to modify the look and feel of FF itself.

- Tab Mix Plus 0.3.8.2
Comprehensive tab control. Want to force everything to open in a tab? Tab Mix Plus is your friend...

Of the above, the absolute necessities here are All In One Sidebar, Brief, Greasemonkey, Image Zoom, NoScript, Stylish, and Tech Toolkit.

I'm also thinking of making a Firedog for web designers (for myself more than anything) - basically Firedog, with a load of the great web development addons for FF2.

Add Chris Pederick's Web Developer toolbar and Joe Hewitt's Firebug as must-haves. If desired, add Rob Ginda's JavaScript Debugger and the DOM Inspector (which I think is still bundled with FF 2, but removed in FF 3.) There are others, but those are crucial.

Of the list you currently include, I might omit things like FasterFox. It's a GUI to modify preferences, and you can get the same effect by going into About:Config and tweaking. You simply need to know which preferences to tweak and what value to set them to. I don't see a point to loading and initializing an extension every time you run FF that you essentially only use once.
______
Dennis

[sc0ttman]

Hi Dennis, thanks for all the info.. Thanks for the tech toolkit info, especially.. I'm thinking you like to have a lot more control than most web surfers ...

I'm not gonna add tech-toolkit to the next Firedog..

However, I'm gonna install it on mine, test a few addons and if I get them to work OK, I will modify them as you described then post them here for download, or include the best in the next Firedog.

This will make a few more addons available should people want them. I'd encourage others to do the same - share more addons on the forum - so users who don't wanna play with Tech toolkit don't have to, but can still benefit from the extra addons.

Functionality trumps size. "It's tiny" should not be the only criteria for inclusion. I'd pay more attention to the total number of extensions.

I realise that tiny is not the only criteria, but Firedog is slow enough IMHO... and I have carefully decided whether or not to include each addon, as I don't want more than required - but a few are required to match the features of Seamonkey suite... Chatzilla I can happily do without, for example..

You can provide the functionality of Tech Toolkit manually. You need to download a local copy of the XPI file, open it (it's a Zip archive), extract and edit the Install.rdf file with a text editor to change the values for oldest and newest versions of FF it will run in, save the altered Install.rdf back into the XPI, then do a local install. This process is called "bumping"

Thanks for this info, very valuable! Should be noted by all who read it!

the absolute necessities here are All In One Sidebar, Brief, Greasemonkey, Image Zoom, NoScript, Stylish, and Tech Toolkit.

I like Greasemonkey, I didnt include it at first though, as i thought most people wouldn't use it.. However, if I bundle it with a few of the better Userscripts, then it could be a go-er..

I'll try to make the latest version of Greasemonkey work in Firedog, or at least from the last major update...

I'll try to do the same with Image Zoom, too... I didn't include that one in Firedog as the latest supported version is a bit lame...

Stylish is nice too, but may be extraneous if adblock etc are installed, and I don't think most people would use it for styling sites...

Also, after much testing, I personally think noscript is way too invasive on your browsing, doesnt work well with FlashBlock and is generally for the overly-paranoid...

It's sometimes (but rarely, i'll admit) very difficult to decide which servers are serving which scripts, and therefore which ones will be required for a decent browsing experience...

And with javascript libraries (jquery et al) at least helping to power most of the better web applications and websites these days (aside from a few ruby/flash,etc apps) I think NoScript is a massive pain in the ass., considering it usually blocks harmless stuff, that nowadays is designed to bring more usablility to the web (web 2.0)..

I checked out YesScript, and while this is not at all to be used for security purposes (its uses a blacklist), it's far more appealing from a usability point-of-view - although it's still much too basic to be actually used in Firedog..

I'm also thinking of making a Firedog for web designers (for myself more than anything) - basically Firedog, with a load of the great web development addons for FF2.

Add Chris Pederick's Web Developer toolbar and Joe Hewitt's Firebug as must-haves.

Indeed, I've used them for years... Don't like to work without them.

Of the list you currently include, I might omit things like FasterFox.

If someone sends me the correct, reliable values I will make that update, but I couldn't find anything that worked for everyone, so thought I'd add the GUI so people can change its settings, or even turn it off...

However, all that being said, nearly no one is downloading Firedog (70 people in total), only a handful of have told me they use it, and most people prefer FF3, opera or chrome by far... So I'm in no rush!!

Thanks for your info Dennis.

