Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

20 Must-have Firefox Extensions

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the so-it-comes-to-this-then-does-it dept.

Mozilla 341

An anonymous reader noted that Computerworld is running a story on the 20 must have Firefox extensions. Several of my favorites are in there so I'm looking forward to playing with the ones I haven't heard of.

cancel ×

341 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Adblock? (5, Interesting)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307722)

Why isn't adblock mentioned?

*fires up internet explorer, browses tfa*

Oh.

Two flash ads & an animated gif (along with the pop-up). Not surprised they didn't mention ad block plus [mozilla.org] and filterset g [mozilla.org] .

Install them & never see another ad again. Ever. (without any sort of configuration).

Re:Adblock? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307758)

Could it be they excluded it because they want to make money off of ads just like everyone else?

ZOMG CONSPIRACY!

The complete list (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308552)

Tools for taming the Web
StumbleUpon [mozilla.org]
Yahoo Mail Notifier [mozilla.org]
Gmail Manager [mozilla.org]
Greasemonkey [mozilla.org]

Visual Improvements
Firefox Showcase [mozilla.org]
Cooliris Previews [mozilla.org]
Colorful Tabs [mozilla.org]
ChromaTabs [mozilla.org]

Matters of convenience
Google Browser Sync [google.com]
Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer [mozilla.org]
Session Manager [mozilla.org]
All-in-One Gestures [mozilla.org]
IE Tab [mozilla.org]
Download Statusbar [mozilla.org]
Download Sort [mozilla.org]
Nuke Anything Enhanced [mozilla.org]

Information gatherers
Forecastfox [mozilla.org]
Answers [mozilla.org]

Web developer essentials
FireFTP [mozilla.org]
Firebug [getfirebug.com]
Web Developer [mozilla.org]
MeasureIt [mozilla.org]
ColorZilla [mozilla.org]

Yes, there are more than twenty, but 20 sounds better, doesn't it? By the way, please skip the IE tab. If you are using Firefox, it is in your best interest to abandon sites that only support Internet Explorer. I should go on to say something more, because I apparently don't have enough characters per line: more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more more

Re:Adblock? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307764)

I believe there's also an extension(or maybe just a Greasemonkey script?) which automatically clicks "next" links to make articles that have been split up for the purposes of advertising more readable, which this one could benefit from. Does anyone have a link to that?

Re:Adblock? (3, Informative)

gavinchappell (784065) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308300)

Sounds like you want the Repagination extension [mozilla.org] ?

Re:Adblock? (5, Insightful)

Tx (96709) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307782)

It may be selfish, but I kind of wish people wouldn't mention those too often. If they get too widely used, it will just mean more annoying, unavoidable ads. Like those ones that make you visit an ad page in order to then get the link to the actual article. Those piss me off.

Re:Adblock? (3, Interesting)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308032)

It may be selfish, but I kind of wish people wouldn't mention those too often. If they get too widely used, it will just mean more annoying, unavoidable ads.

I don't know, I think that if it comes to an arms race between the ad makers & the ad blockers, the ad blockers would win. For example, the TV stations had to do deals with tivo et al to stop ad-skipping tech.

It's easier for people to control what's displayed on their computer than most think.

Re:Adblock? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308210)

Keeping quiet is still the selfish thing to do, if you like free, ad free content anyway.

I guess people are also good at controlling what is available on their servers.

Re:Adblock? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308264)

"It's easier for people to control what's displayed on their computer than most think."

Of course it is.

And they have every right to do so. But when some of us are providing others resources where the power users are blocking the ads, and these are the only things that are keeping these resources running, they are shooting themselves AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT DEPENDS ON THEM in the foot.

Personally, I don't even care if someone ever clicks on an advertisement on any of my sites. I never wanted to advertise on any of my sites until costs got to be a few hundred a month just to keep the servers online (let alone taking up a good deal of my time that I could be doing other things...I love doing this stuff, but not when it requires time away from other activities that I find just as important...but the users don't see it that way...a lot of them are counting on these services).

Just like if Tivo were to be the norm, costs will be either directed straight toward the user -- which I'd actually prefer, but at the same time would I want to spend $5 a month on something vs. seeing a simple advertisement that I can ignore -- or the advertising will be built into the product where its not so easy to block and lowers the value of the product to both the owner and the customers of it. I've stopped trusting most review sites out there because you can see that that products they advertise are also the ones rated the highest without any bad ratings (how does that work???)

