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 Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the benefits-of-asking-for-feedback dept.

Firefox 195

hypnosec writes "Mozilla has ditched Firefox's new-tab monetization plans because they 'didn't go over well' with the community. Johnathan Nightingale, Mozilla's VP of Firefox, said much of Firefox's community was worried Mozilla would 'turn Firefox into a mess of logos sold to the highest bidder' and that users wouldn't have control over this or see any actual benefit. 'That's not going to happen. That's not who we are at Mozilla.'"

cancel ×

195 comments

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

That's not who we are at Mozilla (3, Insightful)

koan (80826) | about 5 months ago | (#46967335)

laugh... but you would have gone ahead with it if you could have gotten it past the "community".

We need a new Firefox, someone "pure" again.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (4, Interesting)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 5 months ago | (#46967421)

We need a new Firefox, someone "pure" again.

Wouldn't a 'pure' Firefox also do away with the default search provider - which is effectively whoever bids highest for the position anyway?

I do think the 'new tab promotion' bit would have been bad, but mostly from a "what's next?" perspective. Otherwise, it would still be a page you can customize - including just deleting the promotional bits - that essentially has the promoted bits replaced as you browse, and if you really wanted to, never have to see more than once after installation as it is; and if you do, at least there will be some content there instead of vast emptiness. If it means Mozilla gets a bit more money, or at least money from a more diverse pool, I would have been fine with it.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (5, Insightful)

koan (80826) | about 5 months ago | (#46967469)

You can have a "default" just give the user a choice, if they want to use it or not.
That's my thing really, so tired of updates on my phone and computers that don't take how the user feels into consideration.
A perfect example is Windows 8, another would be Unity.
Let me leave my GUI the way it is while still getting security updates and feature sets (other than GUI features obviously) give *ME* the choice.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (2)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 5 months ago | (#46968097)

The way I read it, this wouldn't actually have affected you if you were already a user of FireFox; i.e. it would be for new users only. You would still have had the existing things with your most frequently visited sites in them. (depending on your version of firefox, that in itself might be new, I suppose).

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (0)

CrashNBrn (1143981) | about 5 months ago | (#46968047)

Opera did this - maybe still does - who knows only the sheep and clueless haven't abandoned that sinking ship. Wasn't a big deal, it was just a handful of bookmarks, and ~9 Speed Dial items, that most "geeks" replaced. They should of just gone forward with it, bring in some extra non-google sponsored-directly revenue, and let people change the defaults from a clean install as they wish.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (5, Interesting)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about 5 months ago | (#46967423)

Seamonkey [seamonkey-project.org] exists, has always been the last designbycommittee-bullshit-free Gecko-based browser for over a decade, but it always feels so unloved.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (2)

anchor_tag (2971059) | about 5 months ago | (#46968007)

Thanks for recommending this! I Just installed it and it appears to be modern browsing (tabs, css3, html5) with the look and feel of an older browser. I was getting fed up with the incremental death of the toolbar, browser bar etc.. I definitely recommend others giving this a try for an alternative with a retro look.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (1)

antdude (79039) | about 5 months ago | (#46968531)

I still use it because I have been using suite since Netscape Communicator days. I noticed many people hate the suite products due to bloatness. :(

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about 5 months ago | (#46968617)

That's ironic, because in the 1.x days, the full Seamonkey suite felt less bloated than even Firefox 3.x and hogged far less memory and crashed less.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967471)

Would have been so awful that on a fresh install, you'd see some paid ads when opening a new tab, and then after you visit some sites you'd never see them ever again. Would have been sooo awful

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967525)

If we wanted a browser pushing us ads we'd be using Chrome.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (3, Funny)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 5 months ago | (#46967957)

With FF 29's new look you may as well be running Chrome...

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968891)

I just tried Chrome, and it looks almost fucking nothing like Firefox 29. Thanks for nothing.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (4, Insightful)

sunami88 (1074925) | about 5 months ago | (#46967533)

We need a new Firefox, someone "pure" again.

Indeed! Australis (FF29 in general) has very nearly pinched my last nerve with Firefox. What the fuck is going on at Mozilla? The last two versions have run like complete and utter shit on my systems, from freezing windows to outright random crashes. What happened to my lightweight and reliable browser?

