Beta
×

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 To Show Sponsored Links To First-Time Firefox Users

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the trying-not-to-say-the-word-'ad' dept.

Firefox 182

Mozilla has announced a new initiative to show sponsored content within the Firefox browser. Currently, opening a new tab in Firefox will display a set of nine tiles showing your most commonly visited websites. When a user installs Firefox and opens it for the first time, they see these tiles, but eight of them are blank (one links to a Firefox tutorial). As the user browses the web, those tiles gradually fill in with visited sites. But Mozilla is going to fill out those blank eight tiles for new users. They say, "Some of these tile placements will be from the Mozilla ecosystem, some will be popular websites in a given geographic location, and some will be sponsored content from hand-picked partners to help support Mozilla’s pursuit of our mission. The sponsored tiles will be clearly labeled as such, while still leading to content we think users will enjoy." Existing users shouldn't see any difference, and the tiles will be replaced with commonly-visited sites like they do now.

cancel ×

182 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Just 1 Anonymous Coward (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227047)

Dear Slashdot User,

Speaking for myself as AC but reflecting on everything.

This comment is about Beta and the revolt. If you're not interested do move on, sorry for the brief interruption and Thanks.

I'll start by saying surely there's folk bothered by the anti-beta floods. I apologize if it's frustrated anyone who wants normal discussion flow. The fact is there's some of us who feel (super) passionate about this drastic redesign. Nerd or Don Juan, whatever [buzzword that describes you]...it would take a lobotomized sociopath to not even feebly feel something unsettling about the yanking of the historic roots of this site we call slashdot.org. Whether 1997 or 2006 or 2010 was your first time around these woods... there's much to admire and appreciate.

My bias is that I am 101% anti-beta on all points including ease of use, functionality & decimation of dense threaded discussion. It's ugly and hideous to me on so many levels. I could go on with a list UI details, I'll push that aside for now.

What I'm here to say is that as unprecedented as Slashdot's rise was - equally unprecedented is the scene unfolding in the altslashdot/slashcott movement. For or against, let's pause to admit this truth.

I feel what needs acknowledgement of the anti-beta movement is the validity of our own emotions here. I think the most passionate grew up with this site thru many phases of their lives. It's not just about the news business. I view Slashdot as an unprecedented cultural icon. A bizarre and intriguing global public forum - delivered to us reliably at every request direct to our private, personal computers.

-From trolls to flamewars to humor to all the memes, prose & poetry, robot crap-flooding to real intelligent valuable discussion and debate-
(If there was all of 1, it wouldn't work. It was that they all got to play)

Don't let what some call "immature" anti beta flooding fog your perception of the movement that is altslashdot. We are 150 strong in the channel and rising. We are busy resurrecting a dusty time machine that is the Slashcode from a long, ill-destined slumber. In all ~16 years of this site's unprecedented growth and dull drifting into "irrelevance" - can you say the community has ever been this ignited? This united?

I watch Facebook and Google+ destroy persona. I watch Google+ destroy old Google. I watch numerous sites redesign into turgid-with-whitespace messes. For some reason, the decimation of old Slashdot kicks me the in gut harder than the lamest trends of 3.0 and SOME lame things of 2.0.

I'm not saying I have all the answers. I have questions, too. Malda, how could you leave your dear creation in such apparently heavily corporate non-community minded hands? Why not some sort of not-for-profit to keep operational? Anything to at least let it operate with self-respect and not have to morph into something so ugly that is Beta. Oh well, I'm not a tycoon how would I know.

Maybe it's just the last straw for some of us. I believe altslashdot of many things goes beyond Slashdot itself and represents the intangible kicked-in-the-stomach feelings of many as the Internet changes over time - in this case not for the better.

To conclude, disgust with Beta can be expressed in many shades of grey, black or white. A heroic and perilous historical movement is taking place, ##altslashdot being the core of its engine. We battle for our beliefs like never before in the face of a twisted, ugly monster (that is not only Beta itself the end product, but all that is that conceived its bastardly existence).

We are trying to launch a Slashdot of old into the modern world. Our mission is community and absence of pure profit driven design. There's no free lunch but Lord let there be potlucks!

