(In reply to i4csgqja from comment #13)
> I read the article and wonder what kind of madness is that, is the "users
> are confused by functionality" from the gnome interface nazis contagious ?
It's not about confusion. Some time ago, Paul Irish asked about default zoom level people use in their web browsers . Some from Facebook revealed that ~15% of people don't use the default zoom level. They accidentally zoomed in or out. We can image the same happens with options. Someone plays with options, get what he/she wants and forget to restore defaults; kids click around.
> first I should say that I'm a power user with over 50+ tabs open at anytime
> in my browsers and have added 4GB of RAM just to be able to do this
I'm not sure I see how it's related to the discussion at hand.
> The point about loading images automatically shows google chose to over
> optimize to the point of breaking under certain circumstances, but this only
> show a broken website not a broken browser.
People will open Chrome or IE, see that it works and say "Firefox can't even display Google properly". It's not because it's not Firefox direct responsbility than Firefox shouldn't try to fix the issue. It's the same thing than add-ons.
> One of the main reason I switched from firefox to opera as my main browser
> Opera (press F12 and click). I do this multiple times a day and if there's
> something wrong with this option in firefox it is that it is buried down and
> with no option to make it readily accessible (shortcut or button).
I use https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/quickjs/
Disabling JS isn't everyone's use case.
> What if I don't want firefox to write anything to disk for security reasons
> or because the computer doesn't have a disk ?
Where does that use case come from? Bug 851698 is about helping 98% of users. I doubt more than 2% want to avoid disk writes for security reasons or don't have a disk. Make a custom Firefox build if you need that, I guess.
> from the top of my head I can
> think of a couple usage scenario I encounter weekly where it is critical for
> me to disable caching for a limited period of time.
Is it possible to do that today?
> Then the reasoning about removing options not used by 2% of user is really
> stupid, when you have removed 50 options used by 2% of users, you have
> effectively alienated 100% of the user base.
Let's only remove 20 options to alienate only 40% of users?
> Then again among these 2% might
> be the early adopters and power users that make your product what it is.
These people use Firefox Nightly or Aurora. The options being discussed are for the main Firefox channel. Early adopters will use early builds.
> In short don't think the browser is broken because some prominent websites
> have made choices relevant to them that break their site under a certain set
> of circumstances, you can safely assume that removing freedom of choice is
> bad, always.
This bugs isn't about removing freedom. It's about making more complicated to do harmful things. About:config and addons have been suggested as alternatives to do the same thing, but only for advanced users.
> If you really have to go with this madness of alienating users,
> at the very least just move the options where the general user will not
> easily find them instead of removing them.
> But if possible IMHO it is better to make them useful than to remove them or
> move them away.
about:config and addons will be the alternatives for those who care.