I'm just need to know how to activate the offline, if there is one, in Cloud9 IDE website.
I saw a video ones about someone activated an offline mode in the demo project. Is it available now, it will be done in the future, or it might not happen?
Related
I want to build a Firefox extension that will need to change the configurations (about:config). It is not obvious whether I can change the configurations (about:config) in webextension?
If not, is there any way to do this in the old development environment?
This is covered in the webextensions FAQ (the answer is no):
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebExtensions/FAQ#Will_I_have_access_to_about:config_or_the_preferences.3F
I'm not sure about your second question, if you're asking about the add-on SDK, it has a module for accessing preferences but extensions written with the SDK will stop working in Firefox 57:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/SDK/Low-Level_APIs/preferences_service
I am working on a few addons on Mozilla since this easier than manually editing the source code.
The bigger picture is to have a customized browser that I can share with my fellow geeks and friends.
Question:Is there a simple way to add an addon to a Mozilla build so that my users don't have to manually install the addons on their computer.Something like a pre-packaged Setup.exe. The Setup.exe needs to be fully independent and not requiring to have Mozilla pre-installed.
More info(Edited):
Another reason is I do not want them to have access to the addons ,
the addons shouuld be in the core of the browser.Hence, a user should
not be able to turn off or even know it is an addon but barely the
functionality of their browser X.
You may want to use Portable Firefox, make your customizations and share the folder with your friends.
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable
Background to this problem: Within out company we are working on an add-on to help us do some nifty things. To make it easier to administer we would like to have a password required to at minimum remove the add-on, but probably also to disable it.
I've seen this achieved in for example Public Fox but this is non-sdk style add-on. So my question is if there's an easy way to do this using the SDK? I've looked through the docs but I haven't found anything, probably because I don't know what I'm looking for.
To anticipate the question "why not use that add-on as well?" I think it's enough of a hassle to make sure everyone has one add-on installed, let alone two.
If you want to lock users down, what you're really looking for is a deployment technique where your Firefox deployment installs your extension by default, and to an area of the hard drive that the user does not have write/delete access to. See the Mozilla Wiki for more details on ESR builds and enterprise deployments:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Deployment:Deploying_Firefox#Firefox_Customization_.28CCK_and_Repackaging_Tools.29
I am trying to start development in Objective-J but I am completely lost as to how to set it up. The documentation about setting it up, didn't really help me. I am very familiar with web development and Objective-C so I can write the programs if I can get everything set up. Could somebody please give me step-by-step directions as to how to set it up on my (shared) server?
This little "tutorial" didn't help me out at all.
Go to the Cappuccino download page and download the starter package. Unzip it into a folder your choice. Congratulations, you now have your first Cappuccino app ready to run! If you are using Safari you can open up index-debug.html right away and start trying out the starter app. (If you use other browsers like Chrome and Firefox they might not allow you to run a web app from a file:// URL. Instead you'll need to start up a web server and surf to the index-debug.html file through the server.)
Then you can start to edit the sample application right away and explore.
Once you are ready to learn more, take a look at these Cappuccino tutorials and instructions. They are still under development - we're not quite there with our new site yet - but they are definitely more up to date.
The reason I ask is mostly due to how Google Chrome installation works once you click the "Accept and install" button from Firefox. After you click the installation is started directly and when it's completed Chrome itself starts up.
Firefox does not show any "Save" or "Confirm" dialogs after you click the Install button (on Chrome install web page).
Now, is this standard behaviour? Or might it be due to having an old version of Chrome already on the computer (Note: The new version was still installed from Firefox).
Seems a bit risky to me, all you have to do is fool the user to click something and then you can do whatever you want on his machine, or? Personally I thought things like this only worked with IE/ActiveX.
Looking at the code of the chrome download page, they seem to be using three mechanisms:
Standard download
OneClick (using the google updater plugin)
ClickOnce (using the .NET Framework assistant plugin)
ClickOnce is widely available due to the pervasiveness of .NET 3.5 SP 1 (in which it is bundled).
This is absolutely not standard behaviour. It looks like it is some kind of extension in Firefox. This will not work in Opera, IE or Safari. For those they might use different methods. For IE maybe ActiveX. The rest just downloads a small setup file.
Microsoft has a propritary solution which is always included in their development programs, called ClickOnce. It needs .NET Framework. .NET Framework installs a Firefox extension for ClickOnce, and for everything else you can just run the setup.exe.
Google's updater is standard and open source, (called Omaha) but there are no open source server implementations as yet. It can be found here.
The way I understand it working is that when you download a file you trigger the updater with an ID and it takes care of the installation and maintenance of the program.
(speculative) I suspect the old installation or rather its updater took over at that point. As for the risk: If the Chrome guys did their homework (and I suspect they have), then Chrome will check for signatures on the file, etc. before running anything. That's standard behavior for updaters (sane ones, at least) and prevents abuse at that point.