Terminal syntax for Firefox fails after update [Solved]

[DukeComposed]

Users mouse work for opening 3 pages without my senior configuration:

Internet on: 1 move - one click - one move - 1 move - one click
Open 3 pages: 1 move - one click - 1 move - one click - 1 move - one click
Internet off after use: 1 move - one click - 1 move - one click

Users mouse work for opening 3 pages with the senior configuration:

One move - one click

Can you see the difference.?!
Imagine it is pages you want to see 2 times a day.
365 x 2 = 730
730 x 7 = 5110

Then it saves the mouse arm for more than 5.000 moves and clicks per year.

I don't see what you're talking about. I get that efficiency of movement is a thing. But you're not getting that 5000-to-1 efficiency from a broken script, now, are you?

Are you suggesting that shortcuts exist? Yes. We know that shortcuts exist.

I work with at least a dozen bookmarks every day. Often more. I certainly don't open each one by hand. I have a different workflow which works regardless of if Firefox updates or not.

I spend a lot fewer than a dozen clicks to do it[0]. By your argument, that makes my workflow better than yours. And it doesn't need a forum thread to debug it, either.

There's this old proverb in English: "penny wise and pound foolish". It means to focus on the minor details to the detriment of the big picture. If you love shell scripting and want to run firefox -n this -n that -n theotherthing, that's great.

But there are so many other, better ways of managing a functional, browser-based environment. So many so that sticking to a shell script that, clearly, isn't working even for the one person who professes how efficient it is, is reductio ad absurdum.

[0] My browser situation is notably uncommon. I use userspace sandboxes and OneTab. Right this instant I have at least ten different compartmented sessions across four different browsers to run things. I haven't pestered the MX Linux forum about this config for several years. Your actual mileage may vary.

[Jakob77]

But you're not getting that 5000-to-1 efficiency from a broken script, now, are you?

I think that one is too cheap. My user does. And I don't believe the script is broken. It is something else.
The script has served me perfectly for many years.
I find it hard to believe a guy like you don't think the users should be able to rely on the Terminal firefox command for opening more than one window. In Ubuntu they might once upon a time have kept users in the dark by saying that only GUI is reliable,, but here in MX.. today.?? - You must be kidding me. lol
In my opinion we are almost as close to the basic user foundation as it gets, and therefore I am a little disappointed in the lack of understanding of the vital importance of reliability.

[CharlesV]

From everything I am reading here it seems like there is some issue with firefox notices on an update. This is not an "MX issue" this is a firefox / use issue. I think calling this 'a vital importance of reliability" is reaching FAR beyond.

The obvious work around has been suggested - work the script to get around this issue.

Two additional things that would work to get around this problem would be:
a) Set the user's firefox home page(s) to the page(s) you want to have open when firefox opens. (This seems like a no brainer to me.)
__ and
b) Setup a bookmark folder with the locations you want them to open and then right click on the bookmark folder and "Open All Bookmarks"
( some place around here I saw someone was in fact opening a folder like this on firefox startup... so possibly a third method here too )

[Jakob77]

CharlesV

You are right it looks like the change of syntax makes a patch that works around the problem.
That is a huge advantage by the script that it is possible, and I love that too but it doesn't solve the problem. It just hides it and feels a bit like driving a tank in a peaceful city.
It is still a lot better than messing around with GUI. Simply copy a file to ~/bin that makes it all work immediately seems like a no brainer to me. :-)
As I wrote the script has worked perfectly for many years, and it still does. I can't say the same about my firefox GUI config.

The Terminal syntax must be vital. As I am sure you know the Terminal command for starting Firefox is also to be found in the original Firefox icon.

I hope you are right that it is about an update mistake from Firefox and that it will never happen again but since nobody else has seen the problem it feels like there is not being taken care of it so it might as well happen again on this slippery road.
Also it looks like the error is permanent now on my test computer, and from my point of view that changes it to be more than just a firefox problem, if that is what it was to begin with.

It is not like the world is going under because my test computer starts to melt down a little but I think it might give an opportunity to find out what the problem really is. I have no strong idea myself but maybe some smart people here could ask for some terminal output and nail the problem.? :-)

[DukeComposed]

therefore I am a little disappointed in the lack of understanding of the vital importance of reliability.

I am a little disappointed in the lack of understanding of the point I was making: the efficiency of an unusable thing, even if it's neat, is zero. You have to go with what works. If the script works how you want it to work? Great. If it breaks whenever the browser updates, then that's another way of saying it doesn't work. One option is to stop updating the browser.

[Jakob77]

DukeComposed

Thank you. I get your point, and I hope you get mine. :-)
As much as you will agree to that MX is broken because there is something wrong with Firefox...
Just as much will I agree to that my script is broken because a Terminal command for starting Firefox suddenly stops working correctly.

You are not the first experienced guy who suggest to skip some updating.
I am not there yet. If my clients go to private pages I want their browser to be fully updated for security.
I can't defend anything else. And I use the same config, so I might as well demand the same for myself.


--



Another temporary conclusion:

In my world the problem is still not solved to the bottom but if there is nothing new and it doesn't show itself anymore for others or on my original installed computers, then it might be time I let it go crazy and just live with my belt and braces patchwork.

viewtopic.php?p=815599#p815599

[DukeComposed]

You are not the first experienced guy who suggest to skip some updating.
I am not there yet.

Let me tell you about my life.

I enjoy something I call New Browser Day. New Browser Day is the day I download and deploy a new browser on my system(s). This involves exporting the bookmarks (I use OneTab) to a text file, checking that text file into a source control repository, clearing the browser sandbox, updating the sandbox with the new browser, and then optionally restoring the bookmarks.

I have 40 sandboxes.

So I don't exactly "skip some updating". New Browser Day happens in my home fairly often. It's just a matter of controlling precisely when and how I change my browser, and the rest of the time it works how I expect it to work because I'm in control of what it does and how it does it. I maintain a few ancient browser sandboxes for reasons and I just recently updated the oldest one after a year or more of planning/procrastination.

Is this the right solution for you? No, not necessarily.

But my point is that this is what works for me, how I want it to work. If the system ever broke, I wouldn't bother complaining here that it used to work, but now it doesn't, so something needs to get fixed. I'd triage the error and adapt. Maybe a minor fix, maybe a major one. This is just something to expect as tools and systems change over time. The workflow I had when I ran Windows XP probably won't still work on Windows 10. The workflow I have on Windows 10 doesn't work on Windows XP. By comparison, this seems like a minor bug: updates futz with the startup script.

So, simply, control when the updates happen. I do. It's more work for me because I want my browsers to maintain a strict security boundary, but at the end of the day the simplest solution remains: my browser doesn't change until I explicitly let it change.

[Jakob77]

I just updated MX again on my test computer, and there was also some software for Firefox.

After the updating was finished the Firefox Terminal command syntax for opening more than one window was working correctly again.

So until proven otherwise it now looks like not only the error in the syntax has been corrected but the damage done by the bug has also been repaired.

That is MX for us.!


Thank you very much from here to the developers. :-)



DukeComposed

Interesting but you are just a little too advanced to be compared with my client. ;-)

[Jakob77]

Jump high and fall deep... I am sorry, I was too optimistic too soon.

My test computer made by a snapshot is still cured after an update but I have seen the problem again on two other computers and one of them is my clients office computer with an original install.

I guess I will hang on to my crazy almost bulletproof belt and braces patchwork syntax for a very long time now.
viewtopic.php?p=815599#p815599

Thank you all for your time.