And I encourage you to join not to support nor pan per say... but to simply witness an awesome part of history unfold. A rebirth. A reclamation.

It's not so much whether we fail or succeed. It's about believing in something with feeling strong enough to band together and take charge. It's a fight for control over all frustrations described hereto. It's about going out obnoxiously kicking and screaming. It's about stabbing into the unknown and believing in what we feel is right.

If we fall, splinter, fade to digital dust - so be it. If we succeed then it was meant to be.

Sincerely Thank you for reading... AND FUCK BETA


Using your web browser:
http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##altslashdot [freenode.net]

http://sylnt.us/wiki [sylnt.us]

Re: Just 1 Anonymous Coward (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227229)

I'm with you. Slashdot is dead. They don't care about the community anymore.

Re: Just 1 Anonymous Coward (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228889)

Then fuck off already.

RIP (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227061)

RIP you were fun while you lasted but now you have sponsored ad browsing based on like's/visits Do not want.

Re:RIP (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46227127)

Hold the knee-jerk reaction to the perceived spam and realize what it really means.

If they are true to their promise, all it really means is that the 9 slots that hold the "most visited" pages in your browser are now, when you do a clean install, not empty as they are now but filled with ad pics. If they keep that promise and don't "secretly" or "accidentally" replace your pages with their ads, I fail to see the harm. As soon as you have "frequently visited" pages, the ad pages are rotated out of existence.

If that's all it takes them to keep going, well, why'd I complain? It's one more browser to choose from and competition is by definition a good thing. If it becomes actually invasive and if it replaces my frequent pages with their spam pages... NEXT!

Re:RIP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227201)

https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504
"the first of our user-enhancing programs" I repeat: first. There is more to come.

And have a hunch that every new one will be harder and harder to hide or disable. Moz bent over for one of the most corrupted industries: what makes you think that they will be able to hold against it?

Re:RIP (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 months ago | (#46227301)

Well, let's be honest. This change doesn't bother me. If another one will, it's trivial to dump FF and use a different browser.

I have no reason to believe they can "hold against it". But I don't need to. If they bend over, I'll toss them the lube on my way out.

Re:RIP (1)

segin (883667) | about 8 months ago | (#46228035)

You can always use Iceweasel [geticeweasel.org] .

Re:RIP (3, Insightful)

SpzToid (869795) | about 8 months ago | (#46227205)

FireFox has done a really good job of keeping itself relevant, along with Chrome. Specifically I am referring to the developer tools. I use FireFox myself, although Adobe mobile developers also have a cool tool to render mobile devices inside the Chrome browser, where they can work using Chrome dev tools. But I still like the new FireFox dev tools better, along with the older FireBug and a few of its odd plugins.

Re:RIP (1)

rvw (755107) | about 8 months ago | (#46227587)

If that's all it takes them to keep going, well, why'd I complain? It's one more browser to choose from and competition is by definition a good thing. If it becomes actually invasive and if it replaces my frequent pages with their spam pages... NEXT!

Next?

Next what? IE? Chrome? Opera???

I hope Firefox doesn't become adware. But I don't mind them using those tiles for ads, as long as they don't track what I browse.

Re:RIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227661)

Do they really need the money though? They get a shedload of money from Google every year due to Google being the default search engine, they should trim the fat and bank the excess money that they don't need for their projects in case the money from Google does dry up. If they weren't getting all this other income then it would be okay to do it. I don't think the attitude they are taking with this bodes well for their long-term future, even if this change in itself doesn't bother me.

Re:RIP (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 8 months ago | (#46227887)

With chrome around their concern is that google wont stick around forever

Re:RIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227825)

True, not too many care if the ad-tiles will be replaced with recent pages. But it may be so, that in next version FF removes the possibility to use blank page as home page. Or it does it as previously; first move a feature behind "about:config" -page and then replace it on next version "as most users do not use it".

Re: RIP (3, Insightful)

deuce4208 (3466169) | about 8 months ago | (#46227155)

RIP? If it's just going to fill spots that were blank anyway I don't see what the big deal is. I don't have a problem with that at all. Let them make a little bit of money on new users who will click on those ads. You would have never even known about it had it not been for this article or you did a fresh install of Firefox anyway.

Re: RIP (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227243)

The blankness was a feature.

