Slashdot Mirror

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/fire...

Er, Google Chrome on desktop Linux can cast a tab with the Google Cast extension extension in the Chrome store, so I've no idea why you claim no Linux browser can do this. If you use CentOS 6 like I do, you can even get Google Chrome running with my script.

The Firefox bug for all this seemed to be swaying backwards and forwards between using the SDK and not using it. Latest updates seem to suggest it *is* using the Chromecast SDK now, which unfortunately means desktop Firefox and Firefox OS may be left out in the cold initially.

"It's a bit disturbing that they haven't taken steps on their own since it provides a very good reason why people should block ads." - by sjames (1099) on Sunday May 18, 2014 @04:05PM (#47033381) Homepage

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Yeah, I tend to switch around plug-ins, as Google changes things to mess up downloaders, downloaders adapt, but not at an equal rate. Right now this one seems to be working (so long as 720p is fine):

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

Ask Mr. S. Burn (hpHosts MalwareBytes - part of the security community) @ http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

He's seen my sourcecode & recommends it there as the best of its kind right there @ the top of that site in fact, since he verified it safe (along with Symantec/Norton, ArcaVir, Comodo, ClamAV, McAfee/Intel, etc - et al).

It is: Clearly!

(As it does more with less, & more by far than any single competitor (especially browser addons) in this arena!)

Simply by using tools you already have. Less is more is good engineering.

(Not bolting on more that operates in slower rings of privelege in usermode vs. a kernelmode subsystem doing the work perfected over decades now, in TCP/IP (which hosts is part of as a filter run from another kernelmode system for caching the way I do it, in the diskcaching subsystem (for large hosts files))).

APK

P.S.=> It works - & certainly MORE EFFICIENTLY than AdBlock https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

+

Hosts do FAR MORE than AdBlock/Ghostery/RequestPolicy etc. in added:

SPEED
SECURITY
RELIABILITY
ANONYMITY

For end-users of custom hosts files online!

... apk

One can only imagine what other functionalities this CDM module will have.

Yeah, it might mine bitcoins, but if it wants to inspect your computer, get a cross-site unique id, look at your files, etc... It'll have to break out the sandbox in which it is placed. See the picture here: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014...

So unlike the flash plugin, it won't be able to do much...

See the Firefox 1.0 release notes, where they say Firefox (then called Phoenix) will be like Seamonkey, but with "features deemed geeky" removed.

http://website-archive.mozilla...

In the 1.0 release notes, Seamonkey is called "the Mozilla browser". The new Firefox (aka Phoenix aka Firebird) is contrasted with the pre-existing browser from Mozilla, internally known as Seamonkey. The Seamonkey name goes all the way back to Netscape. Extetnally, Netscape Inc. branded Seamonkey as "Netscape", the Mozilla Foundation branded it as "Mozilla browser", but it was always Seamonkey in the code.

    After the ad in the New York Times and other marketing helped Firefox to become more popular than it's older brother, the Mozilla foundation switched it's focus away from Seamonkey to the new product, Firefox. After a few years of that, the governance of the Seamonkey project changed. That change came after Firefox, so that may be the event you're thinking of. That wasn't the birth of Seamonkey, though, far from it. That was a milestone marking the DECLINE of Seamonkey because Mozilla had moved focus away from Seamonkey.

DRM in Firefox will download a binary module from adobe

What could possibly go wrong?!

Plenty of things... But it will be sandboxed.
In sandbox provided by Mozilla. So adobe doesn't have to do anything security related. See the picture here:
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014...


Compared to binary plugins like flash, which isn't sandboxed, this is much better.

Real security from Adobe? Bwahahah! Name an Adobe security success in the past decade!

Check out the picture here: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014...
Then notice the open source sandbox around the CDM module :)
I have confidence that the CDM can be locked down in a sandbox where regardless of how stupid the code is, it won't hurt the user experience or user privacy...
This is better than flash, where adobe made the sandbox. This time Mozilla will be making the sandbox, not adobe. Adobe will only be playing with the sand :)
As you suggest, it's probably best that adobe sticks doesn't do anything security related, in this setup, Mozilla will do the security, and adobe will do the "obscurity" (which we from flash that they are good at).

Will this 'lesser evil' have a unique ID?.. Based on your hardware?

Nope. Read the blog post by Andreas (CTO at Mozilla) on the topic, he says:
By contrast, in Firefox the sandbox prohibits the CDM from fingerprinting the user’s device.
(Source: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014...)
So contrary to other DRM infested browsers and other DRM delivery mechanisms, CDM is sandboxed and the sandbox will provide the CDM module with a unique identifier. The unique identifier will be different between sites, etc.. In order to ensure users privacy.
So, no super-cookie for you.