(Side tangent: Also, when will we get text reflow back in Android?)

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967559)

What happened to my lightweight and reliable browser?

Version 2 came along.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (4, Interesting)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 5 months ago | (#46967635)

We need a new Firefox, someone "pure" again.

Indeed! Australis (FF29 in general) has very nearly pinched my last nerve with Firefox. What the fuck is going on at Mozilla? The last two versions have run like complete and utter shit on my systems, from freezing windows to outright random crashes. What happened to my lightweight and reliable browser? >

Pale Moon [palemoon.org]

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (2)

FudRucker (866063) | about 5 months ago | (#46968001)

thanks! Pale Moon is nice!!!

More about Pale Moon (5, Informative)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 5 months ago | (#46968631)

The Pale Moon browser is a better version of Firefox. Pale Moon appears to have better management than the Mozilla Foundation gives Firefox.

Pale Moon Windows version [palemoon.org]
Pale Moon Linux version [sourceforge.net]

Here are some of the advantages:

1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.

2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search.

3) Pale Moon has backup software. Firefox has only Mozbackup [jasnapaka.com] , which works well, but isn't Mozilla Foundation software.

4) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. [mozilla.org] I use Restartless Restart. [mozilla.org]

5) Pale Moon is completely independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. [palemoon.org] The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.

Migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool [palemoon.org] .

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 5 months ago | (#46967977)

We need a new Firefox, someone "pure" again.

Indeed! Australis (FF29 in general) has very nearly pinched my last nerve with Firefox. What the fuck is going on at Mozilla? The last two versions have run like complete and utter shit on my systems, from freezing windows to outright random crashes. What happened to my lightweight and reliable browser?

Maybe you're using a lot of add-ons. I'm on Fx 29 using nothing but NoScript and it works wonderfully.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (1)

John Bokma (834313) | about 5 months ago | (#46968469)

I am using Firefox on Ubuntu 14.04 with exactly one (1) add on (Tree Style Tab). Firefox crashes multiple times a day. As does Thunderbird. It seems slowly to get less, though, the crashing. But "add ons" (or even it's your hardware) seem to me like easy cop outs.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 5 months ago | (#46968921)

I'm occationally using Ubuntu 14.04 and Firefox works just great for me on it. Sorry but I really think there's something wrong with your system. Try if for a while without any addons just for reference, and check about:crashes to see if you can get more details from it.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968867)

I'll reserve my judgement on FF29 since I just upgraded mere days ago, but FF in general seems to have been getting worse and worse over time rather than better. It still seems to 'leak' memory somewhere, to where I can have a 1.2gb browser process running like total crap with only one tab open - then I close the browser entirely, let it die off and restart it, and it's at 400mb with the same window open (and then it runs ok/faster for a while until it starts eating memory again after a few days).

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 5 months ago | (#46967537)

I don't see the problem with it, myself. It would only have been for new users or new installs and minimal usage would have replaced the tiles with sites visited.

It's also a way for FF to reduce dependency on one big Sugar Daddy (Google) for its finances, which has got to be in FF's best interests, and therefore users best interests.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (1)

koan (80826) | about 5 months ago | (#46967611)

How do you know it isn't "Sugar Daddy" implementing it.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968175)

Because there is source code you can vet if you truly care, and bug-tracked changesets so you don't have to do as much work to find the changes. Plus, who CARES if a "sugar daddy" wants their logo and link to their service in new user's startup pages? Google is already Firefox's "sugar daddy" of a sort, and everyone always complains about that. So why when they try to diversify their revenue sources does everyone go apeshit, no matter how benign the idea is? I wouldn't even mind this ridiculous end-user attitude if they actually donated enough to offset this "only I matter!" attitude (protip: they don't). Worse, now that Mozilla is right back at square one with this idea, what do users do? Bitch about other things they don't like, and only focus on the negatives. What a great userbase Firefox has.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about 5 months ago | (#46967747)

but you would have gone ahead with it if you could have gotten it past the "community".

