Firefox 37 Released 156
Today Mozilla began rolling out Firefox version 37.0 to release channel users. This update mostly focuses on behind-the-scenes changes. Security improvements include opportunistic encryption where servers support it and improved protection against site impersonation. They also disabled insecure TLS version fallback and added a security panel within the developer tools. One of the things end users will see is the Heartbeat feedback collection system. It will pop up a small rating widget to a random selection of users every day. After a user rates Firefox, an "engagement" page may open in the background, with links to social media pages and a donation page. Here are the release notes and full changelist.
Opportunisic encryption brings attackers to light (Score:2)
Thanks, Mozilla!
Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share issue (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Firefox user, I'm very concerned when I see its market share dropping month after month.
These stats from US gov't websites [usa.gov] show Firefox's market share at 11%.
Other global stats [caniuse.com] paint a very similar picture.
Globally, I suspect that Firefox's share of the market is only about 10%. That's pretty abysmal, especially for a browser that was so popular once. It used to hold well over 30% of the market at one time.
Chrome for Android alone now has a greater share of the market than Firefox on all platforms does. Even IE 11, by itself, has about as many users as Firefox does in total.
Why aren't trends like these scaring the living hell out of Mozilla, as an organization?
Don't they realize that Firefox is the only reason they have any sort of influence over the web? Nobody really cares about any of their other projects, I hate to say.
Why don't we hear more from Mozilla about this market share issue? The number of Firefox users keeps dropping month after month, probably because so many Firefox users are unhappy about the awful UI changes, and about how its memory usage and performance continues to lag Chrome and even IE. I want to see real results, not just unrealistic benchmarks showing mythical improvements that I don't actually get to experience as I browse the web!
Nobody will care what Mozilla thinks if the number of Firefox users continues to drop each month. This trend won't continue forever. At some point there will be a negligible number of Firefox users around, and Mozilla will be powerless at that point. Google already has enough power as it is. In that situation, they'd have almost full control over the web. That scares me a lot, and it should scare Mozilla, too!
Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you ever tried to talk sense in a bug report on Bugzilla? Most of the Mozilla crew aren't interested in fixing bugs users want fixed, they're downright hostile. It's all about people's pet projects and inflated egos. Just go to Bugzilla yourself and look at how many of the top vote getting bugs are fixed and how many are over 10 YEARS old. At this point it's become a pissing match between users and Mozilla, with Mozilla thumbing their noses at users and daring them to use another browser if they don't like it. Users are taking them up on that offer.
Re: Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share i (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder how much of that is just perception - I have found that when comparing the latest Chrome and Firefox that Firefox has better performance, at least in terms of CPU usage and memory consumption. I was surprised by this because I generally use it with Firebug which drastically impairs the performance, I just didn't realize how bad it was.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Firefox user, I'm very concerned when I see its market share dropping month after month.
These stats from US gov't websites [usa.gov] show Firefox's market share at 11%.
Other global stats [caniuse.com] paint a very similar picture.
Globally, I suspect that Firefox's share of the market is only about 10%. That's pretty abysmal, especially for a browser that was so popular once. It used to hold well over 30% of the market at one time.
Chrome for Android alone now has a greater share of the market than Firefox on all platforms does. Even IE 11, by itself, has about as many users as Firefox does in total.
Why aren't trends like these scaring the living hell out of Mozilla, as an organization?
Because the Firefox devs think their browser should pander to the tablet-interface loving users, with advanced features hidden and the GUI dumbed down - while a large part of their user base specifically wants an "advanced" browser with lots of addons which does NOT look like Chrome. So lots of users are leaving, and the Firefox devs in their ivory tower wonder why nobody likes their "vision" of the perfect browser and why the users do not "get" that the devs KNOW what's best.
Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is (Score:5, Insightful)
Why aren't trends like these scaring the living hell out of Mozilla, as an organization?
I think they probably do. At least, that's the reason I've always felt explained the Chromification of Firefox. That dumbing-down and relative takeover of the project direction by "UX designers" and "social media engineers" was allowed because the powers at the top felt that it was the only way they could try and recover some of the userbase lost to Chrome.
