20 Must-have Firefox Extensions

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.

20 is too many

[Mostly a lurker]

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:Adblock?

[Tx]

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.

Aren't articles like this bad for Firefox?

[bconway]

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.

Might have been just me . . .

[OverlordQ]

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

Re:sensationalism

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Adblock?

[Inda]

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

Re:Adblock?

[GetSource]

In a way, I agree -- but more about people blocking *all* ads in general.

However, while I don't mind people mentioning Adblock, I do mind people mentioning Filterset.g. For me, though, it's because ads are what make the internet run: if it weren't for ads, we wouldn't have near the amount of free sites that we do. Heck, Google would probably not even exist anymore.

The reason that I *do* like Adblock is that it allows you to get rid of the ads that should have never existed in the first place: Shaking/blinking ads, video ads that eat up all your bandwidth, and ads with blaring auto-starting sound.

What I generally do ... is leave most ads on, then block the ones that are especially irritating. This allows places to continue to have revenue, but only stunts the growth of the companies that produce ads that are more obtrusive/use more resources than an ad should.

It's a little hypocritical, perhaps, but I think that when choosing an ad provider, a site should think about the users' comfort at their site as well as about ad revenue.

Re:20 is too many

[ScrewMaster]

I agree, but I think that if you ask a hundred users what their "key" features would be, you'd probably get 101 different answers.

Screw em

[Anonymous Coward]

"Had you considered that perhaps some of your favourite sites use advertising to keep on top of the high cost of running a website?"

Screw em, if they fold another website will pop up in their place. I used to read salon.com.... but now that you cant get to any of their content without clicking through ads & enabling a bunch of nasty scripting... it is impossible for me to get in. Havent been to salon.com in ages, & i dont miss it a bit. Lots of my (former) favorite internet hangouts have disappeared (or been retooled into something useless) over the years, you just move on, its not a big deal.

If your website is dying because noone wants to punch the monkey, good riddance to ya! /old enough to remember when the web didnt have ads

Re:The complete list

[Miseph]

While I agree that we should all avoid sites that require IE, the simple truth is that many of us can't. There are many critical business apps out there that absolutely require IE, and contacting them requesting Firefox support results in a "no, you need IE for security reasons". You'd think it would be enough to just tell them that they're wrong, and that many of the most secure sites in the world are entirely standards compliant and render just fine in any browser, but you'd be wrong. I personally have one such site, and I have witnessed several others. Many MLS services that are required by any real estate agent wishing to do business in this century, for example, require IE to work properly, and the only choices are to suck it up or do business in a different area with a different system.

Believe it or not, there area lot of things that take priority over ideological opposition to "IE reqired" websites, and sometimes there just isn't any choice.

IE Tab is absolutely a must-have.

Re:If they are "must have"

[trewornan]

Because to provide all the options in the default install would bloat firefox (download size, memory usage, startup, etc). This way you get the best of all possible worlds - everybody can have all the features they like without having to download the features other people want but they don't. How many people really want a browser to be able to translate a web page into "Swedish Chef"? With the addon system, those that want it can have it without affecting the rest of us.

Re:Adblock?

[AxelBoldt]

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?

It is just you. In capitalism everybody is supposed to act egotistically. You are not supposed to feel the pain of other players, you are supposed to harm them with everything you've got. They will try to extract as much money/attention out of you as they can, and you will try to give them as little money/attention as you can get away with.

Furthermore, ads increase demand and therefore increase everybody's prices, so ad blocking is clearly the ethical thing to do.

Re:Adblock?

[NeMon'ess]

Okay, but what about sites like fark, slashdot, and IMDB? I don't want to pay money every month or year to support them to avoid ads. Unless it was only a dollar a year per site or something really, really low like that. If everybody blocks ads, the only way for them to keep offering free content is if users pay for it.

Re:Adblock?

[CodeBuster]

The argument that you have put forward in favor of ads (i.e no ads then no content) is a common one among marketers and other people in the advertising business, but my response to them is and will always be, "Welcome to the free market". If people really want your content then they will buy a subscription. The government does not and cannot protect everyone from the rigors of competition. I have to compete everyday with software engineers in India and China who are getting better all of the time and work for much cheaper than I am able to. My message to you and all of the others who complain when the rules of the game change is, "Get used to it...adapt or die and let your competition step over your corpse". The world does not owe you a living and if technology changes or allows people to break your business model then tough. The world got along fine for generations before marketing and advertising, and it will be fine, indeed much better, without it. I use adblock to block everything that I don't want to see all of the time and I have absolutely no qualms about doing it. You may ask where my sense of sympathy or mercy went, well all I can say is that it was beaten out of my during long months of unemployment following the dot-com bust. I have no illusions now and neither should anyone else.

and on the home front /. becomes digg

[Sebastopol]

can we have a rule: No N-Best Of Lists on /. Ever.

Re:Adblock?

[Jekler]

Ads do not make the internet run. The internet was running just fine before banner ads.

We may not have the same amount of free sites that we do, but quantity is not something the internet is short on. Anyone intelligent enough to have something worthwhile to say would be intelligent enough to find a way to do it without ad revenue.

The signal to noise ration is very low on the internet, thanks largely in part to the number of freely available resources. Every jack-ass with some drivel that popped into his head is free to jabber away until he's blue in the face (Note: I do not exclude myself). It makes finding useful, accurate information a very time consuming process. If people actually had to pay to disseminate information on the internet, people would make sure their message was actually worth communicating.

The ad-model only seems like such a good plan because it's the only one 95% of the internet population is aware of. Love the enemy you know.

Re:Adblock?

[General Wesc]

Changing the user agent would in effect make me responsible for the success of their business model, and I am not, nor will I ever be. They'll have to find a way to be successful without my cooperation.

Not being responsible for the success of business model means it's okay to try to circumvent their attempts to charge you for their product? If I shoplift, is that okay because I'm not responsible for the success of their bizarre 'put products where I can get to them but charge me money to use or take them' business model? Seriously, grow up.