Did you try to switch default profile? There is only one marked as default. It can't be removed. But if you look at about: profiles you see that you can make another profile default just with one click. Simplest test is switch default profile to another one and restart firefox. So if you have two profiles esr-1, esr-2 and esr-2 is marked s default switch to make esr-1 default.

Nope. Should I? Sounds complicated... and I've got stuff to do.

1 members found this post helpful.

run
uncheck default profile (Use the selected profile without asking at startup)

next time when you start firefox intstead of firefox running default profile, you will be greeted by Profile Manager.

Select profile to run or profile to delete (because no profile is selected as default, you will be able to delete whichever you want)

I only have four firefox profiles and all of them were created by myself.
How is this firefox profile issue upon upgrading encountered? Does it need Windows style installer programs?

Cause those are notorious for creating all sorts of extraneous data that is scattered all over the place.

From researching online, I believe the new profiles are created only when the installation directory changes for Firefox (except there were apparently bugs for some users when Firefox 67 was released that created a new profile). If you're using ruario's script or some older official Slackware packages, that will happen with every update. This happens because some packages use versioned directories for Firefox (/usr/lib{64}/firefox-$VER/).

If Firefox were to be installed in a non-versioned (simply /usr/lib{64}/firefox/) as seems to be the case with the latest 14.2 and -current firefox packages, then this problem should not occur.

The reason they did this is for the people who use multiple release channels. This ensures that if they download a firefox-nightly build, which will have a unique folder name compared to the stable build, they will not mix profiles.

I keep meaning to propose a change to ruario's script to allow the installation folder to remain, but haven't gotten around to it.

This article covers it a little better.

7 members found this post helpful.

Is there another fully-featured and fully free web browser right now?

Thankfully, Firefox runs well for me currently.

Oficially there is Konqueror it can use both khtml and webkit engines. Unoficially, these two seem to be most used if forum exposure is any indication.

https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...er-4175643177/
https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest...ox-4175605599/

Firefox is optional I guess.

I haven't run KDE for a long time, but that sounds like a good option. There is also Seamonkey included in Slackware, which seems to be based on Firefox. To me, personally, Firefox, or either of those two seems to be a better option than using a proprietary browser.

As always, there is nothing stopping anyone from using any other browser on Slackware.

Well you did ask for "another" and that one is the exact same under the GUI. It's built from firefox sources.

Fair enough.

Palemoon is also an option, but again, that one seems to be based on an earlier release of Firefox.

It would seem that producing a modern browser from scratch is extremely difficult. So, most of the free ones build from the same couple of codebases.

The Palemoon team also develop Basilisk which is XUL/UXP based. But I think that it is more of a "concept" that they continue maintaining. After Vivaldi, Basilisk is my 2nd browser.

Interesting. I have also heard of Brave, headed by someone from the Mozilla team, but I don't know much about it.

I don't particularly love Firefox -- though, to be fair, it does run fairly well these days, if a bit hungry on RAM. But since we are on the Slackware forum, I suppose many of us prefer free software as opposed to something like Chrome or Safari.

I'll give Konqueror a shot, since I already have Qt installed.

I don't think you've read or understood the second linked thread.
Seamonkey is an effort to port a GUI from netscape navigator on top of current mozilla engine, and that engine is also used internally by the firefox browser.
Pale Moon is built upon a fork of old mozilla engine, i.e. it's capable of using GTK2 GUI and XUL extensions where firefox is not. So it's not really the same thing.
If it were using the current mozilla sources to build a Pale Moon GUI on top, then it would be the same thing.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I recall glancing over it some time ago.

I understand that Palemoon is based on an _earlier_ Mozilla/Firefox codebase. That is stated clearly on their homepage. I haven't claimed that it was the same thing, only that it was based on the same original codebase.

I guess Firefox has done a major overhaul in the last couple of years, so I imagine they have substantial differences today.

I took this thread as shunning Firefox in general, so I have included Palemoon in with that group.

Firefox runs great here, I never understood what all the anti-Firefox fuss was about over the years.