Firefox 31 Released 172
An anonymous reader writes Mozilla has released version 31 of its Firefox web browser for desktops and Android devices. According to the release notes, major new features include malware blocking for file downloads, automatic handling of PDF and OGG files if no other software is available to do so, and a new certificate verification library. Smaller features include a search field on the new tab page, better support for parental controls, and partial implementation of the OpenType MATH table. Firefox 31 is also loaded with new features for developers. Mozilla also took the opportunity to note the launch of a new game, Dungeon Defenders Eternity, which will run at near-native speeds on the web using asm.js, WebGL, and Web Audio. "We're pleased to see more developers using asm.js to distribute and now monetize their plug-in free games on the Web as it strengthens support for Mozilla's vision of a high performance, plugin-free Web."
Updating NOW! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Spyware companies will love it (Score:5, Insightful)
No disabling Canvas tracking and they even included
navigator.sendBeacon by default so "analytics" is easier to send using onunload handlers. thanks Mozilla , i cant tell you how many users asked for that feature
Mozilla : comitted to your privacy*
*not applicable in your area
Re:Spyware companies will love it (Score:5, Informative)
Some background - since I was unaware:
http://www.ghacks.net/2014/07/... [ghacks.net]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean the same thing that you could already do a number of ways, but had to be synchronous. You have to completely remove onunload and onbeforeunload to prevent such things.
Re:Spyware companies will love it (Score:4, Informative)
sendBeacon was already possible with JS using XHR, just in a slower and more user-unfriendly manner. And unlike XHR, you can disable sendBeacon without breaking the Web, so it's actually better for privacy.
However, if you want to completely prevent any sendBeacon-like activity, you need to just disable JS on that page.
Re: (Score:3)
Preventing canvas tracking isn't simply a matter of fixing a bug. A solution would require something like "don't use the GPU" or "don't use platform font rasterization", either of which are completely unacceptable for most users due to degradation of performance or visual quality.
If you've got a simple fix to canvas tracking, let the world know what it is, OK?
Re:Spyware companies will love it (Score:4, Insightful)
Read again what I wrote: Don't let scripts read back the canvas content.
Note that web browsers have previously removed features to protect privacy. For example, the ability to use arbitrary styles with the :visited selector was removed to prevent web sites from partially reconstructing browsing history.
Another feature that needs to be removed is access to all locally installed fonts except for a minimal set of default fonts. With web fonts this is hardly a limitation, but access to local fonts enables a very effective fingerprinting technique.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't reading the canvas important to doing image manipulation operations? So disabling that might cause some problems... in the future. But for now, you're right, we need a check box in preferences to "prevent scripts from reading Canvas contents," or just hard code the disabling.
Re: (Score:2)
Allowing the browser to access to locally installed fonts (for rendering text) should not be a problem. What should be disabled is the ability for the browser to inform the web server about the installed fonts, as well as other characteristics of the system.
Re: (Score:2)
No disabling Canvas tracking and they even included Go to about:config and set "webgl.disabled" to true.
It's not perfect... But from what I can understand this will atleast mitigate the issue: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~hovav/... [ucsd.edu]
Either way, this does indeed seems like a very hard problem. And disabling canvas might not be enough. See the article from before.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Same here. It has been one fuck up after another with Firefox lately. Each time Firefox updates, I feel like Mozilla has once again spread their collective asscheeks right over my face, and shit upon my eyes and down my nostrils and my throat. As much as I hate using Google software, I think I'm going to switch to Chromium. Although it and Firefox have the same shitty UI these days, at least Chromium isn't a slow hunk of lard like Firefox is.
Re: (Score:2)
Chromium is good if you have 8GB of RAM just to browse the web, and you like that featureless unchangeable UI with 10% the features and options of Firefox's one.. Plus I tried a flashblock extension on it and it sucked.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't finding it in the options lol. Found out there's a "search" in the options and found it that way.
The non-standard UI widgets where tricking me. I didn't think a featureless long rectangle button would open a subpage.