Yes. He's saying that they listen to the community at Firefox and they're not the sort who will push things through if the community disagrees with it. If the community had not disagreed with it, then they would have gone ahead.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967971)

GP's point is that no one asked for the ads.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 5 months ago | (#46968049)

Someone obviously asked for it and came forward with the suggestion. It wasn't something that just materialized out of nowhere.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968207)

The point is that Mozilla can't operate for free. If they could they would. If donations were enough to sustain them, why would they care? But the browser world is such that not even Opera could maintain their own browser engine, and they weren't a non-profit. Nobody seems to give a shit about Mozilla's needs, only their own. And when you dare to mention that, you're the bad guy for playing into the idea that "browsers cost money" and that "Mozilla should be trying harder to make money that everyone agrees is from ideologically flawless sources". And the worst part? The same users wouldn't donate to the cause if they had to, because they're too damn selfish and upset about tiny UI changes and bogeymen they think they're successfully evading by running Tor and NoScript.

In this kind of environment, you're guaranteed to get a Firefox that spends more time trying to find out how to make money than a Firefox that can fix its bugs and please everyone. You do it to yourself, Firefox users. That's why the vocal minority is beginning to be rejected with some things, and why the userbase is fragmenting and losing the more obnoxiously selfish users to forks that would go under the instant Mozilla went under.

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968265)

Then how the fck do you explain Australis?

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 5 months ago | (#46968283)

Australis has been generally well-received as far as I know. A few loud people here and there though didn't like the change.

Agree.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968369)

I get the same cringe if some hot shot athlete or musician or politician says 'To those of you I have offended, I apologize'

That's not an apology.....

Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (2)

Albanach (527650) | about 5 months ago | (#46968457)

We need a new Firefox, someone "pure" again.

Good. Pure. Free.

Pick any two.

"That's not going to happen. That's not who we are (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967343)

If it's not, then don't come up with ideas like that in the first place.

Maybe Australis Next? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967363)

The new UI isn't going over well either; maybe they should ditch it, too. (I know some people like it - I wish they'd at least make it optional.)

Re:Maybe Australis Next? (1, Interesting)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 5 months ago | (#46967425)

I hate what they did with Australis, I nearly changed to Seamonkey, but classic-theme-restorer has put Firefox back the way I like it, I just hope it doesn't stop working.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]

Is it just me or is Firefox going much slower with Version 29.0? (no-script + ghostery installed)

Re:Maybe Australis Next? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 5 months ago | (#46968009)

No problem here (Fx 29 + NoScript). The new look feel good so far; it is quicker to find everything and a traditional menubar is just an F10 away in case I need it.

Re:Maybe Australis Next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967437)

I would be so happy if that happens.

I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant bigots (3, Insightful)

SensitiveMale (155605) | about 5 months ago | (#46967379)

And I'll never use it again.

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967409)

And nothing of value was lost. Despite what you think they don't miss closeted homophobes like yourself.

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (5, Funny)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 5 months ago | (#46967439)

And I'll never use it again.

Now who's being intolerant?

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (2, Insightful)

Brett Buck (811747) | about 5 months ago | (#46967581)

So, just let me get this entirely straight. A man was hounded out of his job for not having the "correct" beliefs*, and when someone objects or defends his right to an opinion, he, too, is "intolerant" (and according to the downmodded post, a "closet homophobe)? This is your definition of tolerance?

          Scratch a liberal or "advocacy group" and you see the same rotten core you saw in 1933.

    And the terrible crime here is that the man contributed to a *successful* change to the CA constitution, after a previous *successful* propostion to the same effect was defeated by the same pack of "tolerance" bullies?

       

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967589)

No one said fanny bandit logic made sense.

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | about 5 months ago | (#46967723)

for not having the "correct" beliefs*

More importantly, for contributing $1000 to a political campaign in favor of an amendment that explicitly attacked a segment of the populace, on top of repeatedly (and publicly) supporting congressmen who regularly express bigoted attitudes towards homosexuals [theguardian.com] . So yeah, he was given the lead position on Mozilla and people flipped their shit because he backed politicians that spew bullshit to demonize them.

when someone objects or defends his right to an opinion, he, too, is "intolerant"

No, this is the old "you must be tolerant of my intolerance" nonsense. No one has to sit back and accept being walked over, particularly when the basis for it is entirely hollow.

Scratch a liberal or "advocacy group" and you see the same rotten core you saw in 1933.

Wait, what? Is this an indirect Godwin?

And the terrible crime here is that the man contributed to a *successful* change to the CA constitution

What does it having been successful have to do with anything?

after a previous *successful* propostion to the same effect was defeated by the same pack of "tolerance" bullies?

