New In Firefox Nightly Builds: Copilot Chatbot, New Tab Widgets, JPEG-XL Support (omgubuntu.co.uk) 45
The blog OMG Ubuntu notes that Microsoft Copilot chatbot support has been added in the latest Firefox Nightly builds. "Firefox's sidebar already offers access to popular chatbots, including OpenAI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude, Le Chat's Mistral and Google's Gemini. It previously offered HuggingChat too."
As the testing bed for features Mozilla wants to add to stable builds (though not all make it — eh, rounded bottom window corners?), this is something you can expect to find in a future stable update... Copilot in Firefox offers the same features as other chatbots: text prompts, upload files or images, generate images, support for entering voice prompts (for those who fancy their voice patterns being analysed and trained on). And like those other chatbots, there are usage limits, privacy policies, and (for some) account creation needed. In testing, Copilot would only generate half a summary for a webpage, telling me it was too long to produce without me signing in/up for an account.
On a related note, Mozilla has updated stable builds to let third-party chatbots summarise web pages when browsing (in-app callout alerts users to the 'new' feature). Users yet to enable chatbots are subtly nudged to do so each time they right-click on web page. [Between "Take Screenshot" and "View Page Source" there's a menu option for "Ask an AI Chatbot."] Despite making noise about its own (sluggish, but getting faster) on-device AI features that are privacy-orientated, Mozilla is bullish on the need for external chatbots.
The article suggests Firefox wants to keep up with Edge and Chrome (which can "infuse first-party AI features directly.") But it adds that Firefox's nightly build is also testing some non-AI features, like new task and timer widgets on Firefox's New Tab page. And "In Firefox Labs, there are is an option to enable JPEG XL support, a super-optimised version of JPEG that is gaining traction (despite Google's intransigence).
Other Firefox news:
On a related note, Mozilla has updated stable builds to let third-party chatbots summarise web pages when browsing (in-app callout alerts users to the 'new' feature). Users yet to enable chatbots are subtly nudged to do so each time they right-click on web page. [Between "Take Screenshot" and "View Page Source" there's a menu option for "Ask an AI Chatbot."] Despite making noise about its own (sluggish, but getting faster) on-device AI features that are privacy-orientated, Mozilla is bullish on the need for external chatbots.
The article suggests Firefox wants to keep up with Edge and Chrome (which can "infuse first-party AI features directly.") But it adds that Firefox's nightly build is also testing some non-AI features, like new task and timer widgets on Firefox's New Tab page. And "In Firefox Labs, there are is an option to enable JPEG XL support, a super-optimised version of JPEG that is gaining traction (despite Google's intransigence).
Other Firefox news:
- There's good news "for users still clinging to Windows 7," writes the Register. Support for Firefox Extended Support Release 115 "is being extended until March 2026."
- Google "can keep paying companies like Mozilla to make Google the default search engine, as long as these deals aren't exclusive anymore," reports the blog It's FOSS News. (The judge wrote that "Cutting off payments from Google almost certainly will impose substantial — in some cases, crippling — downstream harms to distribution partners..." according to CNBC — especially since the non-profit Mozilla Foundation gets most of its annual revenue from its Google's search deal.)
- Don't forget you can now search your tabs, bookmarks and browsing history right from the address bar with keywords like @bookmarks, @tabs, and @history. (And @actions pulls up a list of actions like "Open private window" or "Restart Firefox").
Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally! Even more features I don't need or want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well you're more than welcome to not use them.
Are they turned on by default? Is there a way to turn them off? If I do, will they turn back on with the next update (and the next and the next and the next)?
If it even so much as takes up space on the screen by default, it's annoying.
If you want to use it, you can turn it on. And odds are, more people would rather not even be aware it's there than will actually use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they turned on by default? Is there a way to turn them off? If I do, will they turn back on with the next update (and the next and the next and the next)?
I've never seen someone put so effort and concern into something that is achieved by simply not opening the sidebar.
If you want to use it, you can turn it on.
If you don't want to use it, you can turn it off. In what world are new features disabled by default? But in any case this discussion is quite irrelevant. What you or I want doesn't matter, it's the project of the developer. His view is the only one that matters. You're free to use their software or not as you see fit, that's the only control you have over software you don't develop yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like . . . every spammer ever. "Just delete my spam. You don't have to read it. Just opt out (even though you didn't opt in, and I'll ignore your unsubscribe anyway and consider it proof it's a valid email address)" But spam damages the medium, like a chain letter. It's existence reduces the usefulness of email.
Just like these features that nobody (except advertisers) wants and nobody (except advertisers) asked for and nobody (except advertisers) will ever use.
Does somebody pay you to shill for th
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like . . . every spammer ever.