What they don't realize is that Firefox was created to "take back the web" [mozilla.cz] from the stagnating Internet Explorer 6. It was never about replacing IE as some overbearing dominant beast.
And Firefox succeeded! Development on IE was revitalized by Microsoft, Google released Chrome, and work was renewed on web standards (a whole 'nuther can of worms there, but a separate topic). How did Firefox accomplish this? By being fast, lean, developer-friendly, power-user friendly, absurdly extensible, and with simple and clear design goals.
If Mozilla had simply stuck to these principles, Firefox user share would still have gone down -- it was a certainty due to the additional options for reasonable browsers, mobile usage, Google bundling Chrome with everything they can get their hands on, etc. However, I think it would have gone down less, and maybe even a lot less if they'd remained the browser they were rather than turning into the little puppy following Chrome around.
People who left Firefox for Chrome because they liked Chrome's design better would still have left. But with ChromiFox, people who don't like Chrome are leaving too, because if you're stuck with either Chrome or Chrome Light, you may as well go for the real deal. Sure, there are projects like Ice Weasel and LucidFox which attempt to bring some of that back, but they're relatively niche and don't have the visibility or word-of-mouth needed to take off.
In short: Mozilla abandoned their primary design goals and principles, the same ones that made Firefox great, and the result is user loss, stagnation and, probably, eventual obscurity. As someone who used Firebird, this make me very sad.
Re: (Score:2)
LucidFox
I have no idea where that came from, but it sure rolled off the keyboard easily enough. I'd actually intended to mention the PaleMoon fork of Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
What they don't realize is that Firefox was created to "take back the web" from the stagnating Internet Explorer 6. It was never about replacing IE as some overbearing dominant beast.
The problem is that it still ended up with an overbearing dominant beast, just a different one - Chrome (or rather WebKit/Blink, but Chrome is the lion's share of that). The good part is that we're still in the stage where stagnation is not a thing yet. The bad part is that it could change literally overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of this as Firefox was Netscape reborn after a complete rewrite ... Spartan is the Firefox of IE a complete rewrite.
IE/trident desperately needs this.
FYI IE was a great browser in the 1990s. Even IE 6 in 2001 had some bugs but was a decent 2000 era compliant and modernbrowser for its time. IE invented CSS, ajax, dynamic html, etc.
It because very buggy, insecure, extremely outdated, and poorly managed FAST last decade and by 2004 it was a POS compared to Opera and Mozilla (pre Firefox).
Spartan is st
Re: (Score:1)
You're a moron.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the Firefox devs think their browser should pander to the tablet-interface loving users, with advanced features hidden and the GUI dumbed down - while a large part of their user base specifically wants an "advanced" browser with lots of addons which does NOT look like Chrome.
I was rather shocked when I first ran Firefox on Android, I was expecting,well, Firefox, but what I got was some massively dumbed-down piece of junk that was worse than a range of no-name Android-only browsers from vendors I'd never heard of before. I eventually went with one of them, and at one point submitted a bug report. Within a few hours I had a reply, and a fix. It was everything Firefox should be, but isn't.
I've been a Firefox user since Phoenix 0.3, but none of my mobile devices runs it, and desk
Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is (Score:5, Funny)
You might be right, Firefox does seem to be experiencing a certain level of feature creep and bloat these days. Perhaps Mozilla should think about a new browser, one that is specifically designed to be fast and high-performance, while still adhering to the standards. They could call it Phoenix.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd I am routing for Spartan not identifying as webkit.
Reason being is if webmasters only see -webkit they will ignore W3C and Firefox will be toast as websites won't look right.
It will be 2004 all over again with a new IE 6. IE and Firefox are the ones fighting which is strange and so opposite of 10 years ago.
They disabled insecure TLS version fallback (Score:4, Informative)
Older versions of the Certicom TLS stack used in older versions of WebLogic are affected for example (change to JSSE).
Re: (Score:1)
I think he means this [mozilla.org].