[DMcCunney]

Hi Dennis, thanks for all the info.. Thanks for the tech toolkit info, especially.. I'm thinking you like to have a lot more control than most web surfers ...

Most folks run Firefox because it's more secure. That comes from deliberately not supporting Microsoft Active-X controls. (You can add support through an extension, but it's a "not recommended and you better know what you're doing" operation.) FF isn't alone in that. SeaMonkey, Flock, Netscape 7/8, Opera and Safari do likewise.

I run Firefox for power.

Mozilla's architecture is based on the Gecko rendering engine. Gecko understands HTML and CSS, and interprets JavaScript. It also understands and renders XUL, an XML language for creating user interfaces. The look and feel of Firefox itself is determined by XUL, CSS, and widgets, with JavaScript actually doing the work when you click on a menu choice or icon.

The architecture means folks fluent in XUL, CSS, and JavaScript can write themes to alter the appearance of the browser, and extensions to modify and enhance how it works. Many people have done so.

I look for extensions that add power and control to FF, and allow me to make better use of what it can do, so things like All In One Sidebar and Tab Mix Plus rapidly became "Why doesn't Firefox bundle this capability in the first place?" additions to my standard kit.

I'm not gonna add tech-toolkit to the next Firedog.

I wouldn't call it critical, but it is useful. If folks are happy with Firedog and Add-ons as delivered, and won't add/subtract addons or themes, TT is of limited use. It's intended to help manage them, but if you aren't doing managing...

However, I'm gonna install it on mine, test a few addons and if I get them to work OK, I will modify them as you described then post them here for download, or include the best in the next Firedog.

It will make your testing easier.

This will make a few more addons available should people want them. I'd encourage others to do the same - share more addons on the forum - so users who don't wanna play with Tech toolkit don't have to, but can still benefit from the extra addons.

I'll post more as opportunities arise. I've been using FF since the 1.X days, and Netscape 7.X/Mozilla Suite before that, so I've looked at a lot of them.

Functionality trumps size. "It's tiny" should not be the only criteria for inclusion. I'd pay more attention to the total number of extensions.

I realise that tiny is not the only criteria, but Firedog is slow enough IMHO... and I have carefully decided whether or not to include each addon, as I don't want more than required - but a few are required to match the features of Seamonkey suite... Chatzilla I can happily do without, for example.

What do you mean when you say "slow"? Time to invoke, or time to do things once up?

See my comments about number of extensions again. The extension code lives in directories on disk. When you run Firefox, the Firefox executable itself is loaded, and must then instantiate and link against an assortment of libraries, like libxul, and them must load and instantiate any extensions.

I run FF 3.5 here under Puppy, with a minimal extension set: AOIS, Image Zoom, Tech Toolkit, NoScript, Sage, Stylish, and Tab Mix Plus. All are "must haves" for me, though I suspect I could (grudgingly) drop TT and may have to replace Sage.

Puppy 4.31 runs on an old Fujitsu Lifebook, with a slow 40GB HD, an 867mhz CPU, and 256MB of RAM, in a Full install. FF 3.5 takes about 30 seconds to load and initialize using an ext4 file system, and took 45 seconds in my previous Puppy 4.12 installation using ext3.

Opera 10, by contrast, loads in 12-15 seconds. The version of Opera I run is built static, with almost all dependencies compiled into one big executable. Puppy can just find the start of the program on disk and load in a continuous read till done. FF 3.5 must link against a variety of external libraries and can't be built static, so I get slammed by disk I/O and seek times when it's loading.

(And thinking about it, you might poke around for a static build of FF 2, which I believe was still possible in the 2.X series. It might do nice things for load time.)

FF 3.5 is a little pokey when up, but bearable.

You can provide the functionality of Tech Toolkit manually. You need to download a local copy of the XPI file, open it (it's a Zip archive), extract and edit the Install.rdf file with a text editor to change the values for oldest and newest versions of FF it will run in, save the altered Install.rdf back into the XPI, then do a local install. This process is called "bumping"

Thanks for this info, very valuable! Should be noted by all who read it!

The specific stuff to look far and diddle is

Code: Select all

    <em:minVersion>3.0</em:minVersion>
    <em:maxVersion>3.7a1pre</em:maxVersion>

with maxVersion being what you need to change.

the absolute necessities here are All In One Sidebar, Brief, Greasemonkey, Image Zoom, NoScript, Stylish, and Tech Toolkit.