Re:We need a new browser (Score:4, Insightful)
I certainly think so. It's a real pity that mozilla is just becoming a dud social justice warrior organisation now. I guess the people who work for them all aspire to work for google, which is probably why their trying to do an orange version of google chrome...
Since the UI changes, and getting rather annoyed with FF29 (or was it 30) which would constantly block stuff or ask for permission (like vista) to enable things, I just moved to opera. Not sure if it's good on the security and privacy side, but at least the UI, for the most part is lightweight. Needs a few improvements. I'd stick with FF28, but not very keen on running unpatched versions, and it was having many issues anyway with stability, so I guess it's better to just move along.
Re: (Score:2)
Switched to Pale Moon [palemoon.org] when Firefox when full-Google Chrome in the UI; it's like Firefox classic, compiled for 64-bit systems.
Only been slightly annoying at work, due to Cisco's WebEx not having a 64-bit plugin, a fact that I can't seem to remember before trying to join an online meeting... every. damn. time.
Oh, and annoying when Firefox Sync upgraded their back-end in ways that blocked Pale Moon from working. Installed Xmarks (hey, I use LastPass anyway, why not) and forgot all about Sync thanks to being ab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhh, everybody should be disabling JavaScript. JavaScript is a disease upon the web, it's a disease upon privacy, it's a disease upon reducing power consumption, it's a disease upon good programming languages, and it's a disease upon computing in general. Just because Slashdot has fucked up and used JavaScript where it totally isn't needed doesn't mean that JavaScript is somehow acceptable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can stick with gopher, but the rest of the world has moved on.
Re: (Score:2)
Argumentum ad populum.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not.
It's pointing out that it's stupid because as time goes on, less and less of the web is going to work if you have javascript turned off because such a minority does that that they're mostly ignored.
Like gopher users.
Re: (Score:3)
The average user shouldn't be blanket disabling Javascript, as doing so will break 99.9% of the internet (including this commenting system).
That last part is not true. This reply was made with Javascript disabled. Just go into the options and switch to "Classic Discussion System (D1)". The only part that requires scripting is if you want to look at the individual mods by clicking on the message score. The rest (including performing moderations) work fine.
Re: (Score:2)
What if someone just wants to browse "web 1.0" sites (like wikipedia) on a low spec machine. Maybe that's too rare of a use case but it would be nice to have a javascript-less browser with everything else working. Maybe a separate firefox instance which will at least not crash when you're just using it for reading text mainly.
But I've never really tried javascript-less Firefox. I use dillo, which is nice for some things (but currently browsing slashdot on it sucks, I think). Despite being javascript-less I
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like cookies? Why are cookies not the appropriate solution to a standardized way to track users if they choose to allow themselves to be tracked.
Sure. Disable readback from the Canvas. Done.
If FireFox took a stand against stupid bullshit that costs more tha
Re: (Score:2)
Raise your hand if you really thought firing Brendan Eich was about LGBT rights and not corporate control over the window to the web...
Maybe better to just start calling them Netscape again.
We are wise to this (Score:2, Insightful)
All right. What features did they remove, hide, or obscure? What part of the established GUI did they fuck with?
Re:We are wise to this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't they just improved how they check malware databases. I don't think anything else changed.
Re: (Score:2)
FFS, my 40+ bookmark urlicons and folders just disappeared, the bookmark bar is still there, it is blank now. 1-click access to sites gone and some indeterminate amount of time pissing about trying to get them back.
Because hey, who doesn't want to click-type-type-type-type-click-wait-click to visit their favourite sites.
Re: (Score:2)
no thanks (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll install it when that godawful Australis interface is rolled back or replaced with something less eye-bleedingly bad. (And no, the craptastic classic plug-in is not a long-term solution.) For now, I'm holding at v28 (on Linux Mint or Ubuntu: "sudo apt-mark hold firefox"), and pondering what to do re security updates in the long run.