Websites could demand you run ads and use the DRM to make damn sure you don't disable them.

Websites could also demand that you run silverlight... They don't do that...
Also note, that the CDM module won't be downloaded without user consent.


All in all this is better than Flash and friends, and Mozilla is actively tasking steps to lock down the CDM module and restrict what it can do.

More, better DRM is never a good thing.

Agree, but if netflix goes CDM then silverlight is finally dead. So in terms of lines-of-code and API surface we'll have less DRM.

Long copyright terms need to die and DRM needs to die with it.

Copyright terms is a political issue, but regarding DRM, I think it'll change when the content industry makes most of revenue from online streaming. It's not cheap to encrypt every stream and license DRM technology from various providers. I'm sure netflix will work hard to kill DRM.
And they certainly have to power to do this.

AdBlock's not very efficient as I've always said (now proven) https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... it might not be a great idea.

* Try this instead ("you-know-who", lol (APK)) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

(Yes, Yes - "shameless plug" but, we know each other!)

APK

P.S.=> You'll find that read, VERY intersting & something funny happened: I posted about my app there, posts were removed... ok, fine (right after a /. troll from this site caused hassles there that is, figures) - THEN - I posted on Wladimir Palant's AdBlock.org site in HIS response to that finding (huge ram bloat, & HIGH cpu etc.) - He removed my post too (all it was, was my "std. reply" I use here). Both of them emailed me first. I replied telling them they're only DESTROYING THEMSELVES attempting to hide the FACT that hosts do MORE by far than ANY SINGLE BROWSER ADDON there is, + for LESS resources consumed & from a FAR FASTER LEVEL OF OPERATIONS (ring 0/kernelmode)...

I challenged Wladir Palant (author of AdBlock) in reply mail to SHOW ME & PROVE AdBlock does more for end users in added speed, security, reliabilty, & even anonymity... he won't answer, especially AFTER HE SAID, verbatim, "Hosts are a shitty solution"... yea? See link above!

"Gosh! I wonder WHY?" LOL, not...

He knows hosts are SUPERIOR by far on tons of levels is why... no questions asked after that & ABOUT TIME I hit him "head to head" on it after using the naysayers here for a SOLID YEAR for research of my points which none here can dispute either...

Yes - "Things have a way of working out..." & in MY FAVOR!

... apk

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Mozilla teamed up with Cisco which wrote H.264 code under the BSD license. And Cisco now pays for the patent license. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/...

Flash/Silverlight is going to be discontinued. What would companies like Netflix have used instead when that happens? Their only option would have been to write a browser extension for every browser that didn't support DRM, and require the user to install it. This is far worse for Netflix than existing extensions like Flash ever were.

So a DRM-free future was looking bright. That is, until the idiots at Mozilla decided to take the massive step backwards and support EME in their browser - which will make pushing DRM onto users more convenient than ever.

I was actually hopeful that one day my Debian on ARM machine would finally be able to play all video (and there's no ARM Flash builds). Since there's no official Firefox armel builds (see ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/fire...), I'd have to rebuild Firefox myself (unless the EME support makes it into my distro builds) however be surprised if Adobe's CDM would work on a Firefox rebuild for another architecture, or any kind of unofficial Firefox build for that matter.

I'm going to unsubscribe from Mozilla's newsletter and try switching to another free software browser in protest. Maybe Midori or Konqueror won't implement EME.

"How long will it take to crack this DRM? 6 months at most. Probably more like 6 days. Why are we pretending like this is even remotely a big deal?"

The most important issue seems to be the overall direction Mozilla Foundation is going, not any one of these management issues alone:

Considering doing things against the interests of users. See this Slashdot story: Mozilla Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans

Mimicking Google's rapid release of new versions of the Chrome browser with new major version numbers, causing add-ons to fail.

Mimicking the Google Chrome user interface.

Avoiding fixing a MAJOR flaw in Firefox. As I said above, the memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are at least 13 add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons.

Mis-handling of public relations.

The Pale Moon version of Firefox appears to have better management than Mozilla Foundation gives Firefox.

Pale Moon Windows version
Pale Moon Linux version

Here are some of the advantages:

1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.

2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search. A small UI detail like that is not, in itself, as important as the fact that Mozilla Foundation could make such a careless mistake.

3) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are at least 13 add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.