The difference between a spammer and Firefox is that you chose Firefox. It's a very stupid comparison you made. If you want to compare me to something in your inbox then I am the news email you explicitly subscribed to. You don't get to choose the content I put in that email, but you do get to choose that you subscribed, and you do get to choose to unsubscribe.
and nobody (except advertisers) asked for
Literally nobody ever asks for features. Features are created at the whims of developers with ideas and then marketed to create a desire / knowledge
Do you understand? (Score:3)
People choose firefox for a specific reason and mozilla keeps doing things that run counter to probably the most popular reasons. Yeah we can all go to librewolf but that'll have bad consequences for the future.
Just curious what do you think will happen if firefox use is cut in half?
You've spent considerable effort complaining about other people's complaining,
Let's see if you can understand their concerns?
Re: (Score:2)
People subscribe to mailing lists for a specific reason, that doesn't mean they get to choose the content. The analogy holds perfectly. At no point have you *EVER* had any say in the development of Firefox because it's not your project.
The beauty of open source is that if enough people agree with you then a fork can be created and maintained to suit your desires. No there's no bad consequences for that future. Consumer choice is a good thing.
Just curious what do you think will happen if firefox use is cut in half?
Based on past experiences with forks, positive things, increased e
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah we'll just fork it and it'll all be cool and we should respect the "wishes" of "the developer", mozilla. Makes sense.
Your retaded
Re: (Score:2)
I probably didn't make myself clear. Firefox is already barely worth considering when developing web apps. 0.7% isn't worth considering, they can snuff it out after that and it'll join the emacs browser, konquorer, dillo, links and so on.
Re:Finally! [Let me grab my wallet!] (Score:2)
I still think the key question is "Which of these new features would you donate money for?"
My answer is "I am unable to remember far enough back to recall a feature that I would have actually donated money to implement." There are some good features that I use, but they were added a LONG time ago and I was never asked to donate for those features. In fact, I don't think I ever donated to support Mozilla. I actually regret most of the charitable donations I have made, now that I think of it.
Or perhaps we sho
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
JPEG-XL support is very welcome. It has some nice features that make it a worthwhile upgrade over JPEG.
- Can losslessly convert JPEGs and compress them around 20% better.
- Better quality images for a similar bit rate.
- Less annoying artefacts.
- Proper HDR support.
Windows and Safari support it too. Unfortunately Chrome does not, so until Google decides to add support, it's use on the web will be limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: JPEG spec had always supported more than 8bpp, and supports ICC profiles.
Annoying fact: libjpeg had the bit depth as a compile time flag and I don't think I've ever seen anything other than 8 bits in the wild.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know the history of it, but it seems like every app that does HDR with JPEG does it with a hack. Like Google Camera produces an 8 bit JPEG and a separate HDR map image, so that apps which only support 8 bit display something reasonable.
So is it the case that libjpeg can't even decode >8 bits if not compiled to handle it?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to caveat this first. My knowledge is old and I've not hand compiled libjpeg in ages but at that time yes, it was a flag and you either got 8 bits or 12(?) bits. I think also if you had the latter you didn't get the former. So it would be bonkers to choose the high but depth option.
Technically other decoders do exist, but no idea if they support the obscure variant. My guess would be not.
I can see why Google do that hack. HDR support is theoretically possible, but despite being in the spec, the wa
Re: (Score:2)
8bpp support and HDR are not the same thing. You can have 12bpp JPEGs that are NOT HDR. They are often called "deep color". Many newer digital cameras support 12bpp captures and you can display them on a 8bpp display by dropping the lower 4 bits.
JPEG may not support HDR, even though it supports 12bpp images. While you need more bits to support HDR, often they can be supplied as a separate map because you only need extra bits for the extra bright pixels (HDR means you have increased headroom to handle really
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda, HDR is used for many different meanings.
Dynamic range is the ratio of the brightest to the dimmest representable value. SDR is "standard dynamic range" which is 8bpp with a particular mapping of values to brightness. Thing is if you have the same mapping of maxval to brightness and the same curve, then 10bpp will have higher dynamic range than 8bpp.
The only way to make 10bpp not have higher dynamic range than SDR is to have maxval and 1 both explicitly mapped to the same brightness values so it is by
Re: (Score:2)
"Newer"? It's 15 years since Nikon started supporting 14bpp captures in its prosumer range (18 years in the professional range), and I assume that other camera manufacturers were on a similar timeframe.
Re: (Score:3)
Fun fact: JPEG spec had always supported more than 8bpp, and supports ICC profiles.
Is that a fun fact? I can't find any evidence that JPEG supports more than 8bpp, even in the extended encoding scheme.