I like Greasemonkey, I didnt include it at first though, as i thought most people wouldn't use it.. However, if I bundle it with a few of the better Userscripts, then it could be a go-er..

I'll try to make the latest version of Greasemonkey work in Firedog, or at least from the last major update...

You may need to revert to an earlier release for FF 2 compatibility.

I'll try to do the same with Image Zoom, too... I didn't include that one in Firedog as the latest supported version is a bit lame...

Image Zoom? Lame in what way? It behaves fine here, and does what I require of it.

Stylish is nice too, but may be extraneous if adblock etc are installed, and I don't think most people would use it for styling sites...

<guffaw>

Go to UserStyles.org. Oh, boy, do people style sites. If it exists on the web, chances are good someone has styled it. If it's a popular site, like Facebook, there will be dozens of styles to choose from.

But I use Stylish mostly for two things:

1) I use it instead of AdBlock Plus, with the Filterset P UserStyle that defines a large number of ad servers and doesn't render content sourced from them.

2) I use it to style Firefox itself.

The Puppy box is a note book, with a small screen (compared with my 19" desktop monitor in 1600x1200) doing 1280x768 resolution. Screen real estate is precious, and I want to minimize the amount taken up by the chrome in Firefox to leave the maximum window for browsing.

So I combine the stop and reload button, hide the Bookmarks toolbar (which I don't use), move the Nav bar buttons, URL box and Search box to the menu bar and hide the Nav bar, compress the menu itself to an icon which expands on mouseover, and autohide the status bar.

Guess what? I don't use extensions to do that. Combining stop and reload, compressing menu to an icon, and autohiding status bar are all done in CSS by Stylish UserStyles.

Also, after much testing, I personally think noscript is way too invasive on your browsing, doesnt work well with FlashBlock and is generally for the overly-paranoid...

You can block Flash with NoScript. It can seem invasive at first, as you must build your whitelist and will spend a bit of time allowing sites you frequent.

It's less paranoia using FF on Windows than on Linux. But it's still useful. For instance, I block script execution by ad sites.

It's sometimes (but rarely, i'll admit) very difficult to decide which servers are serving which scripts, and therefore which ones will be required for a decent browsing experience...

It's more a pain on major news sites and the like, as NoScript may list a dozen or more sites referenced by the URL. I have a fair feel for which are required and which can be blocked, but that's experience showing.

And with javascript libraries (jquery et al) at least helping to power most of the better web applications and websites these days (aside from a few ruby/flash,etc apps) I think NoScript is a massive pain in the ass., considering it usually blocks harmless stuff, that nowadays is designed to bring more usablility to the web (web 2.0)..

In most cases, whitelisting the main domain you are visiting does the trick.

I checked out YesScript, and while this is not at all to be used for security purposes (its uses a blacklist), it's far more appealing from a usability point-of-view - although it's still much too basic to be actually used in Firedog..

I suppose it's simpler and less intrusive, but it wouldn't do for me.

I'm also thinking of making a Firedog for web designers (for myself more than anything) - basically Firedog, with a load of the great web development addons for FF2.

Add Chris Pederick's Web Developer toolbar and Joe Hewitt's Firebug as must-haves.

Indeed, I've used them for years... Don't like to work without them.

I find it hard to imagine doing web development and not using them.

Of the list you currently include, I might omit things like FasterFox.

If someone sends me the correct, reliable values I will make that update, but I couldn't find anything that worked for everyone, so thought I'd add the GUI so people can change its settings, or even turn it off...

I wouldn't make the changes by default. I'd simply include the values to tweak in a README supplied with Firedog.

However, all that being said, nearly no one is downloading Firedog (70 people in total), only a handful of have told me they use it, and most people prefer FF3, opera or chrome by far... So I'm in no rush!!

I prefer FF 3.5, and blinked a bit at basing your effort on the FF 2 branch, but at least some folks like your effort.

Thanks for your info Dennis.

You're welcome.
______
Dennis

[Colonel Panic]

Good post Dennis, it deserves careful reading when I've got a bit more time.

I've just downloaded Firedog and it looks good but the menu bar is a bit strange; instead of a horizontal list of menus below the status bar, it displays a list of icons indicating such things as RSS feeds, Chatzilla, FireFTP etc. You have to click on the "Menu" button on the left of the bar to bring the actual menus up.

Is there an easy way to rectify this?