Re: RIP (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227727)

The first thing you do with a new OS installation is removing all the bloatware, right? That was just using blank space too.

Besides, it's a matter of principle, i.e. having a principle and sticking with it. "Users first" is one such principle that Mozilla should have stuck to. Once the user has been turned into a product, the path is chosen. Accepting money from search engines may have seemed benign as long as the choice of search engine was apolitical. Almost everybody would have chosen Google anyway. But it showed that Mozilla had a price, and now it's just another step in the chosen direction. Users' trust isn't cheap. I have a feeling that Mozilla isn't aware of the true value of what they're selling.

Re:RIP (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 8 months ago | (#46227159)

Worked just fine for Opera! .. or didn't it?

Re:RIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227879)

Worked fine for Microsoft with Windows/IE and IE/MSN as well.

Re:RIP (5, Informative)

unregistered.coward (2435348) | about 8 months ago | (#46227173)

That's a pretty intense over-reaction to Mozilla filling in some previously blank tiles with some temporary filler. That filler disappears as you accumulate visited site and only appears when you actually use the "new" tab.

Human Tolerance (0)

ketomax (2859503) | about 8 months ago | (#46227497)

Today it is in an empty area, tomorrow it might pop up somewhere else. Will ad blocker work on these? At this rate we might end up with ads inside ads.

Re:RIP (1)

durin (72931) | about 8 months ago | (#46227633)

Those ads have to come from somewhere not local to the workstation FF is running on. That means that they eat bandwidth. What if you have a bandwith cap? What if you have to pay for each MB of traffic?

If they do this, its bye-bye FF for me :(

Re:RIP (1)

Gerald Butler (3528265) | about 8 months ago | (#46227763)

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!

Re:RIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227783)

So instead of the new install of FF (not upgrades, not installing over top) takes 28.6MB, and each of these ad squares will be about 10K each, your download will now be 28.69MB ... oh the horror!

Re:RIP (2)

Raenex (947668) | about 8 months ago | (#46228433)

That's a pretty intense over-reaction to Mozilla filling in some previously blank tiles with some temporary filler.

By "temporary filler", you mean advertising. If I want an ad-supported browser, why don't I just use Chrome? At least then I can do away with the phony veneer of a "non-profit" that's concerned about users and not making profit (the truth is Mozilla formed a for-profit corporation years ago to handle the Google mega-millions, so they have no accountability on that end).

Re:RIP (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 8 months ago | (#46228477)

Oh Christ, I just clicked the article. Look at this Ministry of Information, self-serving bullshit:

We believe that if you put the user front and center, you can make every experience for them richer and more meaningful. The Content Services team has embraced this, and today I wanted to share some of our thinking and explain our first steps for putting it into practice.

That's right, just what the user was missing from their life. More advertisements!

Re:RIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228599)

Oh Christ, I just clicked the article. Look at this Ministry of Information, self-serving bullshit:

We believe that if you put the user front and center, you can make every experience for them richer and more meaningful. The Content Services team has embraced this, and today I wanted to share some of our thinking and explain our first steps for putting it into practice.

That's right, just what the user was missing from their life. More advertisements!

This is the first step in making the browser a tv screen. Good to go Mozilla !
Everytime you hear someone say "we enhance the experience" translate it to "how can we fuck the user more ?". Hey even /. enhances the user experience with BETA see ?

Time to switch to Pale Moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227063)

if you haven't already.

Pale Moon is like Firefox without Asa's retarded design choices.

Give it a try: http://www.palemoon.org/ [palemoon.org]

Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227087)

Don't forget to mention that Pale Moon is compiled with Visual Studio and optimized for Windows.

Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227103)

It's windows-centric and therefore useless.

Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227115)

Right, because no one is using Windows.

Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227631)

A minority of people use Windows. Both Android and iOS have overtaken it.

Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228909)

And how many people use Firefox on either of those platforms? Yep.

Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon (3, Informative)

The1stImmortal (1990110) | about 8 months ago | (#46227283)

SeaMonkey is still going strong too, with a slightly smoothed version of the old Communicator interface - http://www.seamonkey-project.o... [seamonkey-project.org]

Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon (0)

j235 (734628) | about 8 months ago | (#46227387)

Seamonkey is a good option. It's about as fast (or as slow I guess) as Firefox, and they don't change the UI ever, unlike Firefox.
I save like four seconds each time it asks where I'd like to save downloaded files rather than simply putting them all in a default downloads folder.

Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227425)

Seamonkey is great (way way better than Firefox or Chrome) and I use it together with Opera pre 15.
The only thing I wish Seamonkey would add is an option in the gui to disable/enable on the fly javascript. As for mouse gestures that'll remain a pie in sky :(

Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about 8 months ago | (#46227627)

Mozilla based with plugin support? SOLD!

Oh, an IRC client. How quaint!

Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon (1)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | about 8 months ago | (#46227341)

To be honest, with [Personal Titlebar](https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/personal-titlebar/) and [Status-4-Evar](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/status-4-evar/) installed I like the interface more than older Firefox or any of the other browsers. But that's just my personal preference; thank you for sharing a link to Pale Moon - it's good to know about what's available.

Confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227065)

I thought Mozilla hated third-party cookies and the advertisement crap on the web these days.

It looks like Chrome and IE may actually score a point.

Re:Confusion (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227101)

Chrome

Because you dislike advertisements, you want to use a browser made by an advertising company?

Re:Confusion (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227217)

Chrome

Because you dislike advertisements, you want to use a browser made by an advertising company?

At this point asking wether to use Firefix or Chrome is like choosing between Democrats or Republicans.
Makes no fucking difference at all. They both shit on their users.

Re:Confusion (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 8 months ago | (#46227521)

"At this point asking wether to use Firefix or Chrome"

I am sure that wether, along with the rest of the sheep, are using IE if they are running windows.

" like choosing between Democrats or Republicans"

At least Democrats recognize that the Earth is more than 6013 years old, and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas...

Re:Confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227531)

I see what ewe did there

Re:Confusion (0, Offtopic)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 8 months ago | (#46227605)

At least Republicans don't rub their thumbs around on crystals hoping to improve their karma and believe that men are the source of all evil...

See, I can point to a minority and act as if they're representative of the whole as well. All sides have their Pajama Boys. Try not to shatter your teeth when you jerk your knee.

Re:Confusion (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227815)

At least Republicans don't rub their thumbs around on crystals hoping to improve their karma and believe that men are the source of all evil...

See, I can point to a minority and act as if they're representative of the whole as well. All sides have their Pajama Boys. Try not to shatter your teeth when you jerk your knee.

Minority? Many of the core tenets of the republican party are hostile to science, technology, the environment, and even people. When it's the official stance of your party, you can't exactly dismiss it as just a few crazies casting a bad shadow on the party as a whole.

Re:Confusion (0)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 8 months ago | (#46228435)

At least Republicans don't rub their thumbs around on crystals hoping to improve their karma and believe that men are the source of all evil...

See, I can point to a minority and act as if they're representative of the whole as well. All sides have their Pajama Boys. Try not to shatter your teeth when you jerk your knee.

Minority? Many of the core tenets of the republican party are hostile to science, technology, the environment, and even people. When it's the official stance of your party, you can't exactly dismiss it as just a few crazies casting a bad shadow on the party as a whole.

Remember it was a republican, Bush that boosted NASAs budget and planned that they return to the moon and go to Mars. Obama the democrat killed that. Which party is anti science?

Re:Confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227647)

At least Democrats recognize that the Earth is more than 6013 years old, and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas...

A fringe part of the Republican Party is fiercely anti-science. Unfortunately even moderate republicans in congress don't the the balls to "give the finger" to that crazy fringe. And no, most republicans are not antiscience.

Re:Confusion (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 8 months ago | (#46227855)

A significant majority of Republicans don't believe in evolution.

Re:Confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228019)

Realizing that a "majority" is greater than 50%, and that a "significant majority" would be "significantly" higher than 50% - citation please?

Re:Confusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227915)

Oh come, do you really want to get into this? Alright. How about the number of democrats that believe that 9/11 was a hoax perpetrated by the government. Or, the anti-vaxxer movement?

Re:Confusion (4, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about 8 months ago | (#46227261)

Because you dislike advertisements, you want to use a browser made by an advertising company?