Firefox has gone down the ugly-UI-shuffle-for-the-hell-of-it route, Chrome sends an astounding amount of telemetry back to the hive-mind, and IE's performance is still a total joke even if I can see past the OS implications and numbingly-bad design. Are niche browsers all we have left?
Re:no thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
...and I'm not alone. According to Moz's own dev feedback tools, the Australis phelgm-globber of an interface has been trending at 80%-dislike from day one after introduction..
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/11/less-than-20-per-cent-of-users-like-firefoxs-new-australis-ui/
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/999831
http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/05/12/133214
Re: (Score:2)
80% of the people who went to the like/dislike menu item and got past the follow up screen disliked Firefox.
Re: (Score:3)
Pale Moon on windows.
Seamonkey sorta kinda on linux, unless you want to build Pale Moon yourself for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using it on windows since about 22 or 24 I think, and I didn't even know there WAS a Linux version of Palemoon! Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently they actually started making it for Linux? Until very recently, Pale Moon has been windows only, and only some months ago that unofficial Linux builds started coming out from third parties.
This suggests that Firefox dug itself into a hole so deep that there was enough demand for Pale Moon on Linux to make guys who build the browser specifically optimized for Windows to make a Linux version as well. Wow. Well done Mozilla.
Re:no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
My gripe about the new Firefox is not the Australis interface per se, but it's an example of the core problem: Firefox removes features without giving you a choice or a way to re-enable them without plugins. For example:
Separate Stop/Reload buttons. I get shivers of terror when I think back on the days of slow dial-up when a page would seem to hang when it was almost loaded, so I would go to hit the Stop button, only to realize in horror that it changed to Reload an instant before I pressed it, and the page would start loading again from scratch. I don't want buttons to change functionality due to forces outside my control. But hey, at least it saves a few pixels. (More on that later)
The Find bar. Without a plugin, it can no longer be made persistent across tabs. Whose genius idea was it to not only change the default behavior, but to make the previous default behavior impossible? Did it ever occur to them that I might want to look up the same thing on more than one tab?
Then there are the defaults they changed that don't require a plugin, but you do have to go into about:config to fix them. Separate download folders for different sites? It took me 3 weeks to figure out why after downloading several files I couldn't find them. They were in the default Windows Download folder, which I never use. Then it took me another 3 weeks to figure out why it kept jumping back to that folder, seemingly at random. Finally I figured out that it "helpfully" separated the downloads by site, which is a horrible way of doing it. And not only do you have to go to about:config to fix it, but the entry to fix it isn't even there! You have to add it yourself!
Since I'm on a roll, I might as well bitch about my other issues with Firefox. How about their schizophrenic design philosophy?
They remove the menu bar because it's using up too much screen real estate. (Ignoring the fact that the menu bar is a GREAT place to put toolbar buttons so you don't need an extra toolbar) All right, I disagree with their philosophy of trying to save every pixel they can for the page itself, but at least I can understand that it's a legitimate philosophy. Then they go and make the Back/Forward buttons gigantic so that they waste pixels that could be used on the page. Not to mention the wasted space from the rounded tabs, which means you can fit fewer tabs on screen at once. They should at least be consistent. If they're willing to waste space, why not "waste" it on stuff that's functional, like the menu bar?
In short, the designers are (willfully?) ignorant of the fact that not everyone uses their web browser exactly the same way they do. They could avoid all the gripes by all the users if they did one thing: Any time they change the interface, add an easy-to-find checkbox under the options to restore the old functionality. It shouldn't require looking through about:config (and especially searching the internet for the correct item to add), or worse, a plugin, to change things back to the way they were. EVER.
Re: (Score:2)
"Separate download folders for different sites"
I've never seen that behavior, is that Windows specific ?
___
When you say plugin, I think mean extension.
___
While I may agree or not with you or the designers, but they've changed so much an 'easy-to-find checkbox under the options to restore the old functionality' seems infeasible.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I always delete my download history, so yes maybe that is how Firefox does it.
