Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Details How Old Plugins Will Be Blocked In Firefox 17

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the another-warning-message-your-parents-can-ignore dept.

Firefox 152

An anonymous reader writes "Last week, Mozilla announced it will prompt Firefox users on Windows with old versions of Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, and Microsoft Silverlight to update their plugins, but refused to detail how the system will work. Now, the organization has unveiled 'click-to-play plugin blocks,' which will be on by default in Firefox 17, starting with the three aforementioned plugins. (Expect more to be added eventually.) Furthermore, you can try out the feature for yourself now in Firefox 17 beta for Windows, Mac, and Linux." Also coming in Firefox 17 is support for Mozilla's "Social API." The announcement describes it thus: "Much like the OpenSearch standard, the Social API enables developers to integrate social services into the browser in a way that is meaningful and helpful to users. As services integrate with Firefox via the Social API sidebar, it will be easy for you to keep up with friends and family anywhere you go on the Web without having to open a new Web page or switch between tabs. You can stay connected to your favorite social network even while you are surfing the Web, watching a video or playing a game."

cancel ×

152 comments

Old News (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634089)

This afternoon I updated to Firefox 18.

Only 18?? (5, Funny)

Viol8 (599362) | about 2 years ago | (#41634321)

I updated to 24 only 10 mins ago ... no wait, its updating itself again to 25 ... oh , no thats got some security issue , now its on 26 ... I'll get back to you...

Re:Old News (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#41634529)

It actually is indeed old news—Nightly 19 has been doing this to me for a week now (with the Acrobat plug-in) and it's been pretty obnoxious.

Oh no way, is it true? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634101)

Would I? Could I? Did I just get a motherfucking frosty?!!

This one is for Jesus. First Post for Jesus. I couldn't have done it without JC!

Keepin it real

Re:Oh no way, is it true? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634189)

Sorry, but I beat you to FP. Now please go away.

Yet another reason to dump FF (4, Insightful)

fluffy99 (870997) | about 2 years ago | (#41634109)

Mozilla has lost it's focus and instead of making a good, fast, secure browser they are trying to turn it into a social API with every gee-whiz-bang feature most users don't want or need.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (3, Insightful)

hardie (716254) | about 2 years ago | (#41634129)

Don't those folks have anything better to do?

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (0)

digitalaudiorock (1130835) | about 2 years ago | (#41636281)

Don't those folks have anything better to do?

Yea, like maybe coming up with a Linux version that at least sucks balls a little less...

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634145)

It hasn't been good, fast, or secure in years. The last good thing Firefox did was inspire a collection of captioned images of red foxes. Before that, the last good thing it did was show that an open source browser could be a match for IE6 and adhere to the HTML standards better.

The big reason that Firefox managed to hold on for so long was the ad blocker plugin.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (2)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about 2 years ago | (#41634433)

The big reason that Firefox managed to hold on for so long was the ad blocker plugin.

and noScript

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (1)

Threni (635302) | about 2 years ago | (#41636379)

Chrome still doesn't have that. And it doesn't have a working mouse gestures add on, either. The half-decent one was pulled because it was sending all your visited pages back to its server, and the currents ones aren't very configurable and you either have the context menu pop up when you right click, or you have to double right click on links to open them. What a piece of crap. I don't care how fast it is - it's not as safe or as comfortable an experience as FF. Oh, and i'm not sure if you've checked lately but Chrome is now about 35 megs and that's a compressed download.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (5, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 2 years ago | (#41634159)

Mozilla has lost it's focus and instead of making a good, fast, secure browser they are trying to turn it into a social API with every gee-whiz-bang feature most users don't want or need.

And yet, FF 16 is noticeably snappier for me than 15 was. Glad they got 16.0.1 out quickly. The developer tool updates in the last few versions are very welcome, as well, and certainly the reduced memory use is very nice.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (-1, Troll)

Waccoon (1186667) | about 2 years ago | (#41634969)

and certainly the reduced memory use is very nice.

Is that because FF15 uses about twice as much memory as 10 did, so any change in 16 would be an improvement?

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635251)

No you stupid waste of a cumshot, not every single Firefox improvement is due to a prior regression.

get your facts straight (3, Informative)

asa (33102) | about 2 years ago | (#41635437)

This is simply inaccurate. Firefox 10 (via changes that arrived way back at Firefox 7) was dramatically better than Firefox 4-6 and Firefox 15 was a good bit better than Firefox 10, thanks to killing add-on leaks and some other minor but incremental improvements in Firefox 11, 12, 13, and 14.

Or to put it another way, Firefox 7 and Firefox 15 both made major advances in memory usage. More memory and performance optimizations hit in 16 or will in upcoming releases with Incremental Garbage Collection, IonMonkey, and then a Compacting Generational GC.

I realize that unsupported assertions based on anecdotes is the norm around here, but expect to get called when they're the opposite of the truth. For the details, read the last few months worth of posts here: https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/ [mozilla.org]

Re:get your facts straight (1, Flamebait)

gothzilla (676407) | about 2 years ago | (#41635941)

While reading that, the "Who's on first" routine kept going through my head. One of the many reasons I stopped using FF. I might try it again in a month when they get to version 28 though.

