Firefox Android Build That Caused Issues Is Working As Intended (theregister.com) 88
Today, Mozilla launched the updated Firefox Android app with a version that many thought was a beta because it was full of bugs and UI issues. According to The Register, this was a deliberate software release and is the new version of Firefox for Android, which is set to hit the UK today, August 25, and the U.S. on the 27th. From the report: A Reg reader yesterday alerted us to an August 20 version bump that was causing so many problems, our tipster thought it was a beta that had gone seriously awry. "To sum it up, on 20th of August, Firefox 79 was unexpectedly forced on a large batch of Firefox 68 Android users without any warning, way to opt out or roll back," our reader reported. "A lot got broken in the process: the user interface, tabs, navigation, add-ons." Meanwhile, the Google Play store page for the completely free and open-source Firefox has a rash of one-star reviews echoing similar complaints: after the upgrade, little seemed to work as expected. "This is the worst 'upgrade' I've ever experienced," said netizen Martin Lindenmayer. "My main gripe is that there is no back button (to return to your previous page) anymore."
What's happened is this: the last stable version of Firefox for Android was version 68, released in 2019. For over a year, Mozilla has been working on an overhaul of its browser in a project code-named Fenix. Moz has slowly rolled out the result of its work to netizens in preview and beta form -- and since the end of July, as a proper release: version 79. This new stable version is what appeared on people's devices. As well as changes to the user interface and many new features that have thrown some users, it is also missing support for all extensions. In fact, by last count, only nine add-ons are supported so far, though this is expected to increase over time. The browser has also adopted Mozilla's GeckoView engine. If you accidentally updated the app and would like to roll back the update, you won't be able to. "[O]nce you've upgraded to the new browser, you won't be able to return to the old browser," says Mozilla.
For more information about the upgrade process, you can check out the browser's FAQ page.
What's happened is this: the last stable version of Firefox for Android was version 68, released in 2019. For over a year, Mozilla has been working on an overhaul of its browser in a project code-named Fenix. Moz has slowly rolled out the result of its work to netizens in preview and beta form -- and since the end of July, as a proper release: version 79. This new stable version is what appeared on people's devices. As well as changes to the user interface and many new features that have thrown some users, it is also missing support for all extensions. In fact, by last count, only nine add-ons are supported so far, though this is expected to increase over time. The browser has also adopted Mozilla's GeckoView engine. If you accidentally updated the app and would like to roll back the update, you won't be able to. "[O]nce you've upgraded to the new browser, you won't be able to return to the old browser," says Mozilla.
For more information about the upgrade process, you can check out the browser's FAQ page.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I always find it interesting that users who consume free IT services and software have such petty complaints. Maybe start contributing to the ecosystem/community instead of downloading updates the day of and providing useless feedback and ratings.
There was a study a while back of apps on the app store.
Free apps have a harder time than paid due to users convincing themselves their money was well-spent on the $1 apps. If folks pay nothing for an app, they feel the developer owes *them* for downloading it. I guess the reasoning is "I paid nothing for this, so it must be worthless."
With users like that, who needs enemies?
Re: (Score:3)
I always find it interesting that users who consume free IT services and software have such petty complaints. Maybe start contributing to the ecosystem/community instead of downloading updates the day of and providing useless feedback and ratings.
There was a study a while back of apps on the app store.
Free apps have a harder time than paid due to users convincing themselves their money was well-spent on the $1 apps. If folks pay nothing for an app, they feel the developer owes *them* for downloading it. I guess the reasoning is "I paid nothing for this, so it must be worthless."
With users like that, who needs enemies?
OTOH, if your app is garbage, your plan to make money from it will fail because the users won't run it.