Re: (Score:2)
I dug this out: https://mail.mozilla.org/piper... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the party, except you are many years behind the 'crowd' - a lot of people (but fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things) abandoned Firefox over the "Awesome Bar" debacle, where you couldn't even go back to the old functionality at all (yeah yeah, loads of people posted "fixes" which did nothing more than change the skin, while doing nothing to revert the underlying behaviour), so the current situation is nothing new.
The way the Awesome Bar was dumped on us pushed Firefox way down on my
Re:no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
> In short, the designers are (willfully?) ignorant of the fact that > not everyone uses their web browser exactly the same way > they do.
Aren't you make that mistake yourself?
No, he's not making the same mistake. He's perfectly willing to let others use the new design and features - he just wants a way to keep the old behaviour, and so do I.
> Any time they change the interface, add an easy-to-find > checkbox under the options to restore the old functionality.
That leads to an explosion of difficult-to-understand checkboxes in the UI, and an unmaintainable mess under the hood.
I'm not very well qualified to comment on the 'unmaintainable mess', but it smells fishy to me. If Pale Moon can keep the old behaviour while incorporating the new security enhancements, surely Mozilla can keep the old UI and the new one without compromising maintainability. Especially since addon designers have been doing pretty much that for your users for 25 or more releases. And as for the 'difficult to understand check boxes', scratch them. Just give us a well documented set of 'about:config' entries that are already present and prefixed with something like "old behaviour" so can go to one block of entries, change them all, and be done. Heck, you could boil it down to ONE entry called 'browser.pre_australis_mode'.
I'm pretty sure that won't happen though, not because it's too much work, but because Mozilla is hell bent on me-tooing their way into the future with all the other browser makers whose attitude is 'screw the users'. So in the meantime I'm using Pale Moon. Yes, I see the apparent hypocrisy in that decision. I hope Mozilla sees the hypocrisy of bringing private corporation attitudes to their ostensibly FOSS organization.
User stats are daft. Mozilla is being led by fools (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla asks for user data and people who do not opt-into that are not contributing data. Me being one of the many who do not-- I suspect intermediate and advanced users comprise the majority of this group. This means their data of people not using things like menu bars because they getting metrics from the most daft users of firefox.
Good designers will use metrics only as a factor not as a mindless system to think for you. Simplistic metrics are a whole issue in themselves along with improper use of statistics (on metrics) which is a common problem as well. Menu bars are never used heavily but they are extremely useful - of all times, in 2014 when phones have more screen space than a desktop did in the 90s we suddenly become obsessed with screen space??
Great designers also will accommodate advanced users and the large base of existing users by not arbitrarily pissing them off. Necessary changes can be done more gradually along with instructions on how to change the feature. (like making sure the user knows how to get to menus when you killed them... and to not foobar the pop-up menu version of the menubar... proper grouping and hierarchy make large things easier.) Also the current situation of "don't make me think" is likely a fad in the design world; I hope that users want to use their brains effectively in the future; otherwise, Edward Tufte etc. are irrelevant as we devolve.
If Mozilla wants to REALLY be a community they will let users choose and try something democratic, such as opt-in or opt-out of a major interface change. Since opt-in would never gain a majority of the users on these recent changes; the designers would naturally push for an opt-out policy but at least they could measure their failure by making opt-out easy to do (like force the user to use it for a few months before presenting the option.) At least then users at all skill levels feel empowered and PART OF SOMETHING (mozilla could even use the opportunity to leverage altruism and promote an organization image unlike the top-down corporate browsers.)
FURTHERMORE, it doesn't matter how many more daft users you have over the advanced users. Your software is not default like IE was. Users install Firefox because of people like slashdot readers. I have brought mozilla 100s of users and I can take them away, some already left for Chrome anyhow... but many do what their nerd or IT staff tells them to do (or whomever sets the default.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I switched to Pale Moon [palemoon.org], and I am very pleased. I used Firefox and its Mozilla predecessors since about v. 0.92, and I was horrified and traumatized by FF v. 29. PM is the browser Firefox should have been. The following is taken from the Pale Moon home page.