4) Pale Moon management is independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.

Whoever writes the Pale Moon web site seems to be very knowledgeable and a good manager.

More information about Pale Moon: See the Pale Moon FAQ. Here is a quote:

"As Pale Moon has developed, so has the amount of individual code for the browser, steadily diverting Pale Moon from its sibling in the direction aimed for in this browser -- having transformed it from an optimized build into a true "fork" of Firefox."

Pale Moon migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool.

Questions about Firefox:

The management of Firefox is apparently looking for ways to abuse users so that it can make more money. See this Slashdot story: Mozilla Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans. Apparently Firefox management wanted to adopt that method of abuse and found that it wasn't possible. This story we are reading now: Free Software Foundation Condemns Mozilla's Move To Support DRM In Firefox discusses another example.

Have you seen $311,000,000 of yearly development of Firefox? Mitchell Baker is the "Executive Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation". She is a lawyer with no technical knowledge, apparently.

See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: (Seriously, this is copied from the site.) "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011."

Who gets the money? How it is spent? The amount of money is shocking to me. When someone clicks on an ad, Google may get 10 cents or 50 cents or $1.50. The cost to Google of linking to an ad is maybe .01 cent? It's easy money, pai

The Pale Moon version of Firefox appears to have better management than Mozilla Foundation gives Firefox.

Pale Moon Windows version
Pale Moon Linux version

Here are some of the advantages:

1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.

2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search. A small UI detail like that is not, in itself, as important as the fact that Mozilla Foundation could make such a careless mistake.

3) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are at least 13 add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.

4) Pale Moon management is independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.

Whoever writes the Pale Moon web site seems to be very knowledgeable and a good manager.

More information about Pale Moon: See the Pale Moon FAQ. Here is a quote:

"As Pale Moon has developed, so has the amount of individual code for the browser, steadily diverting Pale Moon from its sibling in the direction aimed for in this browser -- having transformed it from an optimized build into a true "fork" of Firefox."

Pale Moon migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool.

Questions about Firefox:

The management of Firefox is apparently looking for ways to abuse users so that it can make more money. See this Slashdot story: Mozilla Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans. Apparently Firefox management wanted to adopt that method of abuse and found that it wasn't possible. This story we are reading now: Free Software Foundation Condemns Mozilla's Move To Support DRM In Firefox discusses another example.

Have you seen $311,000,000 of yearly development of Firefox? Mitchell Baker is the "Executive Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation". She is a lawyer with no technical knowledge, apparently.

See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: (Seriously, this is copied from the site.) "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011."

Who gets the money? How it is spent? The amount of money is shocking to me. When someone clicks on an ad, Google may get 10 cents or 50 cents or $1.50. The cost to Google of linking to an ad is maybe .01 cent? It's easy money, pai

The Pale Moon version of Firefox appears to have better management than Mozilla Foundation gives Firefox.

Pale Moon Windows version
Pale Moon Linux version

Here are some of the advantages:

1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.

2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search. A small UI detail like that is not, in itself, as important as the fact that Mozilla Foundation could make such a careless mistake.

3) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are at least 13 add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.

4) Pale Moon management is independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.

Whoever writes the Pale Moon web site seems to be very knowledgeable and a good manager.

More information about Pale Moon: See the Pale Moon FAQ. Here is a quote:

"As Pale Moon has developed, so has the amount of individual code for the browser, steadily diverting Pale Moon from its sibling in the direction aimed for in this browser -- having transformed it from an optimized build into a true "fork" of Firefox."

Pale Moon migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool.

Questions about Firefox:

The management of Firefox is apparently looking for ways to abuse users so that it can make more money. See this Slashdot story: Mozilla Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans. Apparently Firefox management wanted to adopt that method of abuse and found that it wasn't possible. This story we are reading now: Free Software Foundation Condemns Mozilla's Move To Support DRM In Firefox discusses another example.

Have you seen $311,000,000 of yearly development of Firefox? Mitchell Baker is the "Executive Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation". She is a lawyer with no technical knowledge, apparently.

See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: (Seriously, this is copied from the site.) "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011."

Who gets the money? How it is spent? The amount of money is shocking to me. When someone clicks on an ad, Google may get 10 cents or 50 cents or $1.50. The cost to Google of linking to an ad is maybe .01 cent? It's easy money, pai

Current support is accomplished by interfacing to the OS, the cisco binaries are not out yet, but we can hope. And then Mozilla would still need to implement it and then it would take at least 12 weeks until it is tested and ships to the users.