What are you referring to?

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968379)

> No, this is the old "you must be tolerant of my intolerance" nonsense.

I wonder how many people who defend the mozilla guy are also defending the basketball team owner, sterling ?

Mozilla guy goes beyond public speech and spends money to promote a somewhat popular form of intolerance while team owner merely says something in private that is intolerant and vastly unpopular but has spent tons of money in public to promote tolerance (dude had one, and nearly got a second, NAACP lifetime achievement award, those are not cheap).

If "tolerating intolerance" is so important, why aren't these same people standing up for sterling with 10x more vigor?

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (0)

Guppy06 (410832) | about 5 months ago | (#46968719)

when someone objects or defends his right to an opinion

You have a right to an opinion. You do not have a right to a job.

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967617)

And I'll never use it again.

Now who's being intolerant?

The management of Firefox, that's who.

Boycotting Firefox is no more intolerant than boycotting Chic-fil-a because you don't like their policies.

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (1)

dietdew7 (1171613) | about 5 months ago | (#46967679)

Firefox suck and Chic-fil-a is delicious. Big difference. You're better off when you switch browsers from Firefox.

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967749)

Moar like Dick-Fil-A amirite ?

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968209)

Sorry for ruining the joke, but you are missing the "bigot" qualifier.

Re: I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant bi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967597)

Pretty clear they don't like faggots so I'm guessing they don't consider you a loss.

Re: I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant bi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968237)

YEAH! Pretty clear they don't like faggots so piss off you faggots. I like faggots just fine, it's the spineless faggots that have to sqawk about it all the time so other people don't think they're fag haters that I'm intollerant of. People need to look up what the word tolerate means. firefox sux with or without you dix.

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (1, Troll)

Microlith (54737) | about 5 months ago | (#46967665)

They're "intolerant bigots" because CEO stepped down over public furor regarding him being... an intolerant bigot? No, your logic is broken.

Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (2, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 5 months ago | (#46968875)

I am sure the gay employees at mozilla have spent private funds supporting their politics, and I didn't see that new ceo hassling them for it, even if he disagrees. Who's the better person here?

Anyway, none of this should matter because work is not a place where you get to hang out with the people you want to hang out with. You're going to encounter people who have beliefs and lifestyles that differ from yours. You're all there to work, not to establish little gay (or christian, or athletic etc) cliques and then demand the rest of society shield you from it. Whining and saying "I feel offended/unsafe" just to get someone fired for conflicting political beliefs is exactly the kind of systemic oppression people like yourself claim is such a problem. Nothing kills legitimacy faster than hypocrisy.

Quit telling us what we want, 'kay? (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 5 months ago | (#46967389)

FTA: "But we will experiment. In the coming weeks, we’ll be landing tests on our pre-release channels to see whether we can make things like the new tab page more useful, particularly for fresh installs of Firefox, where we don’t yet have any recommendations to make from your history."

Or how about just not recommending anything to me? That too complicated a concept, or just not enough money in it?

Funny thing about the web - I get to decide where I go and what I see and when. Any attempts to circumvent that control, whether by obnoxious advertising or regional access controls or even hijacking my new blank tabs with anything other than a new blank tab, people will push back against. And people will succeed, because you ain't the only game in town - And yes, that includes Mozilla, it includes Google, it includes Microsoft. Give us what we want, not what you wish we wanted, or we will move on and leave you to die from prolonged irrelevance.

Re:Quit telling us what we want, 'kay? (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 5 months ago | (#46967563)

That too complicated a concept, or just not enough money in it?

Funny thing about the web - I get to decide where I go and what I see and when.

Fine, write your own browser.

Mozilla is facing their $300M/yr revenue stream from Google going away as of December. Perhaps you can offer and execute a better plan for continuing to provide a good, secure, public-interest browser?

Heaven forbid they sell some ads and give people the option to turn that off ... it's worse than kidnapping little girls, I tell you!

Mozilla, don't listen to the haters - do what you need to to keep Firefox & Thunderbird alive and libre.

Re:Quit telling us what we want, 'kay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967761)

Or, Mozilla could nut up and sell the product to generate revenue.