I've seen how this integrated advertising use to work in the early days of television. And there is a real reason it isn't used today. Occasionally, it makes a comeback and people complain and it goes away...but every idiot thinks its a novel idea that no one else had and tries it before failing.

Anyhow...as someone that provides several webservices, you can either agree to view the ads, pay not to or not use the service at all. Why is that so hard to understand. Just because technology exists to do something, this doesn't make it morally right (even if I understand the rational behind wanting to do so). Personally, I just don't go back to sites that barrage me with advertisement.

Re:Adblock? (4, Insightful)

Inda (580031) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308438)

Yes, true, because banner ads in the middle of TV programmes are so much better.

Re:Adblock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308504)

I also hope they don't get too widely used, but for a different reason. Is it just me, or is it ironic that people are advocating the blocking of ads on Slashdot, which is quite clearly (at least in part) supported by banner advertising? Had you considered that perhaps some of your favourite sites use advertising to keep on top of the high cost of running a website? Don't get me wrong, I hate popups and intrusive advertising, but I'm personally happy to put up with a couple of banner ads and maybe a click through ad if it means that the websites who provide me with a free service on a daily basis, are able to keep that service free.

And add in flashblock while you're at it. (4, Informative)

cliveholloway (132299) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307834)

Flashblock [mozilla.org] makes sites browsable again. Stop autoplay [mozilla.org] falls into the same category :) And No script [mozilla.org] is just plain sensible.

Other simple extensions that make life saner include copy as plain text [mozilla.org] (A life-saver in this "MS-we-know-what-you're trying-to-do" world) and the BugMeNot [mozdev.org] extension.

Re:And add in flashblock while you're at it. (2, Interesting)

el americano (799629) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308284)

I used to use bugmenot extensively, but then I just decided to avoid those sites that require a free sign-up. For news sites, everyone has the same news as the NY Times, so they are not missed. When I absolutely can't forego a sign-up, I use Trashmail [mozilla.org] , but places are starting to catch on.

Re:Adblock? (2, Informative)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307862)

Neither of those are necessary if you use NoScript.

I don't want to see zero ads anyway. I just don't want them to take over my browser.

Re:Adblock? (1)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307894)

Hmmm maybe its because they like being in business. But that's just a wild guess.

Re:Adblock? (4, Informative)

Yosho (135835) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307980)

If you're using AdBlock Plus, I'd recommend that you subscribe to EasyList [adblockplus.org] rather than use Filterset.G. Filterset.G is designed for the original AdBlock, and doesn't take advantage of a number of featues that AdBlock Plus has; for example, it features automatic subscription updating, so you don't need another extension just to update it. Also, the Filterset.G updater will blow away any customizations you've made to the block list when it updates, while EasyList won't. For more info, read the FAQ [adblockplus.org] .

Re:Adblock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308126)

I haven't installed AdBlock and Firefox (2.0 something) prevents the ads from TFA's site to open automagically.

This isn't Digg, we don't need this crap here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307728)

I go to /. to avoid the baggage of useless "OMG FF EXTENSIONS!1111" articles. Come on CmdrTaco, we can do better.

Re:This isn't Digg, we don't need this crap here (1)

Raypeso (851771) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308064)

Agreed. I'm so tired of all these list articles. I'd rather see some actual news for a change.

what? (-1, Redundant)

pedramnavid (1069694) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307732)

I might've missed it, but no adblock? Most of these extensions add more bloat than they do functionality.

Re: 20 Must-have Firefox Extensions (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307746)

20 Must-have Firefox Extensions

or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bloat.

20 is too many (5, Insightful)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307756)

Based on my experience, Firefox often becomes unstable when too many extensions are included. The problem is that extensions can conflict with each other. This risk is low with a small number of extensions but increases as the number of extensions increases. Extensions are a great feature of Firefox, but it is best to select the 10 or so that really increase your productivity and let the rest go.

Re:20 is too many (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307806)

Extensions are a great feature of Firefox, but it is best to select the 10 or so that really increase your productivity and let the rest go.

Agreed. After trying a fair number of extensions, the ones I've found most useful for casual surfing are AdBlock Plus, All-in-One Gestures, Download Statusbar, and User Agent Switcher. Throw ForecaseFox in there if you live somewhere where the weather changes often.

Re:20 is too many (1, Informative)

master811 (874700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307878)

Although I've not generally had stability issues with too many extension, I have found that certain ones do conflict and can makes FF amazingly efficient RAM usage become even more efficient. /sarcasm

But yeah too many does it make it more bloated and often will make it eat even more RAM that it does normally, its a shame cos there are some great extensions out there, but they need to be tested a lot more with others so that they conflict less and don't cause even more memory leaks.