Re:get your facts straight (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41636719)

Don't bother. And don't bother making any more blithely ignorant comments, then dismissing people for calling you out of them with more blithely ignorant comments. Or do, we don't really care.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634307)

Actually this is a good thing. The new api that the plugins use do not break during each release.

I just started warming up to Firefox recently. After I submitted the story last spring of FF using the least amount of memory I gave it another whirl. It is much faster, it no longer nags you, flash is now sandboxed, and it gets faster during each release.

With 5.0 I agree. I actually went back to IE 9 which was a decent browser back in 2011 believe it or not contrary to popular belief on slashdot. I found Chrome too lacking with features and minimalistic.

But FF is much improved and they already patched the 16 bug. 16.01 is out starting last last night.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (2)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about 2 years ago | (#41634375)

Yeah shame on them for turning around and fixing a security issue in days and enabling an update method that ensures everyone will have the fix.

If you can't notice that Firefox is faster too then you're blind.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634569)

Yeah shame on them for turning around and fixing a security issue in days and enabling an update method that ensures everyone will have the fix.

If you can't notice that Firefox is faster too then you're blind.

Shame on them for letting such a security flaw out in the first place. The release schedule and an over-reliance on automated testing is to blame for these. Some people have very twisted ideas on what is good practice.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41635045)

Everyone has security flaws. Or did you not see the issue that Chrome just had to deal with recently?

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (1)

mario_grgic (515333) | about 2 years ago | (#41634501)

How is this not making the browser more secure? Firefox is already pretty damn fast. Last 3-4 releases have consistently reduced browser and extension memory usage as well (it was never a concern for me personally, all systems I use have over 10 GB of RAM anyway). And this change only mitigates the third party risk in a least intrusive way possible. I say go Mozilla. Firefox is still very competitive and in my opinion the best browser out there. This is why I still use it. In fact I can't imagine using anything else without Pentadactyl extension.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (3, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#41634549)

Am I the only one who thinks that we need LESS social networking as opposed to oh say, actually meeting and talking to people in person?

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (1)

EMR (13768) | about 2 years ago | (#41634605)

One of my friend (real ones) likes to call anyone she 'meets' online through social networking as 'imaginary friends' And me personally I RARELY every use facebook. I log in maybe once every few months to clean out crap that collects and move on.. And the only time I use twitter is to promote the next Humble Bundle that unleashed new linux and mac ports in.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (4, Funny)

Laxori666 (748529) | about 2 years ago | (#41634697)

You mean, meeting in meat space? Heaven forbid. These mortal coils of ours are getting more and more outdated. It requires such effort to synchronize two intellects to meet at a certain point and time, and then to move two 200lb bodies from wherever they happen to be to that point in time and place in space.

The inconvenience of course is in experiencing any sort of fleshy exertion as well as having to deal with the vicissitudes of the physical world. Going up a flight of stairs, getting delayed in traffic, etc. All serve to frustrate the would-be mortal coil transcender.

It will help when we have cybernetic implants such that we can control our environment more readily with our thoughts. I'm thinking bionic arms and legs, and perhaps jetpacks, which are mentally-commanded, much like our regular arms and legs are, except they won't tire or feel pain.

However, that's still not ideal as the machinery can break and still has to deal with physical forces. That'll just be a temporary stopgap until we can integrate everything meaningful into a consensual hallucination existing only on the computers of the world. Plug in, upload your consciousness, and then move about in and interact with a world entirely of your own making. No more need to move heavy bodies in the physical world, thus all of those muscles required for motion can atrophy, reducing the required caloric intake. The body becomes a more capable yet more powerful machine thanks to the mental interface into cyberspace.

This won't be ideal at first until all the kinks are worked out. You're not gonna want a server outage to fry the brains of everyone currently uploaded to that server. It's that blasted physical world, again. But eventually the electronics will get smaller, we'll need less and less of our bodies, and we'll have a brilliantly glorious future consisting of billions of disembodied human brains side-by-side in gigantic clusters all uploaded to the most powerful networked computer program ever made, dependent upon almost-invisible/ethereal hardware. Boring from the outside, but inside, we won't have to eat, drink or sleep to survive. Just one long massive near-eternal dream whose inhabitants can do what they want, when they want: mass orgies, gigantic visceral FPSs, mini-golf simulations, RPGs, petting kitties, you name it.

What a glorious future awaits this human race. Until then, I will continue living in this painful physical world... my first action will be to finish consuming this bag of fried pork skins.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (1)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | about 2 years ago | (#41634897)

I really wish I had mod points right now. I havent laughed this hard in ages.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#41635493)

Your post immediately made me think of Ghost in the Shell lol, been a while since I watched that.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41635647)

Of course, dealing with all the difficulties of moving 200lb bodies to where they physically meet has a significant advantage: If you meet in meatspace, you have a very slight chance of getting laid.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (2)

Laxori666 (748529) | about 2 years ago | (#41637089)

Bah! An evolutionary left-over. A pitiful remnant which only goes to show the limitations of blind nature. I'll take my genetically-enhanced pleasure receptors massively stimulated by the electrodes plugged into my brain-in-a-vat set in tandem with the visual, auditory, and tactile hallucinations of dozens of impossibly (and I mean physically impossibly) attractive females, each specifically designed by the PleasureSystem to cater to my specific tastes thanks to it having completely emulated my brain neurons and run hundreds of thousands of simulations to predict with almost 100% accuracy what I will most respond to above and beyond even what I know, servicing my mentally generated avatar for days at a time, any day.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (1)

r1348 (2567295) | about 2 years ago | (#41634989)

Not the only one, but definitely a minority.