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too + hugely excessive CPU usage (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apkItemid=74

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

And similar specs. The waterproof Kyocera Hydro is US$29.64 right now with free Prime shipping on Amazon for the Kyocera (carrier locked though, but WiFi works fine; unfortunately not sunlight readable though) versus US$99.00 (and free shipping) for the ZTE Open C.

If it's carrier locked, then US$29.64 is not the real price, but just the first payment.

The Hydro is three times cheaper than the Firefox OS device. The ZTE Open C has slightly better hardware specs though and is not locked to a carrier given the SIM card slots.
http://www.amazon.com/Kyocera-...
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/...

So I guess I don't see where there are any cost of hardware advantages to this first offering with Firefox OS. Maybe there will be more to come?

Indeed, you can't expect the first batch to compete in producution costs with those other phones who're way ahead in terms of logistics, markets, etc.

It's true you can only run that Kyocera on Boost Mobile, but WiFi works fine even without a plan. I don't know if that phone is carrier subsidized to any degree. I bought three Hydros (one a bit better) for developer testing for writing networked Android apps. I've paid for a few days of phone service for one of them mostly as a test; I have no plans on activating the other two as phones. I doubt those are subsidized much if at all, but I have no proof of that other than the fact than anyone can buy them and just use them as WiFi only devices.

I see multiple unlocked Android phones on Amazon for about US$100:
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sel...

Anyway, just thought more about your point on cost... Firefox OS is currently more expensive than low-end Android. So the (one billion Mozilla/Google US dollars later) question is, how fast will that change?

Even if Firefox OS was better than Android (still to be seen other than for privacy), it would still face the same uphill adoption of, say, FireWire/Thunderbolt vs. USB1/2/3.

Also for development/testing/networking purposes I bought a ~$120 Android OLPC XO tablet that comes pre-loaded with educational software:
http://www.amazon.com/XO-7-inc...

In a few years, those prices will continue to fall. It's much more pleasant to browse the web on that Android tablet than on an Android phone. I'm not convinced a Firefox OS tablet is going to beat that price anytime soon -- even if it might have privacy benefits.

Again, the very first device can't be expected to compete in price like that, given that their competition already has a strong market foothold. I expect (hope) that this will change as the scenario evolves.

And similar specs. The waterproof Kyocera Hydro is US$29.64 right now with free Prime shipping on Amazon for the Kyocera (carrier locked though, but WiFi works fine; unfortunately not sunlight readable though) versus US$99.00 (and free shipping) for the ZTE Open C. The Hydro is three times cheaper than the Firefox OS device. The ZTE Open C has slightly better hardware specs though and is not locked to a carrier given the SIM card slots.
http://www.amazon.com/Kyocera-...
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/...

So I guess I don't see where there are any cost of hardware advantages to this first offering with Firefox OS. Maybe there will be more to come? It's true you can only run that Kyocera on Boost Mobile, but WiFi works fine even without a plan. I don't know if that phone is carrier subsidized to any degree. I bought three Hydros (one a bit better) for developer testing for writing networked Android apps. I've paid for a few days of phone service for one of them mostly as a test; I have no plans on activating the other two as phones. I doubt those are subsidized much if at all, but I have no proof of that other than the fact than anyone can buy them and just use them as WiFi only devices.

I see multiple unlocked Android phones on Amazon for about US$100:
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sel...

Anyway, just thought more about your point on cost... Firefox OS is currently more expensive than low-end Android. So the (one billion Mozilla/Google US dollars later) question is, how fast will that change?

Even if Firefox OS was better than Android (still to be seen other than for privacy), it would still face the same uphill adoption of, say, FireWire/Thunderbolt vs. USB1/2/3.

Also for development/testing/networking purposes I bought a ~$120 Android OLPC XO tablet that comes pre-loaded with educational software:
http://www.amazon.com/XO-7-inc...

In a few years, those prices will continue to fall. It's much more pleasant to browse the web on that Android tablet than on an Android phone. I'm not convinced a Firefox OS tablet is going to beat that price anytime soon -- even if it might have privacy benefits.

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish & trackers), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) filtering the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory + CPU consumption too ( (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts (tightly integrated into TCP/IP itself)

APK

P.S.=> Adding 2 things to it:

1.) 'Shearing out' trackers you CAN'T see via code techniques emulating netstat -ano on automated timer to do so as I did here on slashdot (like how "PEERBLOCK" operates but not using ADDED COMPLEXITY laying in a filtering driver but instead using the native Windows firewall, creating rulesets for it)

&

2.) More SPEED on its slowest part (Convert & Filter) breaking data into 100 parts (processes FASTER already than doing the single large intake I do currently) by August!