Re:20 is too many (2, Interesting)

Falesh (1000255) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308174)

I must say that is what I like about Opera. It has a good core set of features e.g. sessions, mouse gestures, integrated search, content blocking, ad blocking, integrated email, spell checking, etc [opera.com] . Since these are core features I know there will be no compatibility problems with them. It also now has Widgets [opera.com] though they can't alter the browser as much as Firefox extensions can.

Before I'm modded as a troll I'm not saying "Opera rulez, FF sucks", there are features that are superior to Firefox too, like the kick ass Web Developer extension. I just think it would do better to have certain key extensions brought into the core browser.

Re:20 is too many (1)

Matt Perry (793115) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308190)

Based on my experience, Firefox often becomes unstable when too many extensions are included.
I've found that it depends on what extensions you use. Some extensions are poorly written. I have 29 extensions installed in my daily Firefox profile and have no problems with speed or stability. I created separate Firefox profiles for other purposes and installed different extensions in those profiles:
  • default - set to run by default and has my daily surfing setup and bookmarks
  • school - I have a different set of tools for school-related web surfing. Different bookmarks, extension configuration, etc.
  • webdev - has bookmarks to programming reference sites and manuals. Has Firebug, Web Developer, CSSViewer extensions installed, etc.
  • test - a test profile. If I'm curious about an extension, or not sure if it's going to play nice or uninstall itself properly, I can try it out in this stock profile.

I have separate icons for Firefox on my toolbar. I change the command for the icon to launch the appropriate profile. For example, when doing web development the webdev icon runs: firefox -p webdev

Re:20 is too many (1)

ZwJGR (1014973) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308462)

Not true.
I am currently running 47 extensions in Firefox 1.5.0.10 on WinXPSP2.
Firefox almost never crashes, the only time I have problems is when I visit sites with crappy javascript or broken java applets, and then its merely extreme sluggishness.
More firefox extensions does not equal instability.
It equals a HUGE performance penalty on startup (and opening a new window) of about 4-5 seconds, especially if you run a 1.6GHz P4 like I do...
Javascript is not the speediest of script languages, especially compared to precompiled code.
It would be nice if you could precompile/preparse your browser chrome scripts...

Moderation Typo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308512)

I think it's supposed to read "inciteful".

LOL Salashdot is teh new DIGG!!!!!???? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307778)

5 gb, no wifi

lame

Huh? (1)

Sukhbir (961063) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307790)

Haven't we already had too many of such articles in the past?

Re:Huh? (1)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308364)

Pretty soon we'll be able to have a 20 Must-read Firefox Extension Articles article. Looking forward to it.

What about unplug? What about flashgot? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307812)

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/2254/ [mozilla.org]

It allows you to rip streaming content easily from websites. It can handle everything from flash movies (.flv) on youtube to mp3 data streamed to your web browser. Paired with the Flashgot plugin:

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/220/ [mozilla.org]

You can download all of the links on a webpage, just like certain download managers used to. Its a great combo.

Who needs Firefox? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307816)

I installed Firefox 2 last month and I had nothing but problems with it. It kept crashing, especially after using almost all of my available memory, this is with a clean install and without any extensions loaded . So I went back to Internet Explorer as it is quicker, more stable, and after the recent news 'just look under the haha tag' it is just as secure. So far, Internet Explorer hasn't crashed once and the memory usage is much lower as well. From now on I will stick with Internet Explorer.

Who needs Internet Exploder? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308168)

I installed Internet Exploder 7 last month and I had nothing but problems with it. It kept crashing, especially after using almost all of my available memory, this is without any extensions loaded. So I switched to Firefox when I wiped the HDD and finally installed Ubuntu as it is quicker, more stable, and after all of the news 'just look under the haha tag' it is even more secure than Internet Exploder. So far, Firefox hasn't crashed once and the memory usage is much lower as well. From now on I will stick with Firefox and Ubuntu and avoid anything made by Micro$loth from now on.

Aren't articles like this bad for Firefox? (2, Insightful)

bconway (63464) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307826)

The idea that the browser isn't feature-complete unless you install 20 add-ons is certain to scare some people away. I know there isn't much fun in reading an article about the 5 "essential" add-ons, but you can probably get the best of what's missing. I'm down to only two (AdBlock Plus w/ Easylist, and Flashblock for limiting/customizing non-ad content) and quite happy with my experience.