Pretty sure you meant "because you dislike advertisements, you want to to use a browser made by an advertising company which will also pillage and rape your personal information."

awwww isn't that cute (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227071)

Mozilla needs money! Why don't they just beg shamelessly like Wikimedia always does.

I'd donate, but I need money to buy food and toilet paper. I'm such a slave to my intestines, it's ridiculous.

About time! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227075)

Just today I said to myself, I said, self, how can I possibly get more of those advertisements I get bombarded with everywhere I go? It's as if Mozillia has been inside my head and giving me exactly what I have always wanted my browser to do - GIVE ME MORE ADS! (!!)

Re:About time! (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 8 months ago | (#46227125)

Re:About time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227193)

That article tries to paint the picture that we must either be drenched in ads everywhere we look, or we will turn into a system where the government owns all the stores and there are no options. I tend to believe that is dishonest at best. Advertising is not necessary for a market to have competition, it simply makes it easier for new products to be known without spreading by word of mouth. There may not be very much advertising for noname toilet paper, but I could surely find a hundred different types of it, manufactured by as many companies, each would vary.

Re:About time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227651)

I am liking Cuba more and more.

I see no problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227093)

I hope all the advertisement is so non intrusive as Mozilla is trying to do, and for all the negative reactions to this, you should realize that that free beer was paid by someone.

Re:I see no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227123)

But the World Wide Web wants to be free! Whoa, I just had a flashback to 1994. Oh, Netscape, how awesome you were.

Re:I see no problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227177)

You like DOOM II warez? Fresh and cheap, ready for install. No virus!

Re:I see no problem (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 8 months ago | (#46227375)

There's always debian IceWeasel; Firefox minus Mozilla branding.

welp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227131)

There goes the neighborhood.

Sick Road: Gay Camel Ads (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227145)

I can imagine...

"Try Sick Road!" the sly, handsome, and homosexual camel suggested as he popped up in my browser.

But I'm using Tor!

NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Time for The Tor Project to find a new browser.

Re:Sick Road: Gay Camel Ads (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227167)

Alrite! I'll have a pint of camel cum, please.

New WildLeaks Website Invites Whistle-Blowers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227187)

WildLeaks is the first, secure, online whistleblower platform dedicated to Wildlife and Forest Crime.

https://wildleaks.org/ [wildleaks.org]

@

New WildLeaks Website Invites Whistle-Blowers on Wildlife Crime

WildLeaks gives whistle-blowers a way to anonymously finger wildlife criminals.

http://news.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]

Re:New WildLeaks Website Invites Whistle-Blowers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227211)

Wow... in a Slashdot thread discussing Mozilla Firefox? Wow really? Do your higher ups know you're doing this? Doesn't make anyone reassured leaking info to you.

Time to fork firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227239)

Maybe Debian's Iceweasel might be a good alternative. Or the firefox build for the Tor Browser Bundle.

Sorry, no ads on my computer, ever. Mozilla has been moving away from the open-source and privacy culture for a long time, when they removed the ability to (easily) disable javascript I realized that this would happen sooner or later.

Re:Time to fork firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227265)

IceWeasel isn't GNU enough, try GNU IceCat.

Re: Time to fork firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227891)

If you go on FF website, they seem to be going completely away from their stated user centric "no corporate-ties non profit" philosophy. I am shocked that they are selling advertising directly through the browser.

Google reliance (5, Insightful)

Warbothong (905464) | about 8 months ago | (#46227253)

If this reduces Mozilla's reliance on Google's money then that can only be a good thing. Especially since Mozilla's main sponsor is now also a competitor :/

Re:Google reliance (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 8 months ago | (#46227811)

Think of it as a way to support Mozilla without making a donation. People who don't like ads will, presumably, grab a plugin that disables them and just cut Mozilla a cheque instead.

Who cares? (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | about 8 months ago | (#46227271)

At the end of the day, I still trust Mozilla far more than Google, Microsoft or Apple to respect my privacy.

Re:Who cares? (4, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 8 months ago | (#46227413)

There's always a knee-jerk reaction to anything related to advertising simply because as a medium it's been abused so much throughout its history.

Try as I might, I can't really fault Mozilla for the way they're handling this, and yeah, I would like to see them get another source of revenue.

