Firefox 49 Postponed One Week Due To Unexpected Bugs (softpedia.com) 208
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes Softpedia:
Mozilla has announced this week that it is delaying the release of Firefox 49 for one week to address two unexpected bugs. Firefox 49, which was set for release on Tuesday, September 13, will now launch the following Tuesday, on September 20...
Firefox 49 is an important release in Mozilla's grand scheme of things when it comes to Firefox. This is the version when Mozilla will finish multi-process support rollout (a.k.a. e10s, or Electrolysis), and the version when Firefox launches the new WebExtensions API that replaces the old Add-ons API, making Firefox compatible with Chromium extensions.
Firefox's release manager explained the delays as "two blocking issues and the need for a bit more time to evaluate the results of their fixes/backouts" -- one of which apparently involves opening Giphy GIFS on Twitter.
Firefox's release manager explained the delays as "two blocking issues and the need for a bit more time to evaluate the results of their fixes/backouts" -- one of which apparently involves opening Giphy GIFS on Twitter.
Compared to what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't all bugs more or less "unexpected"? If you expected them, you'd check for them and hopefully squash them before they are committed.
I think the more appropriate word here might have been "blocking". They're severe enough to delay a release over.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Aren't all bugs more or less "unexpected"?
You don't use Windows much, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I use both Windows 10 and Linux.
On a Chromebook.
You'd think my whole day would be spent chasing after head-scratcher bugs, but no, it actually works quite well. Haswell (and to a slightly lesser extent, Broadwell) Chromebooks are quite amenable to "off-label" use. Even OS X is an option if you choose the right one. (I didn't.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, working in QA and going back and forth with devs and business analysts I often get overruled because devs claims this or that "cannot be done". Fact is, they are just too lazy and the BAs don't want to deal with it either...until a customer complaints about exactly that, then it is top priority and a fix is put in place within ten minutes.
That they are just too lazy is one possibility, but I've worked with a lot of devs in my career, and I haven't met many who work that way. Some more likely explanations are:
1. It can't be done without either massive work or an ugly hack that the devs expect will bite them on the butt later.
2. It can't be done without hugely complicating other, in-progress work.
3. It can't be done without creating large problems for other teams (e.g. it creates a potential for a doubling of server workload in pathologica
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try, Tanya.
Tanya?
Re: (Score:2)
Some places are held back by ill-advised enterprise junk foisted on them. Others are buried in legacy clusterfucks. But when you start a new project and every other word out of your mouth is "can't," what's the point?
Sure. On the other hand, sometimes to a first-order approximation and given an understanding of the context which QA engineers tend to lack, stuff really can't be done.
WebExtensions API (Score:4, Insightful)
The Chromification of Firefox continues.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
so long firefox, and all those wonderful addons.... sure a few good ones may make the transition, but rip all the rest. noscript is one in particular that is having a hell of a time working with e10s.
the last thing firefox needs is the complete SHIT that is chrome addons.. there is so much crap and bogus scammy shit in the chrome 'store' for addons... it's nearly enough to make a guy run straight into the familiar and comforting arms of internet explorer 6
uMatrix + uBlock (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point of adding uBlock Origin if you're already using uMatrix anyway?
Re:WebExtensions API (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not a bad thing really.
The old extensions API needs to go. It's single threaded and can't handle per tab processes well. It's also a massive security problem, having no security model. Extensions can easily conflict too.
So they could have made a brand new API, but no one would have made extensions for it. At least new devs only have to write their extension once too.
I see no real down side. They can add some FF specific stuff.
Re:WebExtensions API (Score:5, Informative)
It's also a massive security problem, having no security model.
LMAO. Pretty much all Chrome extensions require access to "all websites" and your "entire browser history" which means they can gather all your browser information, including keystrokes, aka passwords.
So much security, my ass.
Re:WebExtensions API (Score:5, Informative)
Are least Chrome HAS a permission system. That's only part of it though. Chrome extensions run in a sandbox. Firefox extensions run in the main browser process and can patch in to pretty much any of the UI and core features.