Also, remember that personal meeting greatly restricts your range of contacts. I would hate to ditch my foreign friends because "Facebook sux".

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (1)

Threni (635302) | about 2 years ago | (#41636327)

> Am I the only one who thinks that we need LESS social networking as opposed to oh say, actually meeting
> and talking to people in person?

No, because it would be expensive, environmentally damaging and logisitically impossible to perform all the conversations I have with friends, family and colleagues around the world in person rather than from my phone on the bus to work, train home from work or during adverts on tv shows.

I mean, I could talk to people online less, so that my real-life meetings try and catch up, but what would be the point of that?

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (2)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 2 years ago | (#41634757)

Mozilla has lost it's focus and instead of making a good, fast, secure browser they are trying to turn it into a social API with every gee-whiz-bang feature most users don't want or need.

While I would agree with you ... Facebook has a billion (active?) users. While not a majority, maybe a significant minority of users of Firefox can benefit from this feature.

Besides, the only time Firefox seems to slow down on me is when Flash is doing something crazy. And I can't really blame Firefox completely for that.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635269)

While I would agree with you ... Facebook has a billion (active?) users

90% of them are scammers. 90% of the other 10% haven't logged in for six months.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634791)

So you're saying you love having Flash objects that play obnoxious sounds loading by default and a page full of YouTube embeds loading them all at once?

I'm sick of FF's crap lately too, but click to play is extremely useful. I download a flashblocker addon in every Firefox install I have, not only because it's convenient but because a lot of malware takes advantage of Flash.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634937)

Thank you for cherrypicking what you don't like and using it to pretend that Mozilla isn't making their browser faster, leaner, and more secure with every release. And for saying what you did as though they're the only browser vendor that's adding extraneous "stuff" to their browser.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#41636435)

THIS, this right here. People scream that I must be hating on FOSS when I point out Mozilla has gone off the rails (even though the browser i recommend for security features, Comodo Dragon, is based on Chromium) but the simple fact is they had a mission statement, which they used to get us all off the Mozilla Suite, which ever since Chrome started getting users they seem to have thrown right out the window. Remember what that statement was? "To make the best small fast and light browser that is standards compliant we can" and ever since Chrome showed up its just come unglued.

Look I was on FF before it was even called FF, The Moz Suite before that going back to the first betas, so its not like I did not like the product or didn't stick with it through the bad times like the train wreck that was 2.x.x but lets be honest folks...right up to V4 you could see progress with every. single. release. Sure they had bugs and memory issues but with each release you could see that slowly but surely things were getting better every time and you honestly looked forward to the next release because you just KNEW it would be better, with less bugs and cool new features, it was just great.

But since then its just taken a nosedive, especially for those of us that like to use low power devices to save electricity like nettops and netbooks Take for example the 1.8GHz Sempron I use as a nettop here at the shop. With Dragon or any of the Chromium based i can have multiple tabs, listen to music, even do full screen SD video without GPU acceleration and the system still is great...Firefox? Open it slams the CPU to 100%, new tab 100%, hell even scrolling through my fricking bookmarks pegs the CPU.

In the end I think I know what the problem is...its Gecko. That engine simply wasn't designed to support all the whiz bang like fluffy is talking about and it shows in the performance. Instead of focusing on giving the engine the capability they bolted it on so they could go "Me too!" with Chrome features yet the truly important security features like Low Rights mode, which has been out since 07? They don't have.

So we just have to be honest and call a spade a spade. while I try every new release on my nettop and my netbook, as well as the spinoffs like Pale Moon and IceDragon at the end of the day? Firefox just isn't a good browser anymore guys, they have lost their way. It sucks too many resources, supports too much bling and UI crap while not supporting good security practices like least permissions, they just keep bolting more and more shit onto the aging gecko engine while not fixing the problems like CPU spiking, memory creep, or general lack of responsiveness.

Its a damned shame but at least we have a wealth of choices, for guys that need cross platform there is QTWeb and Chromium which both run on anything, there is the Chromium variants like Dragon, SWIron, Chrome and Chromium, there is the one offs like Opera and Safari, hell there is even Kmeleoon and Kmeleon CCF-ME for those still running old Win9X and Win2K boxes and we really need to thank Mozilla for that as they blazed the trail, its just a damned shame they lost themselves along the way.

Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41637095)

People don't listen to you because YOU'RE off the rails. You seem to be pretending that Firefox is so bloated, ill-equipped, and under-performant that people should just ditch it. And then you tell them to choose a browser that you prefer, like some insane marketing droid for Chromium, which isn't a rationally better choice in any general way.

