Waterfox – Firefox fork retaining XUL support

Re:Waterfox – Firefox fork retaining XUL support by pnikosis on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @03:37PM (#15801254)

I used Waterfox long time ago, as a fast 64bit alternative to Firefox (although never noticed a significant speed difference). Now I think the only reason I'd still use it is because add-ons such as Vimperator, but I already switched to the less powerful Vim-fx.

I love the idea that projects such as this one or Pale Moon exist, but I find it hard for me to use them as a regular user, apart from sentimental reasons.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Waterfox – Firefox fork retaining XUL support by CaptSpify on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @04:13PM (#15801729)

FWIW, I've had much better luck with vim-vixen than I did with vim-fx. Obviously ymmv

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Waterfox – Firefox fork retaining XUL support by semi-extrinsic on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @05:45PM (#15802616)

Have you tried tridactyl?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Waterfox – Firefox fork retaining XUL support by CaptSpify on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @06:05PM (#15802817)

I don't believe I have, I'll give it a shot sometime

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Waterfox – Firefox fork retaining XUL support by pnikosis on Wednesday November 29, 2017 @04:39AM (#15805685)

I'm going to give it a shot now, thanks for the suggestion

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Waterfox – Firefox fork retaining XUL support by pnikosis on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @05:48PM (#15802647)

You are right, and in fact is vim-vixen what I'm using right now, I guess after trying so many alternatives after updating to FF57 I just got confused about what I finally had installed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Waterfox – Firefox fork retaining XUL support by CaptSpify on Tuesday November 28, 2017 @06:04PM (#15802808)

I've been trying a few of them out. I had to look at which one I had installed. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any plans to put in the proper APIs to make anything nearly as useful as vimperator.

[ Parent | on HN ]