AC above (Score:2)
I forgot to sign in before posting. I apologize.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox has gone down the ugly-UI-shuffle-for-the-hell-of-it route, Chrome sends an astounding amount of telemetry back to the hive-mind, and IE's performance is still a total joke even if I can see past the OS implications and numbingly-bad design. Are niche browsers all we have left?
It's rather ironic that seamless integration with the OS is much less of a privacy issue than seamless integration with remote servers nowadays....
Re:no thanks (Score:4, Informative)
I'll install it when that godawful Australis interface is rolled back or replaced with something less eye-bleedingly bad
If enough of us move to Pale Moon, (it's all I've used since shortly after Australis first shat all over my computer screen), then perhaps Mozilla will get the hint that we love Firefox, but hate what it's become. And if they don't get the hint, well, then we're supporting a viable alternative for the time when Mozilla gets eaten by the shark it just jumped.
BTW, although the Linux version of Pale Moon is 'unofficial' and maintained by somebody outside the organization, I've had no trouble running it under Debian Jessie with all of my usual addons.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure if it is the same thing but I have been using the craptastic Classic Theme Restorer which also fixed some other UI problems.
Malware blocking for file downloads (Score:5, Informative)
The "malware blocking for file downloads" is a severe invasion of privacy. It works by sending the URL of nearly every downloaded file to Google.
When a binary file is downloaded, the user-agent extracts several pieces of metadata about the file, including:
The target URL from which the file was downloaded, its referrer URL and any URLs in the redirect chain.
The SHA-256 hash of the contents of the file.
Any certificate verification information obtained through the Windows Authenticode APIs.
The length of the file in bytes.
The suggested filename for the download.
Remote lookup (present in FF 32)
The user-agent stuffs all file metadata into a ClientDownloadRequest protocol buffer and sends it to the remote service.
This remote service is https://sb-ssl.google.com/safe... [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Can it be disabled at least?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it can be disabled. You have to use the "about:config" page, which means that disabling it is considered a completely unsupported operation. There is no checkbox in the main GUI to disable it!
Re:Malware blocking for file downloads (Score:5, Informative)
How to turn off this feature
Do any one of the following:
Turn off browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled in about:config or in the Preferences > Security > "Block reported attack sites." This disables all Safebrowsing malware protection, including the warning interstitial that appears when the user navigates to a malware site.
Replace browser.safebrowsing.appRepURL in about:config with an empty string. This disables application reputation checks but leaves other Safebrowsing malware protection intact.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Secur... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. :)
Re: (Score:3)
It can be disabled, but can you trust that they won't "accidentally" turn it back on with an update? If you must use Chrome, use Chromium instead. The only practical difference besides that it doesn't spy on you for Google is that you need to install a Flash player (if desired) manually.
Re: (Score:3)
You would almost think that there was a relation between Google paying Mozilla large amounts of money and Google's desire to get as much information from users as they possibly can.
Misfeatures (Score:3, Informative)
If you really want to do something about malware, disable javascript by default.
"Automatic handling of pdf and ogg files" - I have a pdf reader already. I dont need another one, and I dont need one 'integrated' in my browser, period.
"loaded with new features for developers." Pretty sure that means for advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
> "Automatic handling of pdf and ogg files" - I have a pdf reader
> already. I dont need another one, and I dont need one
> 'integrated' in my browser, period.
From the release notes: "audio/video .ogg and .pdf files handled by Firefox *if no application specified*" (emphasis added).
> "loaded with new features for developers." Pretty sure that
> means for advertisers.
You just made that up.
Re: (Score:2)
From the release notes: "audio/video .ogg and .pdf files handled by Firefox *if no application specified*" (emphasis added).
Does the bloat in the browser go away the moment I install Sumatra?