You can pretend that your favorite features are the most important, but they aren't. Chromium has its own security problems, performance bottlenecks, and basic compatibility issues. But I'm sure you'd rather not be honest about those when you're so busy bashing on Firefox.

And guess what? Firefox isn't the hog you claim it is. They haven't stopped working on their issues. They haven't deserted their fans, no matter how inanely you jump up and down because they aren't exactly like you want them to be.

YOU face it. Firefox hasn't "lost its way." It's still highly competitive at worst, and the web would be a worse place if it vanished because of willfully ignorant misinformants like yourself. Firefox may be pandering to a larger userbase now, but it is still adhering to a vision of the web that no longer matches yours precisely. Browsers are changing, even if you aren't.

Now shut up and go back to your preferred browser, and stop trying to tell us that Firefox is crapware like your tiny little opinion matters. Mine doesn't, but I don't go crying about Mozilla or Google when I dislike something about their browsers. I write plugins, file bug reports, and even contribute.

And I hate hearing self-entitled whiners like you pretend that nothing in Firefox ever improves, and that it's substandard scum when it's YOU who have a chip on your shoulder.

how long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634163)

so if I replace mozilla.org in my hosts file and stick with 16, how long do you think it would continue to work (and be halfway safe).

Is there a better version to lock as a permanent one? Sorry folks, don't want the facebook browser

Re:how long (4, Interesting)

AuMatar (183847) | about 2 years ago | (#41634197)

Switch to SeaMonkey. They have the same renderer, don't change their UI every week, and actually seems to use less memory.

Re:how long (4, Informative)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 years ago | (#41634287)

Yes it does. SeaMonkey uses 13% less memory on my system with the same three tabs, slashdot, slate, and LQ open as does FireFox. Which is funny considering FF was started to be lighter weight than SeaMonkey. SeaMonkey is far and away the better browser now in terms of UI as well.

Re:how long (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 2 years ago | (#41636375)

Do you spend a lot of time on the La Quinta [lq.com] site?

Re:how long (4, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about 2 years ago | (#41634575)

seems to use less memory

I use modern computers. At work my computer has 32 GB of memory. At home I have 16 GB of memory. My laptop has 8 GB. I honestly could not care less how much memory Firefox uses because it can't use enough for any of these computers to care (Firefox being a 32-bit program) and I would rather the program use RAM (which is fast) instead of disk (which is slow).

I have better things to do using the web browser itself instead of incessantly complaining about the fact that the program that encompasses 80% of my home use as 30% of my work use uses an equally large amount of the resources of the computer. I want the personal computer to spend it's time running the programs I'm using. I don't want 90% of the fast resources to be always available and doing nothing whatsoever. If this were still 2006 or if we were talking about servers, the memory usage shtick would be a valid complaint. However, now that memory capacity is an order of magnitude greater than it was (thanks to 64-bit operating systems and lower cost per GB) and considering that web browsing is never something you should be doing on a server, it's really not a valid complaint anymore.

You're either doing something stupid (like running badly coded extensions), using ancient hardware (which can't keep up anyway), or just enjoying playing the same old song and dance over and over. The Firefox memory complaints were valid when there were actual memory leaks that might consume 90% of available system memory. That is no longer reality, and unless you're running beta and third party 64-bit builds, it's a technical impossibility.

Re:how long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634731)

I honestly could not care less how much memory Firefox uses because it can't use enough for any of these computers to care (Firefox being a 32-bit program)

On a real OS, Firefox is 64-bit.

Re:how long (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 2 years ago | (#41636029)

Palemoon - Version: 15.1.1-x64 on Win7-64 with 16GB. The only difference is in a few settings and tweaks that are more useful for desktop users.

Re:how long (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634799)

Firefox being a 32-bit program

$ file /usr/lib/firefox/firefox
/usr/lib/firefox/firefox: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64

Firefox has been available as a 64 bit program for many years now. Granted, it is *also* available as a 32 bit program.

Re:how long (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634923)

You don't care if a program is designed poorly and eats up memory because you enjoy buying more?

Are you a fucking moron?

Re:how long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41636443)

No. You are, for claiming that it's badly designed. And for saying that it "eats up memory" when all browsers eat as much (or more). And for calling them a moron for not sharing your perspective, whilst not offering anywhere near the level of thought-out counterpoint they've offered.

Re:how long (1)

Kinematics (2651345) | about 2 years ago | (#41634929)

The amount of memory Firefox uses has always been a catch-all statement for bad behavior and poor performance, not a strict indication of the problem of running out of RAM (usually).

Personally, for a very long time, if Firefox crossed 1 GB of RAM usage, I could pretty much guarantee issues with slow tab switching, glitchy scrolling, the browser as a whole briefly hanging every few minutes, sometimes even bogging down my entire OS if it decided to saturate the CPU.

The degree to which this effect manifested could pretty much be exactly tied to its current RAM usage. I started to notice it at 700 MB, it was annoying at 900 MB, and at 1.1 GB it was completely unusable. This had absolutely no correlation with the total amount of RAM in the system. If I have 2 GB or 32 GB, it doesn't matter. Once Firefox crossed 1 GB, it was all over.