Re:Aren't articles like this bad for Firefox? (2, Interesting)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308150)

The idea that the browser isn't feature-complete unless you install 20 add-ons is certain to scare some people away

What about IE? They weren't even going to include tabs in IE7 originally. The evolution of IE has been mostly in its core rendering and ActiveX, and not the interface or functionality of the application. Internet Explorer has basically always been just a bare shell for MS's HTML handling engine. It's the bare minimum!

Re:Aren't articles like this bad for Firefox? (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308376)

Well, a counter-example to IE would be Konqueror: it's just a shell for KHTML, but it also includes tons of features that you can't exactly put in the HTML/CSS and JavaScript engines (e.g. Konqueror has a built-in AdBlock, auto-refresh, download manager (via KGet), web page translation, web page validation, user agent changer, flashblock (via plugin settings), and more). Other applications can embed KHTML (e.g. Akregator does this for viewing webpages from RSS feeds, or KMail in order to view HTML emails).

You could also say that Firefox is just a shell for Gecko (including its XUL, XBL, etc. parsing and renderring), and most of that is written using XUL, XBL, and JavaScript (Gecko is in C++ and allows for COM-like functionality via XPCOM).

FEBE and CLEO (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308160)

I have found FEBE and CLEO to be invaluable.

Re:Aren't articles like this bad for Firefox? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308258)

The article is mistitled ("essential" should be "most interesting) but I think it helps to show how powerful Firefox is, it's basically a platform to itself now.

I don't run many add-ons either because of speed and stability problems that arise with too many add-ons. Adblocking too many things also seems to slow down Firefox too. Flashblock helps too because ads are too CPU hungry, if I have a motion flash ad in a window going, it will generally always take 5% of my CPU, not something I want when trying to conserve battery power.

Re:Aren't articles like this bad for Firefox? (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308290)

The idea that the browser isn't feature-complete unless you install 20 add-ons is certain to scare some people away.

Especially if people are being told that "must have" extensions for Firefox include rainbow colored tabs, "more neat than actually useful" (quoting TFA) popup page previews, and weather forecast gadgets.

Another 4-5 of those "must haves" are strictly for developers (ex. FireBug/WebDev toolbar - I have those, my grandma doesn't need them).

Are you surprised? Shiny title on a worthless article? What a shock.

Re:Aren't articles like this bad for Firefox? (2, Funny)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308394)

Another 4-5 of those "must haves" are strictly for developers (ex. FireBug/WebDev toolbar - I have those, my grandma doesn't need them).
My grandmother is a web developer you insensitive clod!

Re:Aren't articles like this bad for Firefox? (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308426)

My grandmother is a web developer you insensitive clod!

I'm talking about mine: she's a nuclear fusion rocket scientist.

JS blocker (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307838)

And what about javascript blocker? I feel a lot more secure with that extension; in fact, it's the only one that keeps me from going to opera.

Re:JS blocker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308362)

And what about javascript blocker? I feel a lot more secure with that extension; in fact, it's the only one that keeps me from going to opera.
It's built into opera, so if that's the only thing keeping you from switching, switch away.

For those without Adblock (4, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307840)

As the site has been Slashdotted already, have a Coralised, Printer-friendly version. [nyud.net]

Re:For those without Adblock (4, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308052)

As the site has been Slashdotted already, have a Coralised, Printer-friendly version.

Oh, for shame! Such an easy chance to plug something on-topic, yet another FF extension... ;-)

Resurrect Pages [mozilla.org] lets you check all the major internet cache sites for dead content.

Just two (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307848)

SeaMonkey and Flashblock.

If they are "must have" (0, Redundant)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307850)

Why don't they come standard with firefox?

Zing!

Re:If they are "must have" (1)

pravuil (975319) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308014)

Think of extensions as a testing ground for features in later releases. That's what happened with version 2.0 which adopted a lot of ideas from user submitted extensions for version 1.x

Zing!

Re:If they are "must have" (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308090)

Then they are "must try" not have.

Zing! (can't believe I got banned from fark.com ... arrrg....)

Re:If they are "must have" (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308146)

Some of them of very specialized. If you don't use gmail, then your browser doesn't need code in it that treats gmail's pages as a special case that needs to be manipulated.

Some of them, such as adblock, work only due to not being mainstream. If they get too popular, there will be countermeasures.

And some of them have subjective value. So they're "must have" for Person A, but annoying to Person B.