... apk

All true, and a great article. Still, I already bought a couple Kyocera Hydro water-proof cell Android Smartphones for $50 or so each, and hardware costs are falling fast, so it is not clear that OS footprint matters much in the USA, although maybe in Africa and China and India it still does.

Great! So these lower costs will also reflect on Mozilla's device. Won't you be glad the day they mass-produce these and they cost less than 50USD? (by the way, 50USD can be a few days or even a week's salary in some places of the world).

That said, Mozilla could instead have focused on its XPCOM technology to ride above the OS in a cross-platform way (somewhat like VIsualWorks Smalltalk or now Qt or some others):
https://developer.mozilla.org/...
https://developer.mozilla.org/...

And Mozilla could also develop democracy-empowering apps and standards on top of that XPCOM platform for everyone, including ones for collective civic sensemaking and a semantic desktop like I talk about here:
http://www.phibetaiota.net/201...

If I was leading Mozilla, that is what I would have focused more on. Firefox OS on a Smartphone or elsewhere is a great idea in theory, but seems like a nonstarter in practice as far as *extensive* adoption in the Western world (even if I myself might buy a phone with Firefox OS on it preferentially for FOSS and privacy reasons).

That's why they're not targeting traditional western markets, but emerging and underdeveloped ones.

Google succeeded against iOS with mobile phones from nothing to 80% Smartphone market share in a few years because Google had deep pockets and a lot of good will at the time and was at the beginning of an exponentially growing marketplace. Mozilla may have the good will (although not at the scale Google had then among consumers) but it does not have the deep pockets. It also faces an entrenched mobile Smartphone landscape at this point with Android. Plus it does not have a compelling broad service offering like Google had with search and gmail to go with the phone

That's your prespective. A lot of peope will see if from the other end "oh, good, it's not tied to google's services and I can use my existing email accounts and stuff".

What money Mozilla has is almost entirely coming from Google (about a billion dollars total over the last few years), where only about a million a year is in individual donations. While there is a lot a few sharp developers could do if funded with even just a million dollars in donations a year, if Google pulls the plug on Mozilla's funding if Firefox OS were to even hint of being a successor for any other reason, where does that leave Firefox OS? Probably not stuff I should be saying in public given I just applied for a "Software Engineer, Platform" job at Mozilla, but what the hey. :-)
http://careers.mozilla.org/en-...

I love the Mozilla mission of FOSS software to support open standards (with the exception I feel Mozilla made a big mistake on not backing WebSQL built on SQLite as a defacto standard). However, getting people to *install* anything as an uphill battle, let alone buy anything.

Yes, getting users to install stuff is imposible (unless it's virus.exe). I'm not certain they'll succeddin android-dominated markets, and least not in the short run. But there's plenty of other markets.

That's a big reason web-browser-hosted software is winning over the desktop and why I'm moving more of what I do in that direction. Even Alan Kay and Dan Ingalls moved that wa

All true, and a great article. Still, I already bought a couple Kyocera Hydro water-proof cell Android Smartphones for $50 or so each, and hardware costs are falling fast, so it is not clear that OS footprint matters much in the USA, although maybe in Africa and China and India it still does.

Great! So these lower costs will also reflect on Mozilla's device. Won't you be glad the day they mass-produce these and they cost less than 50USD? (by the way, 50USD can be a few days or even a week's salary in some places of the world).

That said, Mozilla could instead have focused on its XPCOM technology to ride above the OS in a cross-platform way (somewhat like VIsualWorks Smalltalk or now Qt or some others):
https://developer.mozilla.org/...
https://developer.mozilla.org/...

And Mozilla could also develop democracy-empowering apps and standards on top of that XPCOM platform for everyone, including ones for collective civic sensemaking and a semantic desktop like I talk about here:
http://www.phibetaiota.net/201...

If I was leading Mozilla, that is what I would have focused more on. Firefox OS on a Smartphone or elsewhere is a great idea in theory, but seems like a nonstarter in practice as far as *extensive* adoption in the Western world (even if I myself might buy a phone with Firefox OS on it preferentially for FOSS and privacy reasons).

That's why they're not targeting traditional western markets, but emerging and underdeveloped ones.