So when people say, "It uses less RAM", I hear, "It's less likely to reach a state that I have noticed invariably leads to poor performance all around", not "I just saved $300 on my car insurance"... er, "I just saved 300 MB of my overall RAM pool that I can use for other stuff".

Re:how long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635315)

But Firefox is the browser with the lowest memory usage out there, so people are effectively complaining because they're too unintelligent to file bug reports or disable buggy plugins/addons.

Just look at the thousands of complete morons using FireBug who whined about FF15's memory usage. The FireBug page stated explicitly not to use their addon with FF15 due to memory usage. They still used it and bitched and moaned, most of them never filing a (useless) bug report.

You need to fix the people, not the browser. The browser has an entire project dedicated to reducing its memory footprint, and it works.

Re:how long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634953)

Gee the computers where I work (more in the real world I may add) all have 256 to 512 megs of ram. Many of us are downgrading back to IE 7 due to the less ram requirements

Re:how long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635231)

Yes, if only everyone thought like that. We'd be back in the days where you could only use one program at a time.

Sorry, some of us multi-task and actually can do it well, unlike those retarded trials done by moronic scientists wasting money with probably actual retards so they can state "yep, people can't multitask" for the trillionth time.

Firefox is atrocious with memory, it leaks out the ass even now.
I can leave both Chrome and FF open for weeks on end , oh, wait, nope, FF starts eating up memory almost exponentially when being opened over half a week that I end up having to terminate it.
I shouldn't have to end things because of sloppy programming. I should never need to restart because developers were too lazy to read things dynamically. I should never have to buy a super computer just to browse god damn Slashdot!

Firefox was built as a lightweight browser, something without all the bloat that the other bloated mess had.
Firefox became MORE bloated than it. And it continues to get worse with time.
I am fine with extensions, but they continue to add feature after feature after feature without a single thought to the impact it has.
And during all that, bugs out the ass, stupid decisions still hindering customization which is one of the things they were known for. (Looking at YOU Video Download Helper devs, let me move your damn extension button already!)

Fix bugs, add new HTML, CSS, JS and everything else features, FORGET BROWSER FEATURES ENTIRELY.
Come back in FF25 and add some silly new social crap or whatever when you even have a competent stable browser base. No wonder Netscape failed. Had nothing to do with Microsoft. At all. /rant

Re:how long (1)

lkcl (517947) | about 2 years ago | (#41636221)

I use modern computers. At work my computer has 32 GB of memory. At home I have 16 GB of memory. My laptop has 8 GB. I honestly could not care less how much memory Firefox uses because it can't use enough for any of these computers to care

baconbits.... um... my main computer is a 2006 24in imac with a 2ghz dual-core xeon and 2gb of RAM. oh, and debian gnu/linux booting grub2-efi of course. it's *really* struggling with the number of tabs that i keep open (over 50).

but here's the thing: i actually consider myself lucky to have 2gb of RAM. i don't fucking well have enough money to go buying new computers right now and i resent what you're implying by saying "yeah who cares, just get more RAM, what's the big deal??"

you're aware that many ARM systems - many of them 1.5ghz - cannot run more than 1gb of RAM? i'm working on an initiative to reduce power consumption and the price of computing, and you're saying "yeah who cares, just get more RAM, what's the big deal??"

i'm just pointing out that just because *you* happen to have lots of resources, it doesn't mean that everyone else in the world does, ok?

Re:how long (4, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | about 2 years ago | (#41637185)

Some of us are still using 32-bit netbooks or laptops, which have 1GB to 2GB of memory. Some of us don't have these so-called "modern" computers because we find our slightly older ones are sufficient for our purposes, and are not interested in casually spending money on things we don't really need.

Not to mention some of us know what the median U.S. household income is, and know what that actually means (that fancy ultrabook that costs $2000 in New York City still costs $2000 in Atlanta).

I like when people trot out the old "I've got a computer from two years ago that has no problems running this program, and cost next to nothing for me when I got it, so you should have one too" argument when it comes to resource hogs. It really shows how detached from reality they actually are.

Re:how long (1)

asa (33102) | about 2 years ago | (#41635605)

The feature is there for those who want it and not for those who don't. It's "off by default" and only enabled if you are using a service that supports it (like Facebook today) and you opt in to it.

Where are the ideas coming from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634177)

Reading announcements like this makes me wonder where their ideas for features are coming from. Are people actually writing to Mozilla and asking them to disable old versions of plugins? Heck, whenever I upgrade Firefox the plugins usually break anyway, that should keep out of date ones from being a problem! The social media bar sounds like something cooked up by Facebook or Twitter devs, not something suggested by users or internal Firefox developers.

I would really like to see Firefox focus on being a better browser, fast, light, secure. Instead we are seeing them mash bug fixes and new features into the same releases, we're getting heavy handed attempts at security and social media. Things I really don't want to see in a web browser.

Re:Where are the ideas coming from? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41634327)

The 'social API' stuff sounds like utter nonsense; but plugin blocking is both a logical evolution of a previous feature(the https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/ [mozilla.org] link in the part of the interface for viewing plugins) and a very good idea for security.