Re: (Score:3)
well most free apps have ads, so yeah, the developer does kinda owe the users for downloading in that sense. with those apps if the users don't use the app the developer makes no money and generally using/downloading the app is the support mechanism for free applications.
anyway there is a simple way to roll back, get the old apk from some apk downloading site and install that. I don't know why the folks there would lie that there is no possibility to go back to an older version on android, especially of an
Re: (Score:2)
anyway there is a simple way to roll back, get the old apk from some apk downloading site and install that.
Or directly from mozilla, if so inclined:
https://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mobile/releases/68.9.0/
Re: (Score:2)
You hear that on here a lot. I imagine a lot of people imagine the free apps are more likely to contain a gotcha. This was argued to me recently, in a different context, on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
At least the gotcha with Firefox is relatively benign. Their primary income source is payments from Google in exchange for making their search services the default in Firefox. I say "relatively benign" because you are in no way obligated to use Google; you can easily change the default if you like, but Google is counting on the fact that inertia will cause most users to stick with the default.
Of course, after trying Google you might decide to stick with it despite the privacy concerns because it works reall
Re:IT consumers petty complaints (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not really petty, but it does mean you can't get your money back. It is not unreasonable to expect that the free product you were using that had previously been working just fine would continue to work even after you upgrade it. Especialy if you are forbidden to downgrade or rollback. If Mozilla turned around and said "it's free you morons just shut up already" they'd lose all customers. And yet that is exactly the same attitude I hear from all over when some people complain about "free" software. It's not the software maker that is implying that the customers are ungrateful, but gratuitous comments from onlookers. Even if it's free, the company providing the software is still making money on it and presumably does not want to lose their customer base.
Re:IT consumers petty complaints (Score:4, Interesting)
Firefox mobile isn't very popular and part of that is because the UI was broken and most of the add-ons it claimed to support didn't work properly. Fixing it was always going to be painful in the short term but necessary.
Remember that they started with code from the mid 90s. Single threaded, no security to speak of, no mobile operating systems unless you count Windows for Pen Computing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd forgive a lot if it were able to render Slashdot with correct fonts in a reasonable format and if the "desktop version" button didn't then proceed to draw a page so small that it is unreadable.
UI are things tech heads are concerned about. Having an addon not break and a web page not break is a deal breaker for everyone else. Firefox mobile is utter trash. Firefox on desktop on the other hand is not only a viable but a performant and well rounded browser.
Re:IT consumers petty complaints (Score:4, Informative)
I always find it interesting that users who consume free IT services and software have such petty complaints.
I would happily pay for a good browser! And that's not hypothetical. I still have my receipt/license for Netscape Navigator.
And these aren't petty complaints: a browser without a back button is fundamentally broken.
Re: IT consumers petty complaints (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My phone's back button isn't even displayed by default. It is not a place on the screen where I can click, without doing some dance to bring it up. Also, why are you simping for Firefox? What an odd thing to lust over.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of a fixed back button on the phone just sucks. I alwats have to make random gestures until it appears, hoping I don't accidentally click on something. I just want a browser with a basic, non-fucked UI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its worse than that on FF mobile now, you can pin sites to the home screen (like the desktop version) and click them, it works as expected - opens a tab with that page in it. you can use the back button and go back to the home screen as expected. You can click the pinned sites icons and open new tabs, etc.
only the newly opened tabs stay open, back button takes you to the home screen. I only just realised this, by noticing I had 20 tabs open all with the same few sites I visit on mobile.
The home screen is pr
Re: (Score:3)
I always find it interesting that the concerns of the end user, when they try to engage in the ecosystem, are ignored or dismissed as petty or WONTFIX. It's attitudes like yours that drove me, and many others, away from Firefox and open source in general.
Re: (Score:3)
So they roll it out slowly, via betas. Then decide it's ready for primetime and push it. A notable percentage of users don't like it (although we don't even know that, we just know that there has been a loud reaction). What are the next steps?
A few of the items have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I tried contributing, but (a) neither code nor architecture is sufficiently documented that an outsider could understand, (b) powers that be are arrogant a-holes who deride every request or code submission, and (c) code has so many levels of indirection that the barrier to entry is way too high.