Also, you exaggerate, most of the extensions I use don't need access to all sites, and the ones that do are justified (e.g. uBlock and Privacy Badger).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but many don't work because much of the API is unavailable. And by API I mean they can't patch random stuff any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I see no real down side.
Really?
"Hey, you know that one differentiating feature we had between ourselves and Chrome, the extensions that are available for Firefox that just aren't really possible in the Chrome extension model? Let's get rid of those."
"So we'll just basically be a crappy version of Chrome that uses more memory, is less stable, and is slower?"
"Yeah!"
"Sounds like a great idea! Let's do that!"
The only reason anyone is still using Firefox instead of Chrome is to get access to Firefox extensions. Once Firefox makes their
Re:WebExtensions API (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, this update kills thousands thousands of add ons, whiles many others will stop working properly.
Next on their agenda is killing XUL off which means Firefox will become yet another Google Chrome with a tad better cache management.
It looks like Google Chrome, it acts like Google Chrome, it is Google Chrome. Now tell me, what the reason for Firefox existence? Once a unique web browser with unique add-ons (NoScipt, Firebug, DownThemAll, etc), soon only a shadow of itself.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
forget 'the year of linux'.. 2016 might just be 'the year of pale moon [palemoon.org]'.. IF (and this is probably a really, really big 'if') they can manage the code and updates and security all by themselves while firefox diverges too far to be a useful upstream. perhaps even to the point of hosting their own addon site as mozilla's addon site goes to hell (err, i mean gets chromified). seamonkey is still around too, and that may see an uptick in users as well. and don't count on firefox esr, even mozilla's own site sham
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps even to the point of hosting their own addon site as mozilla's addon site goes to hell (err, i mean gets chromified).
Just yesterday, I turned on a computer that I have not used for 4 years. I fired up Firefox and clicked update. It went from version 14 to version 43. I then had to update it again because 43 is not the latest. Needless to say, the really cool theme that I had on it was not compatible and had no update so I went looking for other themes that could work.
Wow, I could not really find any themes like I used to be able to. I did manage to see three themes while scrolling through dozens of pages. It seems like th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like Google Chrome, it acts like Google Chrome, it is Google Chrome. Now tell me, what the reason for Firefox existence?
SCROLLING. TAB. BAR.
Re: (Score:2)
Add-ons used to fail routinely in the "golden old times" of 0.x, 1.0 and perhaps for another couple years.
Now, everything works unless it's been completely unmaintained for too long. There's an automatic check and extensions update when needed. Although, I only need half the extensions I used to, because many actual browser features were added over time (simple example : open a plain text link)
Firefox 49? (Score:2)
Allow me to respond in a way you can appreciate. [giphy.com]
More details on the Bugs (Score:5, Funny)
- UI still made some people not throw up
- Slowness not increased by 50% as promised by the dev team, some pages unfortunately still load as fast as in the times of ISDN
- Critically low use of memory: Some memory is still not used up by Firefox despite our best efforts
- Android port does not crash often enough
- Not quite like Chrome yet
Re: (Score:2)
You missed
some add-ons/plug-ins still work
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Absolutely not: The old UI presented orders of magnitude more functionality to the user
2. define competitive. I notice that every update makes it slower compared to the previous one
3. Thats not saying much, too much memory is too much memory, regardless of how much the others use
4. For me its multiple times a day, on my Samsung NotePro 12.3 (it was the flagship device in early 2014, I doubt it has become this bad in less than 2 years). Unfortunately FF is the only browser that allows uBlock origin and so
Re: (Score:2)
To enable 90% of what's missing from the older UI
1. Right-click somewhere like the bookmark buttons, plus button, download arrow or sandwich made of one slice of bread between two slices of bread
2. Click on "Menu Bar"
Re: (Score:2)
2. Your opinion? FF definitely uses less memory now (V49) than it did for V30+.
3. Memory use as needed. Firefox is the only browser that can open hundred(s) of tabs like Opera used to - but even classic Opera can't do that any longer as it chokes on modern image sizes.
4. No Comment, I use Opera on Android, when I
This is a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never been a fan of the regular release schedule of Firefox (or software in general). Releasing a new version just for the sake of having a new version every three months seems like a way to just make sure you're introducing potential new issues in your software (... lo and behold I think that's what we see with Firefox more and more, rather than the introduction of great new features).