Re:Quit telling us what we want, 'kay? (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 5 months ago | (#46968053)

Netscape tried that game back in the 90's. It didn't work and over time led to the creation of the Mozilla project.

Re:Quit telling us what we want, 'kay? (3, Interesting)

JMJimmy (2036122) | about 5 months ago | (#46967785)

If Google drops the ball, Microsoft will pick it up for the default search revenue. Mozilla also doesn't need the 300m/y for a public interest browser - they've got more products and experiments than you can shake a stick at and they're expanding into the mobile OS market which will likely result in tablet/pc market as well. They could pull back or eliminate duplication.

Why they need 11 offices globally is beyond me as well. Close down/consolidate the Vancouver, Portland, Auckland, Taipei, London, and Paris offices then open one in India and Brazil.

Re:Quit telling us what we want, 'kay? (2)

pla (258480) | about 5 months ago | (#46967861)

Fine, write your own browser.

Or we could just, y'know, use Chromium/Iron or MSIE or even a dark-horse like Opera or Safari.

Personally, I still use FF on my PC, though the last ESR version, I don't piss around with their daily feature-breaking releases. But for mobile, FF's refusal to just port the desktop version has left it so badly broken and unconfigurable to behave better that I actually use the default Android browser over FF. I'd go with Chrome, but by some incomprehensible business decision, Google hasn't backported Chrome to anything prior to ICS.

Re:Quit telling us what we want, 'kay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967767)

I sure as hell ain't going to donate money to Mozilla. Are you?

Re:Quit telling us what we want, 'kay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968527)

Mozilla has gotten so big that it *has* to generate lots of revenue or risk imploding. I think it needs to restructure to be a community focused organization and downsize its paid employee base, with paid contributors taking up the infrastructure and legal responsibilities. Coding should be done by the community.

Like the phoenix bird, let Fire Bird rise again! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967391)

Firefox has sucked for its entire life. Literally. More or less. It has varied. It's a mess. And Mozilla is cancer. Owned by Google. They have spyware and keyloggers in Firefox.

We really do need a new browser project that has ZERO keyloggers and Google ad bullshit.

Re: Like the phoenix bird, let Fire Bird rise agai (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967465)

[citation needed]

Re: Like the phoenix bird, let Fire Bird rise agai (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967497)

I hope you die as alone and unloved as you lived.

Now, if they would just ditch... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 5 months ago | (#46967419)

Now, if they would just ditch that awful fucking interface they just foisted on us...

Re:Now, if they would just ditch... (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 5 months ago | (#46967553)

Classic Theme Restorer add-on. Works well. Tabs underneath as I type this very message! https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]

Re:Now, if they would just ditch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967907)

thanks but that's not good enough. i shouldn't have to install extensions on a machine to be able to arrange things in a sane way. what happens when the extension breaks? calamity, that's what!

We are Chrome@Mozilla.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967463)

mozFacePlant () {
        ?
}
while [ "Mozilla" = "Chrome" ]; do
        mozFacePlant
done

Users don't have control (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967487)

Users don't have control over removed features in Australis interface and it has not stopped Mozilla. They are just stepping back a little after all Australis backlash.
Tabs on top for example, I have seen the common answer is that url bar is linked to content and should be below the tabs, but...
Why is the hamburger menu below the tabs? Why is the search bar below the tabs?
Why are other buttons below the tabs if they are global to firefox application?
Why is the download progress button below the tabs?
Is any of those items related to the tab content? NO. They are all global items, not related to current tab content.
Some people switch tabs more often than writing new url addresses with keyboard, it makes sense that the tabs are more closer to content if they are used more often. Removing the tabs on top is either laziness from Australis coders or poor planning. The theme restorer addon is a weak patch.

Users wouldn't have control over this (Australis) or see any actual benefit (of customization options removal). But that's what happened. That's who they are at Mozilla.

Firefox 29 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967491)

Is a polished, contrast-less turd.
They need to revert at least half a dozen major revs and try again.

Search engines bankroll Mozilla (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 5 months ago | (#46967505)

Lets be honest, they reason they're not going ahead with this is because they are not desperate for cash, Google et al are paying Mozilla hundreds of millions literally for their search engine to be prominent (Yahoo is the top placed search engine for Android Firefox).

And if this was prominent instead, it could cost them a pretty penny.