The same is true of LibreOffice, who are complaining that not enough people are contributing. Better look in the mirror.
That seems to be the pattern in open-source.
Da fuq (Score:2, Funny)
My main gripe is that there is no back button (to return to your previous page) anymore.
At this point, I think Google has made continued executive salaries at Mozilla dependent on making the worst possible browser. They view these complaints as evidence of a job well done.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My main gripe is that there is no back button (to return to your previous page) anymore.
At this point, I think Google has made continued executive salaries at Mozilla dependent on making the worst possible browser. They view these complaints as evidence of a job well done.
There is a back button, I just used it in the nightly build.
In addition, the OS native back button in Android? It functions as a back button in Firefox as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still on 68, but the only back button i ever use is the android 'back' navigation button, not the browser "back button".
Did they remove the "three dots -> back arrow" ? I can't recall the last time I used that. Who uses that back arrow? Is it something to do with the model phone where the built in android back button isn't present??
(I DO occasionally use the 'three dots -> forward button' though. To go forward after having gone back.)
Re:Da fuq (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
On Android the back button is ALWAYS "back to the previous view". So if you follow a link in an app and it opens in the browser then the back button will take you back to the app. If you follow a link in the browser the back button will take you back to the page the link was on.
I don't know how Samsung managed to break that but I suggest moving to a different messaging app that doesn't deliberately break the UI. Certainly Google's various messaging apps behave as expected.
Re: Da fuq (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the three dots back arrow was convenient to have because it doesn't do anything else, unlike the android back button.
I'm currently running F-Droid Fennic, which is the old version of Firefox as served by F-Droid. Mainly because I used a number of addons, youtube playback has garbled audio at faster speeds on the new version, and tabs can't be reordered anymore. Ugh.
Re: Da fuq (Score:2)
Or using 79.0.5
Re: (Score:2)
One problem solved, and not even one of the most annoying ones. I'll keep using Fennic until a non-beta firefox supports the addons I use and can play youtube videos at 1.25x without sounding like complete crap.
I guess the important question, if not Firefox (Score:3)
What browser should I be using on my phone? And don't try to tell me to use Chrome.
As long as I can get uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger, and import my bookmarks I'd probably be ok.
Re:I guess the important question, if not Firefox (Score:4, Informative)
What browser should I be using on my phone? And don't try to tell me to use Chrome.
As long as I can get uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger, and import my bookmarks I'd probably be ok.
The new version of Firefox is compatible with only a few add-ons so far.
uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger are two out of the ten or so add-ons supported, so far. So, you're in luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I guess the important question, if not Firefox (Score:4, Informative)
I've gone with Fennic F-Droid. It's the old version of Firefox, installed from F-Droid [f-droid.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Use Blockada for ad blocking to stop caring about what browser you're using...
I like Yandex browser, it is a Chromium based browser but they have full compatibility with all Chrome extensions which Chrome on Android does not have.
Re: (Score:3)
Those, along with Cookie AutoDelete: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org] then yes, I'd be ok too.
Re: I guess the important question, if not Firefox (Score:2)
I still use Firefox but I'm pissed off at it.
UBlock still works and sync still fetches my bookmarks so that's something. But previously when I tapped the URL bar there were a list of FF for Android bookmarks displayed. That's gone and I need to make extra taps to show them *every time*. There is no option to being back the old.
It is almost enough to make me switch but the Chrome sync uses Google and IIRC isn't end to end encrypted so Google can read my shit... so that shit won't fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox is the best mobile browser in pretty much every way except one.
It's got all the necessary add-ons: uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Cookie Autodelete and more.
It's decent on memory and battery consumption.
It's open source and respects your privacy.
The only problem is that it doesn't render some sites very well, including this one. If they could just fix the rendering I'd switch over immediately on both mobile and desktop.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what kind of weird rendering issues you have. It's not like the rendering issues of IE.