I understand the motivation though - it's nice to have targets to keep everyone working for those little milestones, and have a date attached to it so things can be roadmapped and planned and all that.
I don't think it's at all a big deal for a date to slip on a particular version - especially as we're getting into actual serious-change Firefox territory with this release. The Electrolysis stuff is the first major advancement (... that I've cared about) for something like 20 versions so I'm keen to make sure it's stable.
As an anecdote, the current version of Firefox is the first one that I've EVER noticed it feeling sluggish and like it is using too much memory. I know Firefox has a weird reputation has a memory hog but I have personally NEVER noticed this despite it being my sole browser for years. As of right now it's using 1.9GB whereas before this I don't recall it getting significantly above the low 1GB range (FWIW I have Electrolosys disabled by config).
I don't really care that much about the memory usage but it certainly feels a little more sluggish than usual, which I do care about. So I'm very happy for them to take their time with the v49 release and make sure it's all ship-shape before it lands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the adverb form is "every day."
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it has to do with what sites you browse, especially those that use tons of Javascript.
I've had the memory hogging issues since Firefox 2.0, resulting in massive pauses that last for 2-10 seconds at a time, and they've driven me crazy. They are all related to the Javascript heap and garbage collection cycles. Image-heavy sites that use JS tend to build up the most garbage. I can navigate my own web site all day, but even 5 minutes on DeviantArt will reduce Firefox to a whimpering crawl, using 1.
Re: (Score:2)
It's stupid to go to such lengths, but ugprading to 8GB RAM and a 64bit OS works well. (4GB + 64bit or 32bit with Firefox e10s is not bad either)
I don't know why, but I have a firefox instance running at 3.2GB real memory here, and 4.7GB virtual memory. It's fine i.e. today is a lucky day.
[It's still possible to find ddr2 memory to upgrade, in fact I guess most people that would be inclined to make such an upgrade don't care about ddr2 systems anymore and thus don't drive the prices up.]
Although, if it's th
Re: (Score:2)
Despite having 16GB in this Windows 7 desktop machine that I built a year and a half ago, Firefox becomes much less usable when it exceeds about 1.2GB Working Set (as displayed by Task Manager processes). Right now as I'm typing this it shows 1.43GB Working Set memory and 1.33 Commit Size and seems to be operating smoothly enough with 2 FF windows open, one window with 2 tabs and the other with 8 tabs running moderate and lightweight stuff.
But if I do anything requiring heavy lifting like watching a bunch o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never been a fan of the regular release schedule of Firefox (or software in general).
I'm a huge fan of regular release schedules
Releasing a new version just for the sake of having a new version every three months seems like a way to just make sure you're introducing potential new issues in your software
Quite the opposite. Delaying release until you have some significant new "release-worthy" features leads to "big bang" releases that require endless testing because there is so much new code in them. It makes it hard to get something out the door, ever, and means you need a separate cycle of frequent bugfix releases, with corresponding management of separate dev and release trees (separate trees are good, but allowing them to become very different is not). Worst of
Re: (Score:2)
All good points! I guess when I said 'software in general' I really meant 'desktop software', not really web-based stuff. I certainly prefer regular updates in web-based stuff so completely agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox doesn't get a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, what I'm taking from the comments on this article is that Mozilla really shouldn't read Slashdot, because most commenters here hold that Mozilla really cannot do anything right. I'm sure Firefox would've been heavily criticized if a major release was too buggy, so it seems to be the right course of action to delay its release, but they're getting shit for that too. Oh well. Some people are just unpleasable and can be safely ignored for that reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, what I'm taking from the comments on this article is that Mozilla really shouldn't read Slashdot, because most commenters here hold that Mozilla really cannot do anything right.
Any time that there are multiple people commenting about something, you will get mutually exclusive comments. If you read the comments without involving your ego, you can get some extremely useful insight into what is going wrong with your development.