Might have been just me . . . (4, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307876)

. . but I just dont see why many of those are 'Must have'. I mean how often do I need to measure stuff?

Re:Might have been just me . . . (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307932)

I measured it every day from 12 years old till 16 then realized that was all the bigger it was going to get.

Re:Might have been just me . . . (1)

conradov (1026760) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308100)

Because 'Must have' is great link baiting. I found most of the extensions interesting, but not all suitable for me. Most people will probably just use the best subset fitting for them.

Re:Might have been just me . . . (1)

J0nne (924579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308166)

If you're a web developer, 'measure it' is essential (so is Firebug, and 'colourzilla').

i don't see why anyone else would need those extensions, though.

sensationalism (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307886)

IAAFPS and i call bs on this one


if this list were anywhere near accurate it should have included these extensions:

  • Navigation
    • Thumbs [mozilla.org] - Shows the first thumbnail from each linked gallery, letting you skip galleries that don't look interesting.
    • Linky [mozilla.org] - Open all links in tabs, etc.
    • firefusk [xoxosoma.com] - view all images from galleries with numerically named image files.
    • Browse Images [mozilla.org] - Use the Forward button or Alt+Shift+Right to go to the next image.
    • Location Navigator [mozilla.org] - Select a portion of a URL that varies, then navigate up or down.
    • Digger [mozilla.org] - Navigate to parent directories in URLs, etc.
    • refspoof [mozdev.org] - Modify your HTTP Referer to gain access to sites that use insecure login mechanisms.
  • Downloading and saving
    • DownThemAll [mozilla.org] - Download all the links to images/movies on a page at once.
    • FlashGot [mozilla.org] - Download all the links on a page at once using an external download manager.
    • Download sort [mozilla.org] - Save files to folders based on extension or download date.
    • spiderzilla [mozdev.org] - Download entire web sites.
    • Super DragAndGo [code65536.com] - Drag a link to open it in a new tab; drag an image to save it.
  • Videos
    • Launchy [gemal.dk] - Open links to video files in an external player, streaming, so you can watch a video without waiting to download it. (Note that not all video players support streaming video; for example, WinAmp 5.111 hangs. VLC [videolan.org] works well. Here's my launchy.xml [slashdot.org] for VLC.)
    • MediaPlayerConnectivity [mozilla.org] - Open embedded video in an external player, so you can use features like Full Screen.
  • Images
    • Image Zoom [mozilla.org] - Convenient shortcuts for zooming images.
    • mozImage [mozilla.org] - Browse images on hard drive or view them in a slideshow.

Most of the authors of these extensions are not yet members of the Pornzilla project.

Re:sensationalism (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307986)

A lot of that looks like it is not for making regular internet viewing easier, but for streamlining the viewing of internet porn (not saying net porn viewing isn't normal, but there is a distinction between using the net and using the net for porn). Kinda freaky what you can tell about someone from what extensions they have installed...

Wow (5, Funny)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308226)

Someone takes their porn browsing seriously!

Re:sensationalism (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308478)

You're probably going to need some sort of braille plugin after a few years of using those.

One must have browser (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18307910)

20 must have? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307958)

I had absolutely no use for 19 of those extensions.

So far, my 'must-have' extension list:
  • Google browser sync
  • Fasterfox
That's my 'must-have' list, I can cope without other extensions...

Re:20 must have? (1)

h2g2bob (948006) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308186)

Yes, why did this make slashdot? There are billions (ok, 27,300 according to google) of these "Top 20 Firefox Extensions", and most of them have better extensions, and manage to list them all on one page.

Google browser sync (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308458)

I've had problems with it not doing the right thing when used from several computers or when used with other extensions that use bookmarks. It also seems to slow down some operations significantly. In the end, I removed it; I think it still needs work.

Re:Google browser sync (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308494)

I've had problems with it not doing the right thing when used from several computers
I have several computers with Firefox installed, not suffered issues with bookmark syncing (I barely add more bookmarks -- could be a reason). I'm particularly pleased with how well it syncs passwords and cookies.

It also seems to slow down some operations significantly.
It slows down the startup of the browser here. But that's mainly because it's asking for the password to access my encrypted password store. Other than that. Not noticed any slow downs.

In the end, I removed it; I think it still needs work.
Maybe you should raise your concerns with Google? Provide them feedback.

Ehehehe (1)

nnn0 (794348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307966)

No Adblock, no NoScript, no CookieSafe. Those would be on top on my list :)

CookieSafe (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308092)

Yeah, CookieSafe makes cookies work the way they should do [ath0.com] . It ought to be standard.