Only cases where I have seen different result between Firefox and other browsers aside from IE is when there have been designs that aren't W3C compliant, but then we are in undefined territory.
Re: (Score:2)
Try this website: https://www.satsignal.eu/ntp/R... [satsignal.eu]
It is readable in Chrome on Android but in Firefox the page is too wide and you have to scroll to read every single line.
Re: (Score:2)
I did check that page in the W3C html validator [w3.org] and got 887 errors, and then the source states that this was edited in Microsoft FrontPage 4.0, which had the final release in 2003 - and generated a considerable amount of Internet Explorerisms.
So that example isn't W3C compliant and therefore the rendering is most likely going to be quirky.
When I revise to HTML 4.0 Transitional it's "only" 129 errors.
Either you comply with standards or you comply with quirks that other design tools adds, and there have been
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the internet, I'm afraid most of it is broken.
I can provide you with other example. How about slashdot.org? 155 errors for that too. The mobile version is useless so I use the desktop version in Chrome on Android. I can view it mostly fine, but in Firefox it's unreadable.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any problems with Slashdot on Android.
There's some functionality that's limited, but I have put that under the consideration that it's a design choice to limit some functionality on the mobile devices.
Re: (Score:2)
It's completely unreadable in Firefox for Android. The line length is wider than the screen so you have to constantly scroll left to right to read it.
The mobile view of Slashdot is useless because it doesn't show threading properly, there is no indentation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The desktop version of the site in the mobile browser.
Re: (Score:1)
> The only problem is that it doesn't render some sites very well,
For a program whose primary purpose is to render websites, that's a pretty serious problem.
Roll back? (Score:3)
I've kept the installation tarballs since Netscape. I can always go back.
Re: (Score:2)
There are other ways [apkmirror.com] too.
Re: (Score:1)
new definition of stable! (Score:3)
This new stable version
is that some new definition of stable that I am unaware of? I updated the app, apparently I can't go back now. doesn't matter too much to me as I usually only use it as a backup browser if chrome or edge are having issues on my phone.
Use Brave (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Brave ad-blocking isn't nearly as good as uBlock Origin though, and while you can install uBlock as an add-on the UI is broken so it's not all that useful.
In any case I wouldn't trust a company that includes a crypto currency scam in their browser. They have been up to all sorts of other nasty stuff too, like stealing donations and secretly inserting referral codes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This was June 2020, are you saying they have grown up and become trustworthy in the last month?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You mean they responded to massive backlash to try and save face. There was nothing to be "fixed", it was not an accident. They gambled that no-one would notice (or care) and lost. This is straight up "Oops! Didn't mean to." material.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefux (Score:2)
Its Pretty Dreadful (Score:2)
The version I tried had no about:config.
I used to set a few options in about:config, like turning off WebRTC (I know I can do this with an add-on but WTF for one config option) .I also have my own sync server, to change that is in about:config, I saw no way to do this in the new version.
Seems like they want to make a browser that is less power user friendly.
Re: (Score:3)
The version I tried had no about:config.
I used to set a few options in about:config, like turning off WebRTC (I know I can do this with an add-on but WTF for one config option) .I also have my own sync server, to change that is in about:config, I saw no way to do this in the new version.
Seems like they want to make a browser that is less power user friendly.
Yep, a big old back-handed slap to the collective faces of the demographic that (in my very probably biased view) enabled their earlier successes... If nightlies/beta ever becomes similarly useless, I'll be dropping it as my preferred mobile browser - kind of sad, I've been using it as a mobile browser ever since I started using Android phones (coming off of a trackball blackberry, which replaced a side-wheel blackberry, which replaced a series of random samsung and nokia feature/stick phones) around 9 year
Re: (Score:2)
I'm clinging on to XUL with Waterfox but not all extensions still work. Classic Theme restorer still works though so I can still have a sane interface.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
we have to deal with it,
This doesn't mean anyone has to accept it - vote with your little bit of the market share... it has become clear that they have no value for user opinion, but ever-shrinking market share gets people's attention. I'm just about there my
Re: (Score:1)
If it weren't for Firefox, there would be a single implementation of the HTML standard now; a fact that by the old rules, if I remember correctly, would have prevented the ratification of a standard altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
What should I do then?