Between Flash and Java, though not exclusive to them, browsing the internet with outdated plugins is about as safe as picking up used needles from a shooting gallery floor and injecting yourself in the hopes of scoring free heroin...

Re:Where are the ideas coming from? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634521)

Are people actually writing to Mozilla and asking them to disable old versions of plugins?

No, they're writing in complaining that Firefox is not secure enough even though the root cause is absolutely horrible plugins from the likes of Adobe and Microsoft. Users have taken up the position that it's the Firefox's fault when Adobe or Microsoft happen. It doesn't seem that unreasonable for Mozilla to point out to the user that they're using bad software which may be causing the thing that the user is bitching about.

Re:Where are the ideas coming from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41637029)

Be careful not to confuse plugins (eg, Flash, Adobe Reader, Java) with extensions (eg, AdBlock, NoScript, Ghostery), both of which are add-ons. People have complained a lot about extensions breaking with upgrades, but the complaints with plugins are more often that they're causing memory leaks or security holes (which are often due to people running old versions of them).

whats firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634209)

i remember a mozilla firefox 4 or was it 6
but 17?
haha there done and so will chrome if they keep it up

Re:whats firefox? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 2 years ago | (#41634267)

if it makes you feel better, think of it as 6.17

What's in a number?

Re:whats firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634619)

I remember your troll from the last dozen or so articles about Firefox. The trolling hasn't gotten any better you should probably give up. You look stupid by saying anything about version numbers at this point.

Social API? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634213)

Please to pointing out the opt-out function... if I need to dump Chrome for some reason.

Re:Social API? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634395)

It's an API, not a feature. You would need to install a plugin to take advantage of it. That's essentially an opt-in requirement. You're covered.

Re:Social API? (2)

NotBorg (829820) | about 2 years ago | (#41634715)

Perhaps Chrome should include a text-to-speech feature to your posting back to you so that you can actually hear how your posted sound with incorrect or missing.

...

Preemptive woooooosh. (Note: woosh more Os than usual because it mentions a Google product.)

Re:Social API? (1)

asa (33102) | about 2 years ago | (#41635645)

It's not an opt-out. It's an opt in. Users who don't want to see it won't. You'll only see it if you're using a supported social service and you opt in. Otherwise you'll never know it was there.

Re:Social API? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41636323)

Otherwise you'll never know it was there.

Other than slow start-up times and reduced run-time performance as the execution path ambles through the if active ( social ) then guards.

Social API Sounds Like a Privacy Nightmare (3, Insightful)

jerquiaga (859470) | about 2 years ago | (#41634239)

Hopefully there is something built in separating that social API sidebar from what you are actually browsing. Facebook/Google/Apple/Skeezy Advertisers wouldn't need tracking cookies to know exactly where you surfed.

Re:Social API Sounds Like a Privacy Nightmare (2)

asa (33102) | about 2 years ago | (#41635541)

The API doesn't allow for the sidebar or other social features to know about the content of the pages you're visiting. You can read the docs if you want to learn more. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Social_API [mozilla.org]

privacy controls in social API? (3, Insightful)

alef.01 (616834) | about 2 years ago | (#41634243)

Will Mozilla provide isolation for its social apps from the rest of the tabs, when requested by the user; i.e providing cintrols on what browsing data, session, cookies and history the social API will be able to access, or will this make it more difficult for users to wall social apps than it is to do so with web-based social apps using plug-ins as many now do?

Re:privacy controls in social API? (2)

asa (33102) | about 2 years ago | (#41635695)

The Firefox Social API doesn't allow for the sidebar or other social features to know about the content of the pages you're visiting. You can read the docs if you want to learn more. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Social_API [mozilla.org]

I don't get all the whining (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634275)

Running Nightly 19.0a1 - 20121012030610 here, all my fuckin plugins work all the way back to proxysel (that was firefox 1.5 bitchez) so what the fuck is the problem? With "nightly tester tools" even addons which were not made for your "version" will install, only thing left is Lack of knowledge to setup your about:config ? or edit userchrome.css with chrome edit plus? or edit extensions.ini in notepad? Or the balls to try nightly perhaps? Try a nightly portable.

Firefox sucks day after day (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634369)

Social network?? WTF?? I don't have a Facebook account, neither a Twitter account, so the browser is not made for me, is that it? Why won't Mozilla spend its time trying to fix bugs, instead of trying to copy Chrome with galloping version numbers or adding fancy little things to the browser?

Re:Firefox sucks day after day (1)

asa (33102) | about 2 years ago | (#41635727)

If you don't use any social providers, you'll never enable the social integration features in Firefox. Mozilla has hundreds of engineers working to make Firefox better. Not everyone is going to find value in what every one of them are working on. Social API is a small team, just a handful of developers, working on something that *will* be useful to hundreds of millions of Facebook and other social service users.