I argue that the Firefox team SHOULD read the comments. Perhaps then they would start giving more control to the end user. Same with Gnome. Open Source software should give all control to the user without the user having to rewrite the source code.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, what I'm taking from the comments on this article is that Mozilla really shouldn't read Slashdot, because most commenters here hold that Mozilla really cannot do anything right.
I was a huge fan of Firefox from 2.0 right up to the 4.0 release. But even 4.0 and on was tolerable because they'd always let you turn off the annoying stuff they added.
Somewhere along the way in the last year or two when they started removing the ability to disable stuff from about:config was when I really knew the Firefox I loved was gone.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you first coined the term "unpleasable" when looking for rationalizations while referring to your female partners.
Your mom's a fussy lady indeed, but she didn't deprecate my extension ifyouknowwhatimsayin.
Re: (Score:2)
What's an "expected bug" look like? (Score:2)
Isn't a bug pretty much by definition unexpected?
Hm (Score:2)
When they found out about the bugs, didn't they become expected bugs? So it's totally shippable.
Re:Ah.. another week.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Another week until I do not use this slow browser....
Glad they keep going for diversity sake- but it's a sluggish pile of code. Beloved though it is.
Browser speed has always struck me as slightly irrelevant, when in the majority of cases it is the fault of the websites, when things are slow. Although there is one case where it is definitely something about Firefox: Try to load http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/ [www.dr.dk] (Denmark's Radio - "the Danish BBC" if you are kind) - it loads fast enough, but the whole browser freezes for ~10 sec when you scroll down; loading the same page in Konqueror (yes, there are some that use it) displays none of these problems. I have no idea why.
But the real problems, for me at least, are: 1) The tendency in Firefox to switch to https when you activate Javascript, and then being unable to load the page, and 2) The increasing number of unwanted features, like embedded search engines that cannot be disabled and similar. I hate it when I mistype an address and get an idiotic search result from Google, Yahoo or whatever; all I want is an error message.
Who gives a flying f*ck (Score:4, Insightful)
Waiting for someone to deliver to the world a lean fast browser. FF49 won't be it.
And Firefox releases are now so frequent this is scarcely news. e.g. Release *49*!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Who gives a flying f*ck (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes, but it is a failure of either the browser or the OS to not provide some control over it to the user. I should be able to limit Firefox to e.g. 20% CPU use (with the 100% == one core convention), and perhaps pause the browser.
As it is, when the browser idles from 10% to 20% CPU use, you're being lucky. If it idles at 80% or 110% CPU, then there's nothing you can do except restart it (a pain, since the crap needs reloaded and that's hundreds of network requests, and over a hundred billion CPU cycles
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think nice is only about priority, so if I set Firefox at very low priority and it uses 80% CPU, it will still use 80% and thus waste power.
I would have to investigate about putting Firefox in a cgroup.
Thinking about setting the CPU clock at 1.0 GHz in the BIOS and voltage at 0.9 V. Because, fuck you CPU. And fuck you Linux for feature regressions (panel applet that ought to display CPU frequencies doesn't work anymore on my hardware. Automatic underclocking may be broken, but I have no real way to check
Re: (Score:2)
I've got gmail, Feedly, a couple of /. tabs, and my Youtube subscriptions open right now. CPU usage is hovering between 0.02% and 0.8%. Occasionally it spikes all the way up to 2.5% -- I assume this is when either Feedly or Gmail auto-refreshes in the background. I've seen FF shit the bed before, and it definitely has some problems, but just having a few static tabs open shouldn't be tanking your CPU.
Re:Ah.. another week.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Depends on what you mean by browser speed. Firefox slows down massively when you use a ton of tabs. There must be some 2^N algorithms under the hood as that's the only conclusion I can come up with to explain the massive UI jitters. Closing many of those tabs does speed the browser up again, but it never releases a corresponding amount memory. If you're a heavy tab user and like to keep Firefox open, you eventually run out of memory or are forced to restart it due to the frustration of 15-25 second UI freezes when you open a page in a new tab. Oddly enough Firefox tends to crash a lot on closing when you're near max memory limits, so you can keep using a slow browser or close and crash. Then you reopen a profile with a thousand or more suspended tabs and it can take over 10 minutes until the UI responds to anything. Think about that. While very few people use that many tabs, there's no reason it should take 10 minutes. These are suspended tabs. Firefox is database focused, so all the browsers needs to do is load a 1000 list of tab ids, 1000 looks ups for the tab names, and 1000 look ups for tab icons yet it spends over 10 minutes doing that ( meaning 5 operations a second). Something is just not right with its performance, though I doubt the other browsers can handle that may tabs at all. Despite how advanced browsers are, they're also horribly designed pieces of software.