Unfortunately, I don't know - I'm more or less in that same boat, though my previous comment was definitely a bit outrageous. I like making stupid automotive analogies almost as much as I want to be able to truly enjoy using Firefox again.
If it weren't for Firefox, there would be a single implementation of the HTML standard now;
This is a persistent, significant reason in the list of reasons why I still use it, and will continue to do so, until it begins to actively interfere with my work. Even then, I would still probably use it at home until they do something really stupid like remove some ot
Re: (Score:2)
"Working as Designed" - my butt... (Score:2)
It may be working as the designer intended, but it's not working well, which tells me that the designer isn't doing a good job or understanding what the users want from a web browser.
Firefox has always been a browser for the more technologically competent people that likes to tweak stuff. The new version has lost all that.
I like it (Score:2)
Re:I like it (Score:4, Insightful)
It has literally 2 settings. One of which puts the address bar at the top.
(the other is enable dark mode).
If this was a beta, I'd be upset at it and complain, but its a full released version and while it may be faster and better, if the UI is broken then the whole thing is broken.
What is it with the bad management at Mozilla? (Score:2)
Have they lost all sense?
It certainly looks like a half-baked version (Score:4, Insightful)
When I started using that version, the first thing that called my attention was the toolbar, that they moved to the bottom. I get it. I even like it better at the bottom. But it's that smug disregard that gets me. Disregard for the user, who, if he's using the app at all, probably means that it's happy with it as it is, and who, in any case, probably doesn't like the UI to change at all, for the simple reason that he's used to things as they are, and know where to find them. But no, instead of giving an option they simply change it and the bewildered user be dammed. And then they give an option hidden in settings, for the user to find out if he's irked enough.
The second was the "tabs" screen, that previously had two tabs by row with an image of the website, and now had one image-text combo by row. But the images were lost. If you opened a new tab the image was saved, but for the ten or twenty that you previously had, you got a blank. Somehow they didn't care enough in this release to take the previous image, and decided to simply create a new container and do no transfer. As said, a half-baked version, rushed for some reason.
I still keep Firefox, my wife has uninstalled it and went to Chrome, for the two aforementioned irks plus a couple of web sites that used to render OK for her, and now render with unreadable small text. Too many hindrances for her.
I'll never understand the itch that software houses have to make "big" releases of a working product, with "basic" and "fundamental" changes that affect the innards and also the UI, instead of many small releases with tiny changes. Perhaps is to feel that they are doing important things, perhaps to focus efforts with a good-sounding code name, who knows, in any case sure it's not due to having the best interest of their users in mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Even before that they should have h
How to get about:config back.. (Score:3)
>> If you go to Settings > About Firefox and tap the logo a bunch, it will enable a few hidden options back on the main Settings page. One of which should be custom Sync and Firefox Accound settimgs.
can't back out is a serious issue (Score:2)
> If you accidentally updated the app and would like to roll back the update, you won't be able to. "[O]nce you've upgraded to the new browser, you won't be able to return to the old browser," says Mozilla.
This is what makes it very difficult to sell updates to the user base. They've been stung too many times with "updates" that make significant changes in their workflow or are just plain buggy, and can not be backed out. The people who use these tools to get work done (and who isn't working from thei
It's like they don't get the point of their browse (Score:2)
Extensions were the whole reason why people installed Firefox. It should be the one thing absolutely guaranteed to stay working
I think it was goo to completely overhaul the engine, to avoid becoming a Windows ME, but I would have ran the old engine in a container on the side, to support old extensions, if necessary, until a way was found to migrate them.