Re: (Score:2)
The pdf javascript reader wastes kilobytes on your / or C:\ partition, that's all.
But it is handy to have it for some people. I even like sometimes just to have a black and white pdf in a tab, it's not even crashing the browser like in the old days of using acrobat reader plugin. Then a click on the download button will open it in my pdf reader of choice if I need/want it.
Chromium gets it worse : it thinks I want to open it in xpdf. I like having xpdf around (and will install it as the only reader on a ligh
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to do something about malware, disable javascript by default.
What if you want to do something about malware, but don't want the hassle of re-enabling javascript when you actually want it to work (because, contrary to popular belief, it can actually be employed usefully)? What if you're too lazy to install another piece of software, or just don't want to install another piece of software? What if, god forbid, someone has different an idea on what to do about malware to you?
"Automatic handling of pdf and ogg files" - I have a pdf reader already. I dont need another one
Well, good news! Because as you carefully omitted to quote, "...if no other software is availabl
Re:Misfeatures (Score:4, Informative)
Speaking of misfeatures, your entire post is in tt.
You know where else I could've read about this? (Score:2)
And also seen if there were any other interesting projects out there, and check on the latest versions of other free software that I use?
Freecode.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm...
"Effective 2014-06-18 Freecode is no longer being updated (content may be stale)"
Or were you making a joke that just whooshed by me?
When will firefox support TLS-SRP? (Score:2)
It's 2014 and we are all still transmitting passwords in clear text web forms over SSL.
Re: (Score:2)
No support for DANE (certificate information stored in DNS and secured with DNSSEC) either. And the bug on the issue just says "we have no plans to support this" rather than "patches please"
Re: (Score:2)
Because JavaScript Cryptography Considered Harmful [matasano.com]. Which, of course, depends on whether CAs, and the authorities that govern them, are part of your threat model.
Re: (Score:2)
No major browser supports this today.
Memory hog on Linux (Score:2)
Thank you for turning my notebook into a feels-like-a-286 machine by now.
With 10 tabs open it hogs almost 2GB of RAM. Used to be a fraction of it and I haven't noticed any functional improvements between now and then.
Basically it now renders an obsolete machine (T60p) into an obsolete piece of hardware without the need to do so.
Congratulations.
Re: (Score:3)
But is it really Firefox's fault? I mean, while I also think that Firefox is a memory hog compared to others, at least on OS X, something did change over the years: the weight of web pages.
It used to be that most website would only require a few dozen kilobytes, or a few hundreds at the most. But these days, people who think they understand responsive design take the easy way out and just send 4 megapixel images and let the browsers resize them as needed.
Re: (Score:2)
This page
This one [slashdot.org]
This one [slashdot.org]
Dealnews [dealnews.com]
This one [freebsddiary.org]
This one [microchip.com]
And, a couple of intranet pages.
I use Flashblock (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Newsflash: Your Thinkpad with a Core Duo is obsolete. You're on the same ground as my 2006 MBP (MacBook Pro 1,1) - 32-bit and forgotten.
With leadership like this, who needs enemies? (Score:3)
As Stephen Elop to Nokia, so Google to Mozilla. We should have known. Actually, we knew and there wasn't a damned thing anyone could do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Holy Bourgeois Aesthetic demands we only allow people with Strong, Stout Hearts to rule over us.
I think the Eich coup was about where I gave up on "social justice", as the game is presently played, being any more than a fashion accessory for the upper middle class.
almost-4 year old bug report addressed! (Score:2)
My bug has finally been fixed - if you've always wanted to vertically center text in a select box, you're now good to go. Seriously, filed it in November of 2010, as as I can recall.
And again... (Score:2)
Another release, another time when their own FTP server is the LAST place to get the release.
Last time it took around a week until the Android version (30) was available here [mozilla.org], where previously that was the first place to find it.
What's next, changelog on twitter only?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, appeared while I was complaining. You win this round, Mozilla!