Re:Ehehehe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308446)

CookieSafe, eh? Not from me... All your cookies are belong to us... mmmmm... cookies...

Flergh! (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307974)

I wanted to read this article, but I can't make any sense of it. There is junk text all over the place which seems to be linking to other stuff posted to day. How the hell am I ment to make sense of 10 different blocks of text when all I want to read is 1 clean and simple article?

We get eight of these a week. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308236)

> How the hell am I ment to make sense of 10 different blocks of text when all I want to read is 1 clean and simple article?

Welcome to Slashdot! Your request has been taken into consideration and filed in /dev/null where a sysadmin will grok it shortly. You may be interested in our newsprint edition, offering full 0.75 inch margins in which to write reader comments. Please pass the copy to the next person in line when finished.

-Stay cool, space cowboy...

Addons memory usage (4, Interesting)

secolactico (519805) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307978)

Is there a way to see how much memory is each extension using?

Re:Addons memory usage (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308026)

Nope.

Firefox extensions are generally simple JavaScript and XML files that are effectively appended directly to the core JavaScript and XML files that make up the browser. (Obviously I'm oversimplifying a bit here.)

In any case, because extensions just add on to the general browser in the same namespace, there's no way to separate what memory is used by one extension and what memory is used by another or what memory is being used by the core browser itself. They're all in the same namespace. This can cause conflicts with extensions, of course: if two extensions make different use of the same variable (or XML id) they'll conflict and the results will be unpredictable.

But in short: no, it's not possible, because the extensions are effectively loaded as if they were part of the browser, and there's no way to tell when something is part of an extension or part of the core browser.

Re:Addons memory usage (1)

textstring (924171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308152)

if you really must know,
memory used by firefox with extension - memory used by firefox w/o extension ~= memory used by extension

All I use... (1)

Cctoide (923843) | more than 7 years ago | (#18307982)

... is the Web Developer Toolbar (useful for hiding images, making some sites slightly more SFW), Adblock Plus, Tab Mix Plus and the del.icio.us plugin. Other extensions I also use, but could do without, are Forecastfox and Download Statusbar.

Extensions (4, Informative)

JohnyDog (129809) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308000)

Well most of them aren't really 'must-have' at all, and half of them are tied to some specific service. Anyway, as everybody will be posting they're favourite extensions, i'll add few less popular ones, that i found really useful for daily work:

DownThemAll! [downthemall.net] 0.9.9.7 - can download all files from page (both links and directly embeddeded) with settable filter, custom renaming and all other features you'd expect form download accelerator

Image Zoom [yellowgorilla.net] 0.2.7 - zooming images (and only images) - i found it very needed for high-dpi displays, or where the OS-specific zoom-tool isn't enough.

MR Tech Local Install [mrtech.com] 5.3.2.3 - nice tool for managing extensions - can make any older extension compatible on one click (simple change of required firefox version), also can generate installed extension list like this one you're reading now, either in text, HTML or BBcode

Remove It Permanently [mozdev.org] 1.0.6.3 - more useful version of NukeIt - shows you what content is actually being removed in red outline, can remove parent widget of what you're hovering over, or 'all similar items', on per-page,per-domain,per-website basis;useful for pages heavily infested with ads

Tiny Menu [arantius.com] 1.4.2 - the whole menu is compacted to one button 'Menu' which you can drag on your address toolbar (it's actually the other way round), saving needed screen space

Unread Tabs [codefront.net] 0.3 - shows opened-but-yet-unread tabs with Italics

Tabbrowser Extension? (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308004)

I've been using the Tabbrowser extension for years. It seems to have fallen by the way-side, but it has some functionality that I miss:
  • Tabs at the side - it could put the window tabs down the side of the browser window. I can read them faster here, and with a lot open, still see the labels without having to put the mouse over them to see the tooltip
  • Grouped tabs - with the tabs down the side, it would use indentation to maintain tab groups. Pop-up windows would thus be associated with the window they came from, rather than appear somewhere unrelated on the tab bar. Then I can close them all in one go, hide all the pop-up windows or move them all to a new location on the tab bar in one go
  • Better control over new windows - basically every window operation can be forced in to a tab, or new window as desired. Nice
  • Session management - Firefox seems to restore my session after it crashes or is killed. Otherwise on normal exit it just tells me that it's closing the tabs. This extension always restores the session with each tab's browse history. It looks like the extension in article for session management actively requires saving the session - true?