This one doesn't seem so bad, but the way Mozilla has handled SSLv3 deprecation has been a disaster [bfccomputing.com].
I'm not going to go buy a new $900 PDU because the one I have only supports SSLv3 and not TLS1.2. Maybe I should switch it back to plain HTTP "for security"? Sheesh. Obviously a whitelist per-site/device would have been a smart approach, but that's not easy.
Secure isn't easy and security isn't a setting, it's a process and an ecosystem. Pisser when they weaken security overall just to
Re: (Score:2)
Well, SSLv2 did take a lot of additional code to support, but the same is not true for SSLv3. I think every browser was going to disable SSLv3 soon thanks to POODLE.
Mozilla services (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it so hard to install on your server stuff like mozilla sync, hello and link share ? Mozilla, you have take back the web now you should help people to take back the services.
MSE Support (Score:3, Insightful)
There's still no working support for the Media Source Extensions, and as a result it has incomplete support for YouTube's HTML5 player. Lame.
Re: (Score:1)
This has nothing to do with the Ruby programming language.
ruby, rb, rp, and rt are semantic html tags "attached to the main text for indicating the pronunciation or meaning of the corresponding characters. This kind of annotation is widely used in Japanese publications. It is also common in Chinese for books for children, educational publications, and dictionaries."
Re:MSE Support (Score:4, Informative)
Not the programming language, "Ruby characters": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... [wikipedia.org] - annotations for East Asian languages that show how to pronounce a particular word.
Re: (Score:2)
But they are working on support of hippie stuff like client side ruby. Mozilla, the hippie dragon!
Not only is this just wrong, but where the heck do you get the idea that Ruby is a "hippie" language?
I mean seriously. WTF?
Re: (Score:1)
The HTML5 player works almost flawlessly for me. The only issue is that around 19 minutes @ 720p or around 45 minutes @ 480p, the video goes black while annotations, sound, and everything else works. I have to change the video resolution to get it to work again for, until it inevitably goes black again (if the video is even that long).
Does anyone else experience this, or have other issues?
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be on by default, and it may be 'incomplete', but I turned that on in Firefox some time ago and can view HTML5 YT videos in resolutions greater than 720p. It's certainly good enough for now (though I don't know why it's not on by default).
Re: (Score:2)
I enabled MSE in Firefox in the previous version, and the HTML5 YT videos seemed to work fine except 1080/60p videos, which stuttered a lot. As of v37, that seems to have also been fixed. YMMV, but it's A-OK for me.
Re: (Score:2)
I enabled MSE in Firefox in the previous version, and the HTML5 YT videos seemed to work fine except 1080/60p videos, which stuttered a lot. As of v37, that seems to have also been fixed. YMMV, but it's A-OK for me.
Doesn't seem to work for me. Sort of.
The "introductory" video on Achievement Hunter's Let's Play [youtube.com] YouTube channel plays using the the HTML5 player, but nothing else seems to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem to work for me. Sort of.
The "introductory" video on Achievement Hunter's Let's Play [youtube.com] YouTube channel plays using the the HTML5 player, but nothing else seems to work.
Weird. I've been watching HTML5 videos in >720p resolution for some time now. What OS are you using? I'm using it on Windows. You enabled MSE via the about:config page, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
What OS are you using? I'm using it on Windows.
Windows 7 64-bit.
You enabled MSE via the about:config page, yes?
Yepper. The only thing that wasn't enabled by default was WebM, which I did enable.
I wondered if maybe AdBlock Plus and/or Ghostery were causing a problem so I disabled both of them (through the Add-on Manager), but Firefox still wouldn't play anything else...
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so... it seems there was something broken about my Firefox profile. I realized I was able to play videos on my laptop install of Firefox. After renaming the profile directory on my desktop and letting Firefox recreate it, I was able to watch YouTube videos again.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is notorious into making Google HTML 5, not W3C HTML 5 with sites like www.html5test.com which are Google based.
IS MSE part of W3C?
