Mozilla Details How Old Plugins Will Be Blocked In Firefox 17 152
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."
Yet another reason to dump FF (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't those folks have anything better to do?
Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Social API Sounds Like a Privacy Nightmare (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
privacy controls in social API? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet another reason to dump FF (Score:4, Insightful)
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:how long (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Bizarre selection of core features (Score:5, Insightful)
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:how long (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't care if a program is designed poorly and eats up memory because you enjoy buying more?
Are you a fucking moron?
Seriously Firefox get your act together.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.....
Will Firefox ever allow users to remove plugins?! (Score:3, Insightful)
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!!!!
Re:how long (Score:5, Insightful)
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.