Re:Who cares? (0)

durin (72931) | about 8 months ago | (#46227711)

I care.

Who's paying for the bandwidth the ads use up? Probably not Mozilla.
What if your connection has a bandwidth cap or you pay per MB for traffic?

Re:Who cares? (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | about 8 months ago | (#46227875)

Remember when you trusted Google more than Microsoft or Apple?
Remember when you trusted Apple more than Microsoft?
Remember when you trusted Microsoft? (I kid, I kid (perhaps))
Being worthy of trust in the recent past does not grant anyone a blank check for current or future actions.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228127)

Remember when you trusted Google more than Microsoft or Apple?
Remember when you trusted Apple more than Microsoft?
Remember when you trusted Microsoft? (I kid, I kid (perhaps))

Yes I do remember, therefore you should get off my lawn!

Re:Who cares? (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 8 months ago | (#46228315)

Remember when you trusted Microsoft? (I kid, I kid (perhaps))

They were actually more trustworthy when it came to privacy than Google because they made so much money on their OS and other software that they played by old standards that software should not spy on what you do. They wouldn't want to jeopardize that by being sleazy. Times have changed and old standards have eroded. It's pretty much expected now that software is reporting back on you for advertising.

w. va. nice spot to visit cybernetically (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227357)

can anybody still live there in real time? it's not on tv.... http://rt.com/usa/wvirginia-chemical-spill-again-water-617/

"sponsored links" (1)

mythix (2589549) | about 8 months ago | (#46227397)

you know they are doing things that aren't beneficial for the user when they start making up pretty names... just call it what it is... SPAM

Firefox is now far more unstable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227429)

When browsing with many windows and tabs, the latest version of Firefox is far more unstable than a few versions back.

Is Mozilla Foundation becoming more sloppy? Is it bad management? Has the NSA forced Mozilla to add back doors?

Firefox crashes in the latest version, 27.0:
https://crash-stats.mozilla.co... [mozilla.com]
(Mozilla does not allow direct links from Slashdot.)

good (0)

Gregory oakley-stevenson (3517141) | about 8 months ago | (#46227451)

Its good that they can recoup some of the expense of creating a pretty good browser. Altrough i dont actully use firefox, i use chromium.

Re:good (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 8 months ago | (#46227717)

I've tried chrome a few times but firefox always won me back in the end. then again I've been using firefox since it was firebird so by now chrome's main sin is not being just like firefox.

Sponsored Firefox (2)

rossdee (243626) | about 8 months ago | (#46227461)

So the new version with this sponsorship should be cheaper then?

Current status of Custom FF builds?? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 8 months ago | (#46227463)

and btw what the quickest way of turning those tiles OFF?? (cover windows and Android please)

Re:Current status of Custom FF builds?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227573)

They're all blank on my PC already. On mobile I don't think it's possible to turn them off - you can't even have a homepage.

Re:Current status of Custom FF builds?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227583)

Click the little button in the top right of the panel - it has 9 little dots in it. The tiles go off and you don't see them again (even after a restart) unless you click the 9 little dots.

Re:Current status of Custom FF builds?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227601)

There are instructions here [mozilla.org] .

$300M (1)

tgv (254536) | about 8 months ago | (#46227539)

I read that Mozilla received $300M from Google, and that that money stops, so they're looking for other sources of income. But that makes me think: $300M? What on earth did they spend it on? Certainly not on a 2000 programmer years.

Firefox Mobile (3, Interesting)

SeanDS (1039000) | about 8 months ago | (#46227559)

Although I don't so much mind this new addition if it brings in revenue to Mozilla, who are a nice company seemingly with the good of the web at heart, they have been playing one underhanded tactic recently with Firefox Mobile. On the mobile version, there is no way to remove the search providers pre-installed in the software (Bing, Amazon, Google, etc.). There used to be a way, but this feature was silently removed. I know I can just avoid using the search features (and untick the setting to automatically suggest search terms based on my input), but I should be able to uninstall search providers rather than give them free advertisement space on my browser.

Jumped the shark (1)

Dwedit (232252) | about 8 months ago | (#46227635)

Firefox has jumped the shark.

Re:Jumped the shark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227699)

Firefox has jumped the shark.