Re: (Score:1)
no H264
Your information is out of date. Firefox supports H.264, MP3 and AAC in HTML5 video with the OS supplied codecs (so no H.264 support on Windows XP or some versions of Windows Vista). Firefox even gets the OpenH264 [openh264.org] H.264 implementation from Cisco to use with WebRTC.
Desktop release notes (Score:1)
rating widget? (Score:1)
If it allows space for comments, I will be sure and let them know what I think of this terrible idea. Hopefully it will also include a checkbox 'Do not ask me again!'
I mourn the loss of the classic clean, lightweight Firefox and a rational version numbering system.
Oh, begging ... (Score:5, Interesting)
So basically Firefox is going to nag and annoy their users.
Good luck with that.
Re:Oh, begging ... (Score:5, Insightful)
from the related link in tfs...
in about:config
set browser.selfsupport.url to ""
it does suck, however, that things like this (and the dreadful new search box, the new tab bullshit, etc) are forced on people who then have to figure out how to get rid of the shit or revert to the 'old way', which often means digging into about:config or adding a new third-party extension because they take so much control out of the options UI
i miss the days when mozilla's goal for firefox was a lean, mean, extendable, browsing machine.
Re:Oh, begging ... (Score:4, Insightful)
> they take so much control out of the options UI
This is spreading everywhere like a disease, all for the sake that someone can sit at a desk and call themselves a "designer" and make witty descriptions of themselves on Twitter. I truly cannot wait for the tech bubble to burst
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't notice any change in my keyboard shortcuts or mouse gestures, thus no muscle memory retraining was needed. Maybe some icons changed shape or something like that, not a big deal for me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's why their market share is going up, because they're giving the little people what they want. Oh, what's that, their market share is going down? Maybe the little people think the new interface is crap too?
They already have a feedback system. (Score:4, Insightful)
Firefox has had a "Submit Feedback" menu option for some time now.
We can even view the results: https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/ [mozilla.org]
As I write this, almost 10,000 people have responded within the past week. 88% of the responses are "Sad" ones! Only 12% are "Happy"!
I don't know why they need another system to tell them exactly what those stats say very clearly: Firefox users are just not happy with the product!
Even the most despised national leaders never get a popularity ranking that goddamn bad, even during the worst scandals and the greatest upheaval.
Something is really, really wrong with Firefox in order for it to be so consistently rated so badly by so many users. This isn't just about the usual unhappy people expressing their displeasure. This is about almost everyone being unhappy with Firefox!
Re:They already have a feedback system. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you understand how feedback systems work. Feedback by it's very nature is typically negative. It's a self-chosen system. Happy people have little incentive to say "This is great!. People with issues do have incentive because they feel a product or service is interfering with their way of doing things.
Popularity rankings for National leaders are based on random polls. The numbers are not derived from people who self choose to respond, rather from those who are contacted randomly.
Apples to Oranges.
Re: (Score:2)
A new Firefox? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, is it Firefox Tuesday already?
Re: (Score:1)
Don't worry, soon PaleMoon will incorporate the good changes while leaving out the stupid nagware crap and leaving the UI consistent.
Re: (Score:3)
What's "soon"?
Pale Moon is built from the Extended Support branch, and we wont see another ESR branch come down from release until later this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
PaleMoon is a fork of Firefox without all the cruft that people started complaining about a couple years back. For starters it still has the good ol' UI from the version 30 days and it doesn't break all of your plugins with every update.
Re: (Score:2)
For starters it still has the good ol' UI from the version 30 days...
Australius was added in Firefox 29. Version 28 was the last one with the older interface.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a branch of firefox [palemoon.org], basically the same thing without all the bullshit. I've been using mainly chromium(chrome branch) for the better part of two years. The chromium branch is the same as chrome minus the tracking components stripped out. For anyone interested you can grab the prebuilt here [woolyss.com] or grab the uncompiled version from the repository here [chromium.org] and build your own.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What's "soon"?
Pale Moon is built from the Extended Support branch, and we wont see another ESR branch come down from release until later this year.
And that's a good thing. Many of us don't need or want a new web browser every day.