I will not stop saying this, I won't,... (Score:2)
1STABILITY
2PERFORMANCE
3FEATURES
4USER INTERFACE FUCKING FIDDLING
Christ lord almighty, this program has gone to the shitter and it's killing me, PLEASE focus in that damned order.
First I thought it was me or my machine, because I'm an extremely heavy tab user, but I'm seeing it on my other machines too. Yes, I run a heck of a lot of tabs in some sessions (probably over 100 right now) however Firefox has run over 100 tabs for me for the best part of 8+ years.
When I'm researching I have 8 tabs open, it's what
Re: (Score:2)
Why update the browser at all then?
Firerfox development suite. (Score:2)
Why? 99.99% of users will not use the development parts of Firefox which will no doubt bloat it up massively, introduce vulnerabilities and slow the browser down.
If you want to create some kind of web development suit then fine, do that, but don't stick it in Firefox FFS.
Better idea: (Score:2)
encourage everyone to hack the pages their browser shows to make them their own. Stop being consumers.
Pale Moon equivalent for Mac? (Score:2)
Pale Moon looks like what I really want in a browser, but there's no Mac version.
Does anyone know of a similar project for Macs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That version is horribly out of date. You should update now unless you're using distro supported version of Firefox where the patches have been backported.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They always were generally meaningless. Just like the Linux kernel versions. Just think about how much changed from Linux 2.0 to 2.6.39.
On Firefox - how long did we stay on FF 3.x? Does anyone really care what the version number says? Mozilla tends to make changes that can break backwards compatibility for plugins every other release, so why shouldn't they increment the major number?
Re: (Score:2)
Wikimedia.
Some test cases for your Vorbis player (Score:2)
Re:I would like (just) a web browser please (Score:4, Interesting)
Next you'll be asking it to not leak memory like a sieve.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you take that browser from the old days, run it on today's web sites, and see how many hundreds of MB it takes. Assuming it loads them at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Feels like the good old days when I ran Internet Explorer 5. Though the "extensions" were automatically installed and consisted of a porn page that opens up in a new window, or software attempting to dial out to an abroad phone number.
File explore / browser integration was even pretty good, I could recycle some unused file manager window. Or do my file stuff, then go on the web, or on an FTP server. Worst machine I used on it had only 40MB of RAM and it was still good.
Obviously, I had to let it go.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing Classic Theme restorer can't do is set the tab size to small values. I use the Custom Tab Width extension with a minimum tab width of 20 px; Australis' stupid tab redesign ensures that widths below ~50px are unusable.
Re: (Score:3)
I would welcome with open arms and tears of joy a Firefox release that could survive a day -- heck, even half a day -- without crashing. It's such a joy to come back from grabbing a cub of coffee or lunch to find that I have to restart effin' Firefox and reload all my tabs again.
Re: (Score:3)
I would welcome with open arms and tears of joy a Firefox release that could survive a day -- heck, even half a day -- without crashing. It's such a joy to come back from grabbing a cub of coffee or lunch to find that I have to restart effin' Firefox and reload all my tabs again.
Have you considered that maybe it's you, not Firefox? Have you got flaky plugins installed? Or flaky extensions? Some extensions have been known not to play nice with others.
I use Firefox heavily every day (always on the latest release) and I haven't had it crash in literally years. Nor have I found it a memory hog. As I type this I have 10 different sites open and Firefox is using ~400 meg.
Re: (Score:2)
On my linux machine it always end up crashing, but sometimes I can see a whole day without a crash. I can sometimes see it coming : web page somewhat freezing up, hard disk grinding and then bam it's bombed.
Now I should do some tab clean up again.. after a crash, I can't load all my tabs (too many of them) so I reload some tabs but open new ones to do stuff, instead of hunting for and reusing older tabs. And I don't really know how to open the "clean up tabs" window without crashing the browser first. I'd l
Re: (Score:2)
RFC 1925 compliant browser (Score:2)
3.6: "It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving the problem to a different part of the overall network architecture) than it is to solve it."