If anybody knows how I can get these again, especially the grouped tabs down the side, I'd love to hear about it.

Re:Tabbrowser Extension? (1)

GenKreton (884088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308312)

For session management in firefox >= 2.0.x.x, enter about:config, search for "browser.startup.page" and set it to "3." Restart firefox and watch the magic happen.

Must-have? (1)

TikiTDO (759782) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308024)

Not only have we already seen plenty of these articles, but a lot of the add-ons included in the article are at best superfluous and at worst plain useless not to mention outdated.

For instance take the Gmail/Yahoo notifiers; while both are a good idea, a lot of people might have a mail application open to check their company/school email as well as the free variety. Most of the eye candy certainly looks nice, but will just serve to increase your crash rate while occasionally being used to showcase all the purdy features to your friends. All-in-One gestures provides several services that are already implemented in the browser, and done a lot better there, I would suggest Mouse Gestures instead. As for the Answers add-on, there's a search bar built in to the browser for a reason.

There is also a several popular add-ons missing from the list; Adblock, NoScript, VideoDownloader, not to mention any developer add-ons such as Web Developer and Firebug. Though these are not included for obvious reasons the list feels woefully incomplete without.

APT-get Extensions? (2, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308042)

I wish these extensions would register when installed with my APT repository. That way it's easier to upgrade along with the rest of my system, especially after an OS upgrade (every 6 months with Ubuntu). And easier to clone to a new machine.

The APT dependency management would also make it easier to install, say, a GreaseMonkey script and automatically install GreaseMonkey, because it's the script I want and GreaseMonkey is incidental.

A reverse dependency tool in Firefox would let me install FireFox on a host, then get suggestions of all the extensions I have installed elsewhere. But that's more of a reach than just including the extensions installs in APT packages.

Re:APT-get Extensions? (1)

progprog (1016317) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308450)

I wish these extensions would register when installed with my APT repository. That way it's easier to upgrade along with the rest of my system, especially after an OS upgrade (every 6 months with Ubuntu). And easier to clone to a new machine.
It's very straightforward to duplicate extensions as is -- just copy your profile directory over. And you could set up /home on a different partition and not have to bother with restoring it when you upgrade your OS, try a different distro, etc.

Must be sunday. (1)

ericdfields (638772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308050)

That's when pseudo-news makes the front page. All that's fit to print, here on dot

The 2 I use the most (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308062)

I use Jeteye and Foxytunes a lot. Jeteye [jeteye.com] is a great bookmarking tool that you can use from one computer to the next. We use it at work as a way to allow everyone to have access to useful sites.

I need to get this of my chest. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308158)

When the FUCK are we going to get "whole word" searching in Firefox?!

Conquery & Linkification (2, Informative)

De Lemming (227104) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308182)

My two favorite extensions aren't mentioned in the article. They are:
  • Conquery [conquery.net] - let's you select any text on a web page, and in the right click menu you have an option to send this text to search engines and other sites (Wikipedia, IMDB, Amazon, Urban Dictionary, Google Images,...). The list is of course customizable, and you can use the standard Firefox search plugins.
  • Linkification [mozilla.org] - converts plain text links to clickable links, very useful on forums like Slashdot. Has a lot of options.

auto-complete bookmarks? (1)

superfast-scooter (693095) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308192)

Anyone know of any extensions to auto-complete your bookmarked URL's the way Safari does?

Venkman debugger (1)

John Guilt (464909) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308200)

Persnicketty, inadequate, but essential to my (undesired) javascript work---unless by now Firebug has accumulated
  • programmable breakpoints ("break iff f(x0,x1,...)==true")
  • watchable expressions ("display this.fnord()")
  • line for executing expressions after debugging's stopped
Of course, being able to start it up more than once/firefox_session (the fix for 1.5 is buggy, and I can't use 2.x for testing reasons) would be a good idea, and being able to edit the source-file from within Venkman would be double-plus-favourite....

Missing extension (2, Informative)

J0nne (924579) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308208)

Dragdropupload [mozilla.org] . If you have to upload files regularly, you'll enjoy this extension, as you just need to drag a file from your desktop/explorer/nautilus into the upload box, you you don't have to type the path manually, or navigate through one of those sucky 'open file' dialogs.

Slow News Day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308220)

I could have sworn I typed slashdot.org but it looks like I'm on digg.com.