They were just worried (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967541)

That a conservative group was going to buy a tab with its own message.

Damn you firefox! (1, Insightful)

ADRA (37398) | about 5 months ago | (#46967585)

If I wanted my fucking browser to look like Chrome, guess what? I woud've switched to Chrome a long time ago. Now I get an update today and it looks like crap.. sigh. Where's the 'don't touch my old fucking settings because i'm a hating curmudgeon' button, because I think its time for it.

Re:Damn you firefox! (3, Informative)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 5 months ago | (#46967627)

Take a look at Pale Moon [palemoon.org] browser. It's built with FireFox source, but with a rational user interface layout.

Re:Damn you firefox! (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 5 months ago | (#46967733)

Where's the 'don't touch my old fucking settings because i'm a hating curmudgeon' button, because I think its time for it.

Don't worry, they kept the important parts. That being the fact that addons in Firefox are all powerful and can give you back everything you liked and hide all the new stuff [mozilla.org] , something that's never been diminished.

Re:Damn you firefox! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968349)

Oh, "it's like Chrome?" Cry some more and install a theme already, you big crybaby. There's even a Classic Theme Restorer. Better check for peas under your mattress, while you're at it. I wonder how much you'll cry when Mozilla finally goes under from having the dippiest and most self-entitled fanbase in history.

Options (1, Interesting)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about 5 months ago | (#46967613)

Not to mention that would be the last day I would use Firefox; not merely out of protest but because as a web developer I would know that Firefox's market share would break into the single digits within 6 months.

This amazes me how companies can become so distorted in their thinking that it would make sense for them to think that this would fly. While I like and use Firefox they must understand that my intrinsic loyalty is nearly pure habit. I have switched browsers maybe 5 times and anticipate that I will switch again. I am willing to bet that in 10 years that whatever browser I am using then doesn't even exist right now. Or in 10 years something may completely supplant the browser.

I have no major investment into a browser and it would take me minutes to switch. This is not like a car, if a better car comes out tomorrow I won't just dump my existing car and buy the better one. I suspect there is an economics/business term for when people are capable of switching products and brands in a heartbeat.

Re:Options (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968581)

Let me get this straight. Mozilla needs money, and users are already bitching that their finances are too tied to Google's. So when they try to do it in the most benign and harmless way, you threaten to leave them and call their thinking "distorted"?

You're the one who loses with this attitude, because it's not the powerful companies who will go under, it's the smaller ones. We just lost Opera, and so Mozilla's is now the only browser engine not controlled by one of the most powerful tech businesses in the world who only care about their own interests.

If we lose Mozilla because nobody cared, it wouldn't be Mozilla's thinking that was "distorted" in the end.

What browser alternatives do we have? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967667)

I use Chromium and it's okay... Basically just Chrome without some of the tracking features and it doesn't come prepackaged with Flash (at least not my Linux version)

Konqueror used to be a really great browser but I don't use KDE, don't want the libs, and it still isn't as functional as Chromium, tho it has a much prettier gui.

Can anyone recommend a decent alternative or set of alternatives? Abrowser and Aurora or IceWeasel are just Firefox clones. I sure miss the days of Firefox prior to Deer Park *sigh*

-pete

Re:What browser alternatives do we have? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967779)

aww poor linux nerd not have any software worth a shit

sucks to be you, enjoy your freedom of all those clone fork choices of the same 3 packages

Re:What browser alternatives do we have? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967877)

What are you going on about? You make a false claim and fail to back it up by not mentioning any browser alternatives. Isn't the pony board on 4chan missing you?

I don't use Windows because it LACKS software I need to get work done. You are truly a 12 yr old idiot.

*spins the cube* "weeeeeeee!"

-pete

I abandoned firefox (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 5 months ago | (#46967799)

and started using seamonkey, i dont like firefox's new user interface, the stop & refresh button is now embedded on the right hand side of the address-bar and no way to move it back (i want it back to the left). and i notice now when i close firefox that artifacts stay in memory so if i relaunch firefox again a dialog pops up telling me firefox is already running.

maybe when i get some new hardware and install a newer release of Linux i will give firefox another try, but until then i got to keep this old junk working the best i can

Re:I abandoned firefox (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 5 months ago | (#46968517)

... and i notice now when i close firefox that artifacts stay in memory so if i relaunch firefox again a dialog pops up telling me firefox is already running.