Disabling Heartbeat - scroll down! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hi,
anybody being annoyed to be asked over and over and over again?
My stance is, if "fucking" developers can't feel the vibe of the users or lack common sense, they should not develop software for common people. ..Rate me - shape me - anyway you want it - as long as I'm alive..
If Picasso would have also asked the people if they liked his early works, he would have commited suicide and not created something great.
Disabling Heartbeat
We understand that any interruption of your time on the internet can be annoying.
open about:config
set browser.selfsupport.url to ""
enjoy the rest of your day!
Re: (Score:2)
darn I meant to scroll down on this page
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Advoc... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Disabling Heartbeat
We understand that any interruption of your time on the internet can be annoying.
open www.google.com/chrome
Download and install Chrome.
enjoy the rest of your day!
All your Cookies are belong too U.S. ? (Score:2)
Just in case you forgot to mention.
Re: (Score:2)
open www.google.com/chrome
Download and install Chrome.
enjoy the rest of your day!
Burma-Shave.
Re: (Score:2)
The browser will use all of computer's memory. Forcing a shutdown of Chrome eventually, or total dog performance. Tons of people having this issue and clogging up the forums. I'm just telling Chrome users to do a full shutdown once a day, but this is hardly a solution.
I submitted a story [slashdot.org] about this but...oh, shiney!
Re: (Score:2)
This, and the "use all memory" bug are the reasons I don't use Chrome. At least with Firefox I can (1) close non-essential tabs, (2) shut it down, (3) reload it and get reasonable memory usage.
Using all memory, with nothing but Netflix player running, is supremely uncool of Chrome.
So, my browser pair is Firefox and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand art very much and I certainly don't understand modern art. I don't have a taste for Picasso. But it cannot be denied that he introduced/developed several novel art forms and was a talented painter.
> I've cleaned a paintbrush on a piece of cloth and created something better than Picasso. I've seen preschoolers with finger paints do better.
That's just a cheap shot with no basis. You should at least make an effort to find out why people who venerate him as one of the greatest ever, do so.
The Important Info (Score:1)
Rating panel needs one more option (Score:4, Insightful)
Either: Don't ask me again.
Or: A link to download another browser that won't beg for money.
Too late (Score:3, Informative)
I dumped Firefox when they changed to the hipster bullshit minimalist interface known as Australis. For a while Waterfox and Palemoon were doing a decent job. One day I decided to try Chrome to see how 60fps video looked on Youtube. Talk about night and day. Chrome is so much more responsive and doesn't use as many resources. Grab the usual essential addons (uBlock, Flashblock, etc) and you're good to go. No wonder Firefox has a dwindling user base. Instead of improving whats already there I get a video chat client and a paper airplane button to alert people on social media? Is this like email forwarding of the 90s?
Re: (Score:1)
It's like Netscape 1997 all over again, when Netscaster and "push" was going to be the next big thing. Mozilla is going to die the same death because it's the same idiots in charge for the most part.
Re: (Score:3)
*ducks*
Re: (Score:3)
They are doing that already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
On a normal day Chrome never uses more than a few Gb of memory. Of course I don't have hundreds of tabs open like some people. What is the point of that anyhow? You can only read one thing at a time and can you really know what each tab is?
Re: (Score:1)
With sane choices dwindling, I'm starting to ask myself: Is IE really so bad these days? I don't want to use a browser made by an advertising company. Or one being ruined by a bunch of tards.
Re: (Score:2)
With sane choices dwindling, I'm starting to ask myself: Is IE really so bad these days? I don't want to use a browser made by an advertising company. Or one being ruined by a bunch of tards.
Spartan is a firefox style rewrite similiar to Firefox from Mozilla a decade ago.
The roles have reversed in the browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
I use both, and find Firefox generally has superior performance and memory usage.
The "hipster bullshit minimalist interface known as Australis" is unfortunate, but Classic Theme Restorer [mozilla.org] takes care of that.
Re:Too late (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Too late (Score:4, Interesting)
Firefox and Chrome have very similar UIs, Any difference is minor. They have very similar performance from user perspective, and are both much better than IE.