PrefBar and LiveHTTPHeaders (4, Informative)

hweimer (709734) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308274)

I have only encountered two really useful extensions so far, the rest usually being too bloated or insecure to install them.

The first is the PrefBar [osreviews.net] , which allows to quickly change browser options.
For example, enable or disable Cookies, Java(Script) with a single click. Or choose from different proxies, which is very useful in combination with Tor.

For web developers, LiveHTTPHeaders [osreviews.net] is a must. It allows you to track redirects, view Cookies or view and manipulate POST requests.

Wah. Copied. from copy. (1)

Transcendor (907201) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308322)

quite an identical article was printed about 2 month ago in German computer magazine c't. Computerworld is really not very fast to translate it into English.
Nothing to see here, move along, btw.

I wish Firefox had this one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308348)

An extension to tell me at what speed my page is loading would be good. Earlier incarnations of Firefox/phoenix and the Netscape browser would display speed in kb/s on the lower left part of the browser status bar while loading the page.

All that we see now is "...Waiting for "site name...", "...Transferring data from "...site name..." and "...Done..." once the page has been loaded.

Problem is: I do not have the skill set to write an extension. All my programming knowledge is in VB and PHP.

Not really must-have (1)

jlherren (1025754) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308352)

I always feel like I'm the only one that thinks this way, but I'm mostly happy with FF without any extensions. (And my past experiences have shown that this is the stablest combination to have.)

20 Extensions but they missed the most obvious one (1)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308370)

Where's the extension that allows me to use firefox in a 3D fashion just like I.E. in Vista? Then I would really have no usefulness for Vista (not that I do now).

And yes I know, I'm comparing a browser to an OS... but hey, if they can make 3D surfing windows with transparency & it all works in XP, that'd be sweet. Cube browsing would earn them bonus points.

http://www.pctuning.cz/ilustrace2/Teuzz/Vista2/Mov ie-cube_maly.jpg [pctuning.cz]

Adeptus
PS. Can you tell I'm not a programmer?

What is this shit? (0, Troll)

linvir (970218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308388)

Firefox extensions? What a fucking joke. Seriously, if this is the kind of shit we're going to have now, OSTG may as well shut Slashdot down and just tell the editors to go create Digg accounts.

Tomorrow on Slashdot.

  • AWESOME pics of the new ipod!!
  • 10 must-have Firefox extensions!!
  • WOW! Steve Jobs took a shit!!
  • George Bush outlaws oxygen (FO REAL YO)
  • Top 10 consumer electronics items

Re:What is this shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308452)

This is so true. I wish I had mod points to mod you up!

Re:What is this shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308482)

"WOW! Steve Jobs took a shit!!"

Given how anal-retentive he is, that would be news indeed!

Colorful Tabs? (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308454)

I don't think changing the tab color is really a "must have" extension. In fact, it strikes me as a pretty useless extension.

The ones I use that I consider "must have": Adblock (of course) and the filterset.g updater, forecastfox and target alert. And I'm not even sure about Forecast Fox. It just saves me having to open a weather webpage. I also like StopAutoPlay, Download Embedded, and the Download Manager Tweak so I can make it load in a tab.

The plugin I always wanted.. (1)

alexhard (778254) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308466)

But has never come out: the ability to group tabs, sort of like what windows XP does to windows of the same type...I always operate with 30+ tabs open and it would be nice to have similar tabs (such as torrent trackers) grouped under a single one, with a list of the tabs appearing when I mouse over..

Quicky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18308502)

Downthemall ... This is an open-source add-on that is amazing at downloading. Sure, it's a download manager/accelerator, but it will also do entire page pictures. Got a site that does not all hot linking? Downthemall will pull it all off with out a hitch.

Meh, 1 man's enhancement is another man's tacky... (1)

XahXhaX (730306) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308554)

feature (or should that be tacked-on?) All I see are things either that I don't want or need, or that Opera already does and has been doing for the years I've used it, reinforcing my realization that I just don't need steak #2 when I've been enjoying steak #1 for some time. The only thing that still bothers me about Opera are _other people_--sites that refuse to work with Opera but almost certainly would if they didn't block you upfront for not using IE or Firefox.

Nothing like Adblock and VideoDownloader (1)

Soiden (1029534) | more than 7 years ago | (#18308592)

I only have 5 and I don't want to add more... But there are a few that I know I'm missing... It's this article's fault! And what about Auto Copy? Tab Mix Plus? These are better and more useful than ColorTabs... And, some like Adblock and VideoDownloader are just GODS.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?