Uh, it's not supposed to do that. That's an issue with your Firefox and a fresh install would probably fix it.

A True Community Project (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967827)

has no business making a profit. Non-profit all the way. I have for the last seveal years, worked for non-profits. My political leanings don't gel well with the notion that I work for a profit-centered venture. As an IT guy, it's more rewarding to work for a non-profit, as I actually have less resources to work with and have to become more knowledgeable and crafty to work with what I do have. It's been easier to get Linux and BSD into these envvironments as well.

So, I agree with Mozilla removing the new tab monetization scheme. I almost stopped using Mozilla until I learned the plan would likely fail.

Never ads, but .... (1)

noshellswill (598066) | about 5 months ago | (#46967899)

Just so happens my Hanns-G 28" monitor went tits-up, and I'm actively searching RIGHT NOW  for a replacement. Boy-oh-boy would I appreciate for a couple weeks the most-damn clever search algorythm scouring the WWW for me and identiying ( negotiating ??!! )  high value & too-clever choices for that replacement  monitor.  Motif leans toward a real pal-in-the-business,  or a mans' man .. a butler ... something appropriately 19th Century that knows its place as well as knowing job.

Mebby  images/factoids would  be presented in the FFox tab-tiles !!!
Now ... after I buy I'd want those clever ads begone!  Ads just vanish  without excessive prompting. How to do that product display in a robust non-advisarial context is the question.   

Leave Firefox alone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46967931)

And give us Mozilla office, without the java, please...

Nearing my wit's end with Firefox's bullshit (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 5 months ago | (#46967965)

If SeaMonkey had tab groups, I'd switch in an instant.

Reload/Stop Button Unmovable (1)

Richard24 (1036452) | about 5 months ago | (#46967967)

The reload button embedded into the url bar without the ability to move it back to the sane place next to the other navigation buttons (home, back/forward, stop/reload) is the killer for me. I mean, wth. Thankfully the classic theme restorer helps out if you can jump through the right setting hoops, as this is a terrible design in my opinion. IE does this and I can't move it. I don't use IE. Chrome does this but lets me move it. I almost switch back to using chrome as my more permanent browser because of this. Whoever thought putting a tiny stop/reload button here should be removed from making u/i decisions. We wind up with command buttons on the left, command buttons on the right, and a command button in the middle for good measure. Pffttt.

almost there..... (1)

indy_Muad'Dib (869913) | about 5 months ago | (#46967995)

now if they can just get rid of australis and make the browser actually useable again it would be perfect.

Re:almost there..... (4, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 5 months ago | (#46968093)

It is different. That doesn't make it unusable. Seriously, the browser is not unusuable because the UI elements changed slightly.

Re:almost there..... (1)

bluegutang (2814641) | about 5 months ago | (#46968977)

But the browser becomes much more difficult to use if the UI elements change significantly every two weeks.

Re:almost there..... (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 5 months ago | (#46969001)

Last time it did a dramatic change was with 4.0 in 2011. That's hardly "every two weeks."

Now we just need a status bar and (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968101)

I can reinstall Firefox.

Firefox is about money now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968331)

Firefox has grown to the point were it is more about money than the users. Google's dominance was the first big shot across the bow of its mission. Now this and the continued Chromification of the UI.

So it is decision time. Abandon the mission or the money. Unfortunately, I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.
Time for a fork...

Re:Firefox is about money now (4, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 5 months ago | (#46968455)

Firefox has grown to the point were it is more about money than the users. Google's dominance was the first big shot across the bow of its mission. Now this and the continued Chromification of the UI.

So it is decision time. Abandon the mission or the money. Unfortunately, I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.

Mission is still the same, regardless if you're on the train or not.

Time for a fork...

People have already done this long ago. Not a lot of poeple using them though. Turns out most people may actually like these changes.

Re:Firefox is about money now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968919)

Turns out most people may actually like these changes.

and here's the stats to prove it! [mozilla.org] . Oh wait...

Re:Firefox is about money now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46969007)

It does. There's _quite a lot_ of Firefox users. Most of them has not installed that addon.

What's the greatest nation in the world? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46968635)

Donation!
If more people donated Mozilla would have no need to explore such options.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?