Firefox jumped the shark many moons ago. It's only now that people are begining to see the disaster that the Mozilla foundation has created. Mozilla's "trust us about all things web" mantra rings as hollow as Google's "do no evil".

Will ad-blockers work on this? (1)

matbury (3458347) | about 8 months ago | (#46227673)

It'd be nice for people who value their privacy not to have their location/IP address sent to advertisers before they've had a chance to deny permission. Should privacy conscious people now disconnect their computers from the internet while installing Firefox? I wonder what the folks at TOR Project will make of this?

Re:Will ad-blockers work on this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227935)

Nightly currently renders ads I have blocked in the thumbnails. Maybe they will notice this some time this year.

What about blocking third party cookiest first? (4, Insightful)

guacamole (24270) | about 8 months ago | (#46227721)

Considering that Mozilla promised to block third-party cookies by default in Firefox years ago, surely the sponsored links feature is going to take the backseat until they sort out the handling of third-party cookies first?

Seems like FF is going down the slippery slope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46227865)

I loved Firefox when it was all about the user, but now FF is just turning into an advertising piece of junk.

I used FF on my Android phone, and in a recent update they removed the ability for me to uninstall (or even hide) pre-bundled search engines. If any of you use FF on Android, you know that these as a lot of lag during startup, and make your search screen more busy and less functional.

Every time I search I have to view ads for search engines (no I will never fuckin use yahoo or bing).

Now FF will blatantly show ads to new users. As much as I hate Google, Chrome now has adblock and at least they (how ironic) won't be shoving ads down my throat.

Yep more ads, so what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228067)

So Firefox is showing desperation for more revenue. Go figure. So you get Scroogled or you get Outfoxed. I could see this coming and its the open source evil which is where does funding come from? Well, nobody contributes enough so I guess ads are here to stay. I actually think this might help Mozilla and maybe even improve their products. I have not used Firefox since 3.6 simply because it has become the browser with bugs. Its most likely the reason Chrome is killing every other browser out there. Unless Google does something really dumb with Chrome. I don't see Firefox regaining much of its glory days anyway.

It depends on what "sponsored content" means (1)

LihTox (754597) | about 8 months ago | (#46228401)

If it's just a link to a website the way tiles normally work? And if the links go to reputable websites? I don't have a problem with Firefox asking Amazon for some money to put them on the front page.
On the other hand, the tiles could be more like banner ads, flashy spammy things, controlled by a 3rd-party network where Mozilla doesn't have much control over what shows up there. That would suck.

Will Mozilla give these 'sponsors' my IP address? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228421)

If they do, will they explain the privacy implications to all their users? Will they explain how that aligns with the direction they took with respect to 'do not track' and 'third party cookies'? Will commercial contents be embedded in the download file? Will Firefox remain 100% FOSS if is comes with copyrighted content?

Search addons new home tab. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46228575)

Made firefox just right.

About those "nine tiles" ... (1)

jc42 (318812) | about 8 months ago | (#46228613)

I've installed (or helped others install) firefox on a few new machines lately, and noticed that they always fill new windows/tabs with that google search page. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's a bit redundant, what with the search widget at the upper right. So we've tried to get it to produce that "tiling" of favorite/frequently-visited sites like you see in Opera, Safari, and some other browsers. And we've failed.

I just tried in this firefox that I'm typing this to, installed about a week ago on a new Macbook Pro. I can't find it. The "General" settings page lists "Use Current Page", "Use Bookmark" and "Restore to Default" (which gives the google search page). The "Tabs" settings page doesn't deal with the topic. Under "Content" there's nothing about initial content for new windows/tabs.

So what are we missing? Where is this particular setting now hidden? I expect that it is there somewhere, but I can't guess what they call it or how it's classified in the Preferences/Settings tree of little windows.

You'd think they'd make this the default in a new install, but that doesn't seem to happen. One of the first things I did on this Macbook was fire up Safari and download Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and a few more browsers. Firefox's first window after the initial "greeting" window showed the google search page.

(Yeah, I did try googling it. That doesn't work too well if you don't know what it's now called, and every browser that has this feature seems to call it something different. This is, of course, a well-known problem with many topics. ;-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?