Eat your own dogfood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634385)

I assume that Mozilla will play fair and if Firefox detects I'm running an older version of Firefox too long or someone discovers a Firefox 0-day exploit it'll warn me on launch and ask me to approve running my vulnerable Firefox browser?

adons (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41634441)

I will tell you another thing, Mozilla has already figured out how to block freaking adons in its browsers. I wrote a few SIMPLE ADONS that Mozilla finds a way to break with half of the releases. I am just not interested in maintaining such simple functionality in every version, where in fact no new functionality is added. They are very very fucking simple they shouldn't break, it's frustrating. The users complain: your adon doesn't work. NO! It's the latest fucking Firefox that doesn't work!

Once again Apple Shines bright! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634499)

I have a MacBook 13" that I use at work. This is the only thing I can get. Believe me when I say I've tried everything* to get a different laptop. My boss is a big Apple user so I get this one in the end - pun very much intended.

So here I am, OS X 10.5, unable to update the OS because I can't get a new machine, and up comes this neato message from Firefox.
"Sorry, you are SOL. We won't let you upgrade to the new version of Firefox because your OS is SOOOOOOO old."
Something like that.

And then I have a flashback. It's eight years ago. I'm sitting in my living room. I'm on my Quadra 800. I'm on my bank's website and up flashes this message. "Update your browser"
But I can't! To update my browser I need a new OS. To upgrade my OS I need a new Mac. TO upgrade my Mac I need a whole lot of money.

That was the day I switched to a PC.

How is it that eight years have passed and APPLE IS STILL DOING EXACTLY THE SAME CRAP THEY ALWAYS DID?

Re:Once again Apple Shines bright! (1)

armanox (826486) | about 2 years ago | (#41635619)

If you have a MacBook then you can run OS X 10.6. OS X 10.6 supports all Intel Apple Computers. And last I checked (on a MBP 1,1) Firefox still runs on 10.6.

No Thanks (1)

neffezzle (1862994) | about 2 years ago | (#41634559)

Because Facebook and Google Pluse aren't invasive enough on your browser already???

midori (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41634579)

I'd like to see some more progress in MIdori. It's already pretty functional (in Linux), though it has a bug or two and could use a few extra features. I switch back and forth from Midori and FF for now, at least until FF gets too weird, which seems inevitable.

WTF can't there be an all-around good browser that doesn't turn to crap?

Silent update still broken (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634683)

The mozilla maintenance service landed in Firefox 12 but it still isn't possible to actually use it to update Firefox on XP because of a UI bug. Please fix this before adding any new bugs^W whizzy features.

Re:Silent update still broken (1)

asa (33102) | about 2 years ago | (#41635819)

Can you point me to the bug you're talking about? Thanks.

Safari does this - it doesn't work (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634753)

(warning: hearsay to follow since I'm not a Mac User)

If I recall, Safari does something similar; if it detects an older version of Flash it disables the plug-in and throws up a warning message prompting the user to update.

Or at least, that's what my mother told me happened. At which point she switched to Firefox and used that instead.

Mind you, it was an ancient version of FF I had installed for her two years ago; God knows how old the Flash plug-in was.

These "warning" notifications - even if they also disable features - do NOT cause the average user to update software. It just gets the user upset that their software doesn't work and find workarounds to the new problem.

Firefox is better off getting together with Adobe/Oracle/whomever and working so Firefox's own automatic updates include the updates for the plugins as well.

Bizarre selection of core features (4, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#41634781)

Also coming in Firefox 17 is support for Mozilla's "Social API." The announcement describes it thus: "Much like the OpenSearch standard, the Social API enables developers to integrate social services into the browser in a way that is meaningful and helpful to users. As services integrate with Firefox via the Social API sidebar, it will be easy for you to keep up with friends and family anywhere you go on the Web without having to open a new Web page or switch between tabs. You can stay connected to your favorite social network even while you are surfing the Web, watching a video or playing a game."

Can someone explain to me why crap like this is being incorporated into Firefox as a core feature, but if we want a traditional status bar or address bar, that has to be a plugin?

Re:Bizarre selection of core features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634893)

Good question. Mozilla does tend to ignore a few things. (I am using the ESR version by the way. This November I'll be jumping to v17 I think. Personal computer, not work-related.)

They should focus on simple things. How about an option so when I do an CTRL-F, it doesn't search as I type? How about the number of results instead of me trying to guess? At least IE8 tells me how many matches there are. And while a plugin does quite well, a toggle for javascript needs to be a must. I mean, seriously, it'd be safer surfing if you can toggle off javascript before going to questionable sites (or leave it off until going to a trusted site). Yes, I know, I think NoScript covers that, but still.

Re:Bizarre selection of core features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634915)

There isn't any sensible reason for this if the product your are manufacturing is a web browser.

If you start thinking of it as a social networking tool, then it makes more sense. It's also abandoning the core purpose of Firefox.

I used to like Firefox. They keep upgrading it and breaking my favourite plug-ins (most updates are not security related). And they seem to like to screw with the UI fairly regularly too. I'm getting sick enough of it I'm going to probably start using Chrome all the time despite my dislike of Google and of some of the Chrome implementation aspects. At least it tends to stay simple, fast, and the UI doesn't change too fast.

Firefox, the love affair is over.

Re:Bizarre selection of core features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635083)

Because casual users are far more interested in that than having a traditional status bar or address bar? When's the last time a casual user cared about those things, and wasn't wishing they could use their social apps more efficiently?