Additionally JPEG explicitly does *NOT* support ICC profiles. ICC profiles are embedded into JPEG as an application specific data segment. It is a hack to throw an ICC profile in somewhere (in this case APP2 marker since APP1 is often used by other software) standardised by the ICC and not at all included or mentioned in any part of the JPEG specification. It's like saying your printed memo
Re: (Score:2)
I wish. It's not rare for me to find 16-bit JPEG files in some online artist galleries, and sometimes those images don't display properly. Some people don't understand bit depth and when saving JPEG files in Photoshop, all kinds of metadata gets saved, resulting in humongous files.
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering why. It's so frustrating - JPEGXL is an excellent format. Fast, too, compared to a lot of the alternatives (like AVIF), and less patent risk.
Re: (Score:3)
>"Finally! Even more features I don't need or want."
Which ones? You are not the only person who uses Firefox...
Continuing to support the very old MS-Windows 7 for at least another 6 months sounds good. As for jpgXL support, that sounds good/useful/non-intrusive. The "@" stuff can be handy and doesn't interfere with anything. The "copilot" thing is not a "feature" it is just an option like with all the other search engines preset so you don't have to enter it yourself, if you want to use it.
The only t
Re: Finally! (Score:2)
115LTS for another 6 months also should support my 2010 Mac Mini on High Sierra, which has NOTHING WRONG WITH IT and works great as a TV companion box.
But feh on all this AI horseshit. #donotwant
Happy (Score:3)
Happily, my version 140.2.0esr has none of these things and likely won't for quite some time.
Re: (Score:2)
In 140 you should have the AI sidebar already.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right! After digging around I see that it is available. But, I turned it off.
And yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Still no checkbox to disable being harassed by update notifications. Something so simple yet so far away.
Re: (Score:3)
Those pop ups are annoying. Firefox isn’t even running and it’s telling me dumb shit I have to click and acknowledge.
Re:And yet (Score:4, Informative)
Still no checkbox to disable being harassed by update notifications. Something so simple yet so far away."
Yeah, but that is probably never coming back due to their stance on security. They simply do not want to encourage people using outdated/unpatched versions. I know there are valid reasons for wanting to not update (I have similar reasons at work on controlled desktops). And Firefox does provide options...
It is typically disabled in the compiled versions included in Linux distros. Your option on other platforms, or on some Linux distros which might not compile in the option (which you probably already know about) is to set a policy:
$ cat $FFINSTALL/distribution/policies.json
{
"policies": {
"DisableAppUpdate": true
}
}
It is simple/easy and works. Unfortunately, it does require copying that directory/file into the next installed version of Firefox when you do install it. But that takes only a second.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as a complement, the documentation for this feature: https://mozilla.github.io/poli... [github.io]
Re: (Score:2)
HTH: https://mozilla.github.io/poli... [github.io]
There's also a localhost option (Score:4, Interesting)
You can turn on a setting in about:config that will add an option to connect to a locally hosted LLM model, typically running in your GPU with something like Ollama, LM Studio or Anything LLM.
I would like that such option was displayed as prominent as those connecting to commercial services, but at least it's there for those in the know.
Re:There's also a localhost option (Score:4, Informative)
The whole "AI integration" is an iframe in the sidebar and a function to quickly load https://aiservice?q=summarize+... [aiservice]
You can use it with localhost and e.g. OpenWebui on your PC, you can use the company's AI server, you can run some tool completely unrelated to AI, because you can also customize the prompts via browser.ml.chat.prompts.INDEX
All sites make a big deal about "Firefox now supports copilot" while the issue they resolved now is to add the assets (strings, favicon) to add copilot to the list. That it took some time is not because copilot is special, but because they needed to make sure they can use the copilot icon without getting trouble for copyright/trademarks.
JPEG XL (Score:4, Informative)
JPEG XL is actually pretty cool.
Can replace most non-video image file formats, smart psychovisual modeling, fast, and not threatened by Nokia patents.
Somehow I thought for a while that is was basically JPEG 2000, but that was very wrong. Much more comprehensive and a modern pedigree.
Google seems to have NIH flu about it.
https://cloudinary.com/blog/ho... [cloudinary.com]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not so much NIH but more like "why bother at all". The world revolves around JPEG. It worked when the internet was making noises when you connected to it, it works not that you have gigabit fiber connections. It saves 4x file size vs JPEG, that would have helped me back in 1995, but it doesn't help me now. Even WebP fails to gain any traction for all but businesses which exist to serve up countless images (and WebP came way before JPEG-XL did).
Forget NIH, give me a use case. JPEG-XL is something that no one
Anyone? (Score:2)
Did anyone ASK for these "features"?
Genuine question.
Rid Firefox from AI Contamination (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, Boy! Co-pilot - Yet another reason to drop fi (Score:2)
Holy shit, does Mozilla not read anything?
Or is this opposites day and they thought the co-pilot hate meant it was worthwhile?