Thanks in advance,

Colonel Panic.

[DMcCunney]

Good post Dennis, it deserves careful reading when I've got a bit more time.

You're welcome.

I've just downloaded Firedog and it looks good but the menu bar is a bit strange; instead of a horizontal list of menus below the status bar, it displays a list of icons indicating such things as RSS feeds, Chatzilla, FireFTP etc. You have to click on the "Menu" button on the left of the bar to bring the actual menus up.

Is there an easy way to rectify this?

That's a Firedog feature, designed to make better use of scarce screen real estate by reducing the amount of visible "chrome" (All the borders, toolbars, menus, etc. that are Firefox itself.)

I believe Firedog does it with the TinyMenu extension. Click on Tools/Extensions, right click on TinyMenu in the list, and disable it. Restart Firedog and see if it's more to your liking. If so, uninstall TinyMenu.
______
Dennis

[Colonel Panic]

Thanks Dennis, I'll try it.

BTW, I've seen you on Rich Green's DOS forum recently - good to see you here too.

[sc0ttman]

the menu bar is a bit strange... Is there an easy way to rectify this?

An example of why I didn't edit Firedogs .js files directly too much, using addons instead - the only change I thought NOBODY would mind is the combined stop/refresh button!!

[DMcCunney]

Thanks Dennis, I'll try it.

BTW, I've seen you on Rich Green's DOS forum recently - good to see you here too.

I thought I recognized your username. Yeah, I'm there. I started using DOS in the 2.X days when Lotus 1,2,3 was singlehandedly forcing everyone to upgrade to a whole 640KB of RAM. (These days I feel pinched in 640 MB...)

I still have a boatload of old DOS software, and some of it still gets used.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

the menu bar is a bit strange... Is there an easy way to rectify this?

An example of why I didn't edit Firedogs .js files directly too much, using addons instead - the only change I thought NOBODY would mind is the combined stop/refresh button!!

It depends on which JS you're diddling.

Editing prefs.js is generally a bad idea. It's created/maintained by FF, and changes you make manually aren't guaranteed to survive. In general, put customizations in a user.js file. FF doesn't touch that, but if the file exists, FF will read it, and the stuff defined in it will override what is in prefs.js. I used the technique under FF2 to have multiple browsers/profiles share a common bookmarks file. A one line user.js file dropped into each profile pointed to the file I wanted them to use.

I do combined stop/reload in CSS via Stylish - no need for Yet Another Extension. (And one of the things I've done over the years is look for multi-function extensions that include the functionality of single purpose extensions, to reduce the total number I need to load. Tech Toolkit, for example, gives a laundry list of extensions whose functionality it includes and can be dropped once it's in use.)
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Carrying on with some thoughts expressed previously, you might want to look here: http://www.lamarelle.org/mo-zi-lla/mozilla.php

The chap responsible for the site has done static builds of Firefox 2.X and SeaMonkey 1.X for Linux. (SeaMonkey is browser-only, unfortunately.)

A recent static build of FF2 might be a good base on which to build FireDog, as static builds tend to load faster. (A static build of Opera 10.10 loads about twice as fast here as Firefox 3.6, which can't be built static.)

I got a static build of Firefox 2.0.20 here:
http://www.lamarelle.org/firefox/2.0.0. ... k1.tar.bz2

(The link on the download page says static but points to the shared build.)
______
Dennis

[sc0ttman]

It depends on which JS you're diddling.. Editing prefs.js is generally a bad idea... I do combined stop/reload in CSS via Stylish...

Indeed.. Just in case anyone is now wondering, all manual changes I made in Firedog are in userChrome.css, not in prefs.js..

A recent static build of FF2 might be a good base on which to build FireDog, as static builds tend to load faster. (A static build of Opera 10.10 loads about twice as fast here as Firefox 3.6, which can't be built static.)

I got a static build of Firefox 2.0.20 here:
http://www.lamarelle.org/firefox/2.0.0. ... k1.tar.bz2

Thanks for the link, good info again... I'll have a look at it and will try to use it when the times comes, but as I said earlier, I'm in no rush with Firedog, as hardly anyone uses it.

[DMcCunney]

It depends on which JS you're diddling.. Editing prefs.js is generally a bad idea... I do combined stop/reload in CSS via Stylish...

Indeed.. Just in case anyone is now wondering, all manual changes I made in Firedog are in userChrome.css, not in prefs.js..