Re:Bizarre selection of core features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41636239)

I couldn't agree more. Out of all the top addons - none of them are this shit. Firefox, fuck you.

Re:Bizarre selection of core features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41636935)

I know. I couldn't get 90% of my friends and family to use Firefox over a default browser (IE or Safari) if it came with a FreeBeer API Sidebar.

Seriously - most people would rather deal with spyware and trojans, than fuck around with installing Firefox and noscript, and clicking on the little "allow such-and-such" button every time they visit a new site for the first time. I think MOST software authors have a serious blind-spot in the technical gap between themselves and the "average user". (And this has been the case since. . . oh, I think about 1980.)

API for what? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 2 years ago | (#41634941)

Just to be clear, is this API for plugins only or can any JavaScript on the web run it?

ninite anyone?? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#41634991)

of course one could just hit ninite.com for an autoinstaller and not have to worry about outdated versions.

i have a few different versions downloaded one that has all the "stuff" i like to install when i do a computer setup.

Tabbed browsing (2)

Cid Highwind (9258) | about 2 years ago | (#41635035)

You can stay connected to your favorite social network even while you are surfing the Web, watching a video or playing a game.

Yeah, it's called tabbed browsing. Been in Firefox since version 2.0...

Social API (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635127)

Looks like yet another sandboxed plugin/addon/extension type. It's similar to the search plugins but much more advanced. Seems like an API for additional service like thingy that can be added to the browser for those who want this kind of stuff :p. Well, I think the name "Social API" seems like a misnomer. It can probably be used for integrating other stuff as well. If they advance this further, it could make a better blogging or comment/forum posting interface from the browser.

I guess this is how they try to make the usage of these kind of things opt in rather than having tons of buttons and whatnots seen in many news sites. Not that I think this will actually get those sites to remove those things :p.

Seriously Firefox get your act together.... (3, Insightful)

NinjaTekNeeks (817385) | about 2 years ago | (#41635183)

First you install Firefox...
Then Flashblock....
Then Adblock Plus
Then Noscript
Then Fasterfox...
Then....

Make a browser that has the ability to turn off crap like ads, flash, easily white or black list javascript enabled sites (google, gmail, etc.) and reduce bloat (170mb of ram just to browse slashdot in firefox?!?!?!) and I'll be happy. Social Media integration? wow, who gives a flying firefox.....

Re:Seriously Firefox get your act together.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635367)

Look, be thankful you can trivially install a few add-ons to get those features that a few of us love, and stop complaining that Mozilla is working on what the bulk of their userbase is more interested in.

And stop crying about 170mb of memory being used on Slashdot in Firefox when it's not much different in other major browsers. A browser is not a simple notepad or calculator application.

Seriously, if we could harness the power of all this brainless and baseless anti-Mozilla bitching and whining, we could have an alternative browser by now.

Re:Seriously Firefox get your act together.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635423)

So you want them to pull an Apple by integrating 3rd-party features into the core product? In violation of the GPL? How is it that you come to post on /. and don't understand basic open source principles?

Also, if 170M of RAM is in any way significant to you in this day and age, then your rig sucks... probably the root cause of your problems with FF.

Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635355)

GOTO Subject

I like my Google Toolbar as it is, thanks (2)

scsirob (246572) | about 2 years ago | (#41635655)

Not sure why Mozilla is forcing this on their users. I have ran FF for a long time, and one of the additions I really like is the Google Toolbar. It has not been maintained for a while, and it takes a tweak to convince FF12 and up to load it, but it does what I want. Losing this ability will be time to move on to another browser. Chrome, Opera, or heavens forbid, Internet Exploder...

Will Firefox ever allow users to remove plugins?! (3, Insightful)

BrendaEM (871664) | about 2 years ago | (#41635929)

Release after release, Mozilla has taunted us with the ability to remove unwanted plugins, but that promise has never been realized. Why?
For Firefox to be secure, it should never allow a plug to be added and activated without the users's permission.

Please fix this!!!!

The Open Source Chromium Browser as Alternative? (1)

evolutionary (933064) | about 2 years ago | (#41636749)

What about Chromium? Its Chrome without the Google stuff to extract data to track people for showing ads. http://www.chromium.org/Home [chromium.org] I really liked Firefox and recommended to everyone, but with this loss of focus in an attempt to reprove its relevance with it so called "rapid release", its having the reverse effect and may give MS a new opportunity to push its semi-w3c complaint browser. Apple Safari may be a good alternative for MS windows clients but I haven't looked into whether it collects data. I need to see what plugins I can use with Chromium which is the biggest advantage Firefox has in flexibility over its competitors. Ironically, Firefox 17 seems like it will kill some plugins. Is the cure worse than the disease?

How about... (2)

NoMaster (142776) | about 2 years ago | (#41637269)

How about they jam their "social API" up their arse, and use the now-free developer time to maintain feature users want [google.com] ?

Or, at the very least, those developers could be retrained and fruitfully employed. Testing cluebats on the Mozilla community co-ordinators & technical evangelists - who would rather gaslight people with different opinions than listen to them - might occupy a few...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...