Hopefully their multi-process support will help, but considering there's something fundamentally wrong with how they manage tabs I doubt they're going to handle this properly too.
Re:Ah.. another week.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've noticed that the x64 build of Pale Moon is much more stable and doesn't have nearly as much slow down as the x86 version. Don't know if the same applies to Firefox, from which it was forked.
Re: (Score:2)
dom.ipc.processCount = 10
Works fairly well with 8GB of ram. I haven't tested with a higher value (and more ram) yet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Go to about:config and set:
keyword.enabled false
browser.fixup.alternate.enabled false
browser.fixup.dns_first_for_single_words true
Enjoy!
possible firefox fix (Score:2)
The page you linked loads and performs fine for me, but I had a similar issue recently. My Firefox install is relatively ancient, and it began taking ages to load and then incorrectly render one particular site. What ultimately fixed it was creating a new profile, switching to it to test, and then switching back to my original profile.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried to do manual edits in the location window? You hit backspace five times and then wait a second for firefox to catch-up. How is that possible? It's just editing text.
Re: (Score:2)
it loads fast enough, but the whole browser freezes for ~10 sec when you scroll down; loading the same page in Konqueror (yes, there are some that use it) displays none of these problems. I have no idea why.
You think that's bad, for awhile loading the facebook mainpage would lock the entire OS for a literal minute while it waited for akamai or whatever to resolve.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: a win for open source (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As soon as OSS got traction, quite a few big-ego-small-skills people moved in and took over projects that they did not have the skills to do well. Firefiox, systemd, Gnome, etc. are all problems, not solutions. Open/LibreOffice managed to do fork at the last moment and is doing fine. The Linux kernel has successfully repelled hostile borders from the SJW-people and is still doing fine (although Linus has to avoid being alone in a room with women).
But the bottom line is this: People that have vast ambitions
Re: (Score:2)
As a counter point, though not in the OSS realm: The profiles of Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak. It's vision and ambition which eventually made the company king of the heap, not (or not just) engineers with great ideas within their own domain.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But the current CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, is certainly somebody who has "vast ambitions but no skills to match".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is a valid counterpoint. Apple has nice design and an impressive cult-based marketing, but they never did anything to further technology. In fact it seems more like Apple is somewhat behind with regards to technology. Sure, if you compare them with Microsoft, they are paragons of innovation, but anybody looks good compared to the class retard.
Re: (Score:2)
That's untrue. Apple has done significant things to forwards technology. It's true they were all aimed at the aggrandization of Apple, and often at making it a walled garden, but the Macintosh was a significant step forwards. Apple also did significant work in increasing the density of floppy disks. Etc.
That said, I have sufficient problems with their EULA that I refuse to use them. But to deny that they have contributed significant technological progress is to close your eyes and go la-la-la.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, systemd is *really* successful. As long as you define successful as "ruining your init system by replacing it with a pile of stinking crap".
Re: (Score:2)
Technical merits aside, can you honestly say that it's not been successful when Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, Mint and many others have adopted it? Slackware and Gentoo are the only two big distros that haven't.
Re: a win for open source (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok I can only comment on systemd has caused problems for me. I have a nas running debian. Because a USB drive wasn't able to be mounted it stopped booting and dropped to an emergency shell. The device was able to be pinged but ssh wasn't running as this is headless with no access other than via ssh I was screwed, I was able to open the drive on another machine but there was no log information to say why it hadn't completed the boot.
Obviously being an Arm build I couldn't boot the drive on an x86 system.
The only thing that got me sorted was in a debian page about openssh in jessie, some kind soul had written that systemd now would drop to an emergency shell if it found something it couldn't mount in fstab.