In which case, it's not js you're diddling.

Lots of things can be done in userChrome.css, and FF won't touch that, so changes will be permanent.

I got a static build of Firefox 2.0.20 here:
http://www.lamarelle.org/firefox/2.0.0. ... k1.tar.bz2

Thanks for the link, good info again... I'll have a look at it and will try to use it when the times comes, but as I said earlier, I'm in no rush with Firedog, as hardly anyone uses it.

Perhaps not, but you seem to be having fun doing it, and I think your work is applicable to things beyond FF 2.

The longer term goal of Mozilla is to break out the Gecko engine as a stand alone runtime called XULRunner. You get one copy, instead of it being bundled with each app, and Mozilla apps are simply instances of what XULRunner renders. There's no reason that has to be a browser or email client. We are already seeing a few apps based on the Mozilla framework, like the Songbird cross-platform media player, or Active State's Komodo programmer's IDE.

There's no reason a complete desktop couldn't be implemented in XUL, CSS and widgets, with JavaScript performing the actions when you clicked on something. I'm a little surprised I haven't seen a Linux distro doing that yet.
______
Dennis

[sc0ttman]

I think your work is applicable to things beyond FF 2... The longer term goal of Mozilla is to break out the Gecko engine as a stand alone runtime called XULRunner...

There's no reason a complete desktop couldn't be implemented in XUL, CSS and widgets, with JavaScript performing the actions when you clicked on something. I'm a little surprised I haven't seen a Linux distro doing that yet.
______
Dennis

I actually tried to build a few custom frontends a year or so ago, based on jquery/mootools (running locally) and a customised chrome interface - I figured some nice apps/tools could be added to Puppy with very little space taken...

I used a separate profile in FF, edited its UserChrome and whatever else I felt like doing (as I was making it up as I went along... ) but ended up hitting a few basic snags, like sending actions to XUL to alter the interface...

I was hoping to utilise some nice jQuery/MooTools widgets/scripts to build an online file-manager, and a few other web-based tools... But didn't know nearly enough! Probably should've read something on it first, checked if it's even possible!!

[DMcCunney]

I think your work is applicable to things beyond FF 2... The longer term goal of Mozilla is to break out the Gecko engine as a stand alone runtime called XULRunner...

There's no reason a complete desktop couldn't be implemented in XUL, CSS and widgets, with JavaScript performing the actions when you clicked on something. I'm a little surprised I haven't seen a Linux distro doing that yet.

I actually tried to build a few custom frontends a year or so ago, based on jquery/mootools (running locally) and a customised chrome interface - I figured some nice apps/tools could be added to Puppy with very little space taken...

I used a separate profile in FF, edited its UserChrome and whatever else I felt like doing (as I was making it up as I went along... ) but ended up hitting a few basic snags, like sending actions to XUL to alter the interface...

I was hoping to utilise some nice jQuery/MooTools widgets/scripts to build an online file-manager, and a few other web-based tools... But didn't know nearly enough! Probably should've read something on it first, checked if it's even possible!!

Nice to see I'm not the only one to think that way...

I think what you want is doable, with a caveat. What do you mean when you say "Alter the interface"? If you mean, "change the look and feel of the top level process", I'm reasonably certain that requires a restart of the process. (Installing Themes does...) You should be able to spawn child windows with chrome defined by XUL.

This is probably the best place to start reading:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/XUL
______
Dennis

[T_B]

Thanks for the link, good info again... I'll have a look at it and will try to use it when the times comes, but as I said earlier, I'm in no rush with Firedog, as hardly anyone uses it.

One of hardly anyone is enjoying Firedog a lot
Don't need every feature in it, but I like the 'all in one' approach. Speed is pretty good, seems to be very stable and feels more up-to-date than Seamonkey.

So thanks and keep up the good work!

[Artie]

Hi sc0ttman please keep up the good work I'm trying out Firedog 1.2 in Quirky 005 so far so good. Will get back to you if I have any comments or questions.

Artie

[Puppyt]

Firedog gets my vote too - gives me the warm "..we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto" feeling. Great stuff, sc0ttman!

[Frank Cox]

For what its worth my Pastor loves your program. Asked me to thank you for it.

[Colonel Panic]

Yep, I've installed it in two Pups so far and it's working well. Thanks for a good job of work.

[sc0ttman]

Thanks for the feedback, it's great news.. I'm glad you like it..