I choose to use Firefox as my main browser, mainly because Google have enough control of the internet they don't need to own the browser too.
absolute power corrupts absolutely
If Google wanted not to be evil (I know that's no longer one of their stated goals), then they wouldn't try to have their sticky fingers in everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to almost any other Browser FF lags ba
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true with a small session, or a minimal number of open tabs. Yet, with a large session|many tabs, FF becomes unresponsive regularly (CPU Spikes) and there's almost nothing you can do to make it release RAM, except for closing the browser. FF's CPU usage also spikes on launch 30-50% on a quad core with a large session, even when only a single tab of a given window is loaded on launch. The CPU usage also spikes whenever you manage tabs (move|close).
Compared to almost any other Browser FF lags badly in terms of resource management, including IE11, and Blink-based browsers (Chrome, Opera, etc). It also doesn't seem to matter what branch of FF you use, they all are horrible at resource management (FF Nightly 32bit or 64, WaterFox/64bit, FF Dev 32bit (previously Aurora).
And yet there are lots of Firefox users, like me, who never experience the issues you describe. Firefox is my main browser. I use it heavily all day, every day, and haven't had memory or CPU problems in years. I suspect that a lot of the reported Firefox resource issues have more to do with the combination of extensions/plugins that people have installed than Firefox itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox is very outdated.
Chrome and IE (yes IE) have since 2009 used per process for each tab for security and reliability. So you maybe fine if you have 6 tabs. 30 tabs?? One bad javascript and BAM all the rest of the 29 tabs go with it. One malicious javascript in a tab can sniff the others through an exploit too.
So yes Chrome is better just from an architecture point of view.
Firefox is known to have forks in its database stored in your Firefox profile. This means very slow startups too over time. Chrome
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome works best with Google sites, so that's what I will use.
The problem is, any time you use anything else, Chrome is only better if it's wide open. If you want to lock your browser down a bit, that's possible with Chrome, but it's not quite as secure and configuration is a bit more annoying.
Yawn (Score:3, Interesting)
How many 10+ year-old bugs in Firefox 36 are fixed in 37? Oh, is that none you say. Yawn!
At one time, I was all in on Firefox (Score:1)
Not into Firefox anymore, and from some latest browser stats which some even put Safari ahead of Firefox thanks to mobile. I think Firefox has some tough road ahead. We can all see how this came to be as Firefox choose to mimic Google and come out with rapid releases to somehow bring relevance back to Firefox as a browser that stays current. Unfortunately they kept losing a lot of the polish with every release and bugs kept creeping in and out of every release. Its really not
a bad browser except for those p
w00t!! Demise of insecure fallback (Score:3)
This is awesome news. Congratulations to Mozilla for taking the lead on this.
Will try to play video in HTML 5.0 mode now. (Score:2)
There's also an important change in Firefox 37.0--if you access YouTube, videos are played back with the HTML 5.0 player, eliminate the use of Adobe Flash to play back videos. Hopefully, this means smoother video playback at higher resolutions. Hopefully, this applies to embedded videos from other sources.
Here's how to disable "Heartbeat feedback" (Score:2)
1. Open about:config in the browser
2. Change browser.selfsupport.url to “”
3. Go to https://input.mozilla.org/en-U... [mozilla.org] and tell Mozilla to stop wasting our time with bullshit like the "heartbeat feedback" and gratuitous GUI changes and focus on more important things like fixing the damn bugs.
Pull update? (Score:2)
If only Safari still had RSS... (Score:2)
I'd dump Firefox in a second if Safari 8.x had RSS feeds. I'm very impressed by Safari 8, but I use RSS for all my news browsing so it's a non-starter as a main browser. I don't want sites "pushing" their updates onto me. Unfortunately Firefox is a piece of junk that not only provides a often-buggy experience on sites, but continues to weigh it down with product features I do not want and never asked for in a browser. Ironically, the current state of Firefox reminds me of Mozilla Navigator, the browser whic
Auto Update (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)