So I got lucky and was able to fix the problem but no thanks to systemd it was just a data drive not essential to the booting of the os.
Lets say you have a server in a rack somewhere and a hdd dies in the raid rebooting that server remotely would end up in exactly the same situation. So systemd is a success but only when things don;t go wrong.
So what are you supposed to do remove drives that are not essential for your server to start from fstab and manually mount them once the server has booted maybe not init any services that will be using those drives either....
wouldn't it be better if systemd was able to init what it can and finish booting and issue a cry for help once the system was up and running?
If you were running a windows server sure sometimes not all services get started, There is one domain controller which quite often fails to start the mail server. This results in no email for the domain and a remote login to restart the service. not a shutdown of the lan ...
Systemd has potential but I'm not buying it as being ready for deployment when it can wreck your morning if not your entire day because of it;s behavior when there is a problem.
.
Re: (Score:2)
Systemd doesn't seem to differentiate between essential to boot and essential to run some service.
if it started SSH then it wouldn't be that bad, it wouldn't be so bad if it wrote something to one of the log files (in a human readable format ideally).
The problem really is that systemd basically halts the system with no comms. On a previous version of debian i used to run a backup program that would login to my computers on the lan and back them up automatically. If it couldn't do the job it sent me an ema
Re: (Score:3)
This is simply incompetent design, made by morons that think that they like it is enough indication that it must be good. You never, ever fail silently if there is even a slight chance you can push a diagnostic to the sysadmin. But that obviously is an outdated Unix idea and the brave new world of system management does not need any old ideas, as new is clearly universally better than old.
My employer has a policy that you may install Linux with systemd, but it must be gone before anything goes productive. T
Re: (Score:2)
In every case I know about, everywhere systemd will fail-to-boot but initd would not, there's some extremely dangerous setup that could easily result in data loss. The user is often not aware of this, so either they'll get frustrated and think systemd is a buggy piece of crap, or they'll immediately Google how to bypass whatever the error is and continue their danger, then blame systemd when the data loss occurs.
Re: (Score:2)
That is utter bullshit. Early boot information comes from the _kernel_ (you may have heard of it?) Anything journald can to is _late_ boot information. Unless you are so brain-washed that you thing systemd is the kernel?
Re: (Score:2)
"you are simply wrong" = "I strongly believe you are wrong, but have no supporting evidence and a big ego so I think I do not need any"
I call that a fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering who would bring up Eich first, might have known it would be you.
People criticising the guy who was trying to harm them by denying them equal marriage are not "SJWs". They are people who want the right to marry whomever they like, the same as he enjoyed. That is made his position untenable is irrelevant, because the only other option is to deny their freedom of speech rights.
Why are you opposed to freedom of speech?
Re: (Score:2)
What are the best choices? I've found systemd booting to be a minor, but continual, nuisance. It's a lot slower than sysv-init was, and doesn't seem to have ANY advantages.
I seem to have worked through most of the major problems I've had with it, but this does not make me a fan. It also makes me worry about the problems I haven't yet encountered, but which I've read reports of from others. (They were *probably* early bugs, but their severity causes me to doubt the quality of error checking that is being
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Back at you. There must be something seriously wrong with you to come up with that suggestion in this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like systemd should have done?
You don't get to break everything in the main tree and then tell me if I want to fix it I should fork and fix everything you broke.
Well, when you're systemd you apparently do.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen their market share? It's been falling steadily for years, down to single digits.
It's not just users abandoning them, but it's a factor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Sure looks like a steady decline to me. Seems like they will hit 1% in about 3 years time if it doesn't level off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you want Flash embedded at all? That is just a vector for 0 days in Flash.
I have been running Firefox for years without Flash installed at all and have been perfectly happy with it.
Firefox is great if you don't want a memory hungry spying agent installed on your computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen their market share? It's been falling steadily for years, down to single digits.
True, but they've been heavily under attack. The world's largest advertiser has had a fairly persistent campaign against firefox. For quite a while, every time you visited google, it recommended chrome to you. And then there's mobile devices. Not only is Chrome installed on Android by default of course, but now even if you set Firefox as your default, clicking on a link from the search box brings up the link in Chr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)