Firefox 120 Ready With Global Privacy Control, WebAssembly GC On By Default (phoronix.com) 32
Firefox 120 will be available tomorrow, bringing support for the Global Privacy Control "Sec-GPC" request header to indicate whether a user consents to a website or service selling or sharing their personal information with third parties. It's also enabling the WebAssembly GC extension by default, opening up new languages like Dart and Kotlin to run in the browser. Phoronix's Michael Larabel highlights some of the other features included in this release: - Ubuntu Linux users now have the ability to import data from Chromium when both are installed as Snap packages.
- Picture-in-Picture mode now supports corner snapping on Windows and Linux.
- Support for the light-dark() CSS color function that allows setting of colors for both light and dark without needing to use the prefers-color-scheme media feature. This allows conveniently specifying the preferred light color theme value followed by the dark color theme value.
- CSS support for the lh and rlh line height units.
- Support for the light-dark() CSS color function that allows setting of colors for both light and dark without needing to use the prefers-color-scheme media feature. This allows conveniently specifying the preferred light color theme value followed by the dark color theme value.
- CSS support for the lh and rlh line height units.
DNT 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DNT 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood the point of "user-agent". All it's ever achieved is to break the Internet.
Firefox needs a button to say "Pretend to be Google Chrome on this site".
(Or just do it by default on all google-run sites, how would that be bad...?)
Re:DNT 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)
>"I've never understood the point of "user-agent". All it's ever achieved is to break the Internet."
Amen. And having to change it because some site is *BROKEN* because it is coded to a browser instead of a standard or because they are too *LAZY* to care about anything but Chrom* is very frustrating. Welcome to IE-Only 2.0.
>"Firefox needs a button to say "Pretend to be Google Chrome on this site".
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
Just make sure you do not leave it in a lying mode for general browsing because 1) It might break things 2) You are showing even less relevance of your browser to the marketing dweebs. It really should just be a work-around for specific stupid sites that are broken. And it does work, have had to use it a few times. And yes, combined with complaining loudly to the site owners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google is trying to remove the user-agent too. Chrome has been reducing the amount of information in it, and the roadmap says it will go away entirely at some point.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there isn't a native button, but the User-Agent Switcher and Manager [mozilla.org] extension will let you apply a whitelist of sites that you want to be Chrome for. Set it and forget it. On those sites, you're Chrome.
Or you can just turn it on and enjoy being Chrome everywhere. It puts a button on your toolbar, which I have right next to my home button.
Also, Mozilla already hard codes Chrome-spoofing as a workaround when someone reports a problem to Bugzilla and the only solution is to spoof Chrome. At least until
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And will equally be ignored. Companies will just pay the fines if it is legally enforced. Google is now actively trying to kill Firefox [9to5google.com] now it is the only browser with real content blocking. Google will probably do even more dirty tricks to do as much damage before antitrust can stop them.
Between Apple and Samsung, I believe Google paid damn near 45 billion dollars to ensure no one else gets the default search setting.
Does Google have set the antitrust HQ building on fire, show up with a fire-engine red fire truck to put out the red hot embers, and then offer to re-paint the entire building in red, in order to be caught red-handed? I mean damn. I know lawmakers blatantly "forgot" what a monopoly is, but this is getting fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong but let's not lose sight of the fact that the reason we know all this information is due to a DOJ antitrust trial
Re: (Score:2)
You're not wrong but let's not lose sight of the fact that the reason we know all this information is due to a DOJ antitrust trial
This is like saying we know Al Capone was a gangster because...tax evasion.
In reality, we actually knew long ago what those buying default settings were doing, and why. It just takes a lot longer for those getting political pockets stuffed to come to that realization...after they're backed into a corner by force.
Re: (Score:2)
This is like saying we know Al Capone was a gangster because...tax evasion.
I initially saw that as AI (Artificial Intelligence) not Al (Alphonse) Capone and thought, "Wait, what?"
Gotta be careful with these sans serif fonts ...
Re: (Score:3)
It just takes a lot longer for those getting political pockets stuffed to come to that realization
No doubt but it also matters who is in power as well. We have an administration who is enforcing antitrust for the first time since probably the 1980's or even earlier.
Point is if people like the AC want more cases like this enforce they shouldn't forget that elections do matter and give it up or the fact that the current admin is actually doing something. Cynical flip comments are fun and all but would you prefer the Al Capones never be charged ever?
Re: (Score:2)
I know lawmakers blatantly "forgot" what a monopoly is, but this is getting fucking stupid.
Monopoly doesn't mean "large market share".
Microsoft is free for pay Samsung for Bing to be the default. Samsung is a business, I assume there was a bidding process and they accepted the highest bid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
And will equally be ignored.
DNT didn't get ignored until browser vendors shat the bed by making it opt out instead of opt in.
Re: (Score:2)
And to whomever modded me down, please go take a history lesson. At the time there was even a thought that MS set the DNT on by default intentionally so that the industry would have reason to ignore it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, the new Firefox developers were never told This bedtime story [slashdot.org] when they were kids.
As for Chrome. The second that Chrome blocks ad blockers is the day Chrome Dies. Once you go ad free you will never go back. Unfortunately I think more people will go to more questionable browsers than migrate back to Firefox.
Light and dark (Score:2)
What about RFC 3514? (Score:3)
Sec-GPC is fine, I guess, but when are they going to get around to implementing RFC 3514 [ietf.org]? Seriously, it's well past time we took privacy and security seriously!
First and most important question (Score:2)
Where is the setting to disable Wasm?
Fuck Google.
Re:First and most important question (Score:4, Informative)
>"Where is the setting to disable Wasm?"
about:config
javascript.options.wasm false
Re: First and most important question (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>"where is the setting for normal people?"
"Normal" people will have no idea what WASM is, even if such a setting tried to define it for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Wasm should be disabled in all browsers made by anyone who cares about net transparency and privacy, and want their ad blockers to keep working.
The question is: why if Mozilla selling out and letting this Google abomination in?
Oh yeah, I forgot... [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with you.
Tip for the day: Don't use no double negatives [visualthesaurus.com] to always be understood.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude what on earth are you talking about?
Firefox has had WASM support for years, since 2017, at least as long as Chrome, and it's a refinement of asm.js which was developed originally by Mozilla in 2013.
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla invented WASM. It was originally asm.js, and was actually written in Javascript.
Given that WASM can't do anything that Javascript can't, and that you don't carefully read through every line of Javascript your browser executes, it's a bit daft to say it's some kind of privacy issue. If you care, just disable all scripting.
Re: (Score:2)
where is the setting for normal people?
Normal people don't disable wasm because they are normal people who use the internet in normal ways.
It's in about:config for you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are minimally literate, you can do the above...
Java is back? (Score:2)
Wait, Kotlin? Kotlin runs on the JVM. Does that mean Java is back in the browser too? I wonder if they can get old applets running again?
Re: (Score:1)
Wait, Kotlin? Kotlin runs on the JVM. Does that mean Java is back in the browser too? I wonder if they can get old applets running again?
Kotlin can can compile down to wasm or AOT binaries that need no JVM to run at all
Maybe 1200 (Score:2)
I may consider going back to ff once they hit version 1200, anticipated in a few months.