Google succeeded against iOS with mobile phones from nothing to 80% Smartphone market share in a few years because Google had deep pockets and a lot of good will at the time and was at the beginning of an exponentially growing marketplace. Mozilla may have the good will (although not at the scale Google had then among consumers) but it does not have the deep pockets. It also faces an entrenched mobile Smartphone landscape at this point with Android. Plus it does not have a compelling broad service offering like Google had with search and gmail to go with the phone

That's your prespective. A lot of peope will see if from the other end "oh, good, it's not tied to google's services and I can use my existing email accounts and stuff".

What money Mozilla has is almost entirely coming from Google (about a billion dollars total over the last few years), where only about a million a year is in individual donations. While there is a lot a few sharp developers could do if funded with even just a million dollars in donations a year, if Google pulls the plug on Mozilla's funding if Firefox OS were to even hint of being a successor for any other reason, where does that leave Firefox OS? Probably not stuff I should be saying in public given I just applied for a "Software Engineer, Platform" job at Mozilla, but what the hey. :-)
http://careers.mozilla.org/en-...

I love the Mozilla mission of FOSS software to support open standards (with the exception I feel Mozilla made a big mistake on not backing WebSQL built on SQLite as a defacto standard). However, getting people to *install* anything as an uphill battle, let alone buy anything.

Yes, getting users to install stuff is imposible (unless it's virus.exe). I'm not certain they'll succeddin android-dominated markets, and least not in the short run. But there's plenty of other markets.

That's a big reason web-browser-hosted software is winning over the desktop and why I'm moving more of what I do in that direction. Even Alan Kay and Dan Ingalls moved that wa

All true, and a great article. Still, I already bought a couple Kyocera Hydro water-proof cell Android Smartphones for $50 or so each, and hardware costs are falling fast, so it is not clear that OS footprint matters much in the USA, although maybe in Africa and China and India it still does.

Great! So these lower costs will also reflect on Mozilla's device. Won't you be glad the day they mass-produce these and they cost less than 50USD? (by the way, 50USD can be a few days or even a week's salary in some places of the world).

That said, Mozilla could instead have focused on its XPCOM technology to ride above the OS in a cross-platform way (somewhat like VIsualWorks Smalltalk or now Qt or some others):
https://developer.mozilla.org/...
https://developer.mozilla.org/...

And Mozilla could also develop democracy-empowering apps and standards on top of that XPCOM platform for everyone, including ones for collective civic sensemaking and a semantic desktop like I talk about here:
http://www.phibetaiota.net/201...

If I was leading Mozilla, that is what I would have focused more on. Firefox OS on a Smartphone or elsewhere is a great idea in theory, but seems like a nonstarter in practice as far as *extensive* adoption in the Western world (even if I myself might buy a phone with Firefox OS on it preferentially for FOSS and privacy reasons).

That's why they're not targeting traditional western markets, but emerging and underdeveloped ones.

Google succeeded against iOS with mobile phones from nothing to 80% Smartphone market share in a few years because Google had deep pockets and a lot of good will at the time and was at the beginning of an exponentially growing marketplace. Mozilla may have the good will (although not at the scale Google had then among consumers) but it does not have the deep pockets. It also faces an entrenched mobile Smartphone landscape at this point with Android. Plus it does not have a compelling broad service offering like Google had with search and gmail to go with the phone

That's your prespective. A lot of peope will see if from the other end "oh, good, it's not tied to google's services and I can use my existing email accounts and stuff".

What money Mozilla has is almost entirely coming from Google (about a billion dollars total over the last few years), where only about a million a year is in individual donations. While there is a lot a few sharp developers could do if funded with even just a million dollars in donations a year, if Google pulls the plug on Mozilla's funding if Firefox OS were to even hint of being a successor for any other reason, where does that leave Firefox OS? Probably not stuff I should be saying in public given I just applied for a "Software Engineer, Platform" job at Mozilla, but what the hey. :-)
http://careers.mozilla.org/en-...

I love the Mozilla mission of FOSS software to support open standards (with the exception I feel Mozilla made a big mistake on not backing WebSQL built on SQLite as a defacto standard). However, getting people to *install* anything as an uphill battle, let alone buy anything.

Yes, getting users to install stuff is imposible (unless it's virus.exe). I'm not certain they'll succeddin android-dominated markets, and least not in the short run. But there's plenty of other markets.

That's a big reason web-browser-hosted software is winning over the desktop and why I'm moving more of what I do in that direction. Even Alan Kay and Dan Ingalls moved that wa

Given that plenty of people use DRMed media every day, then I think it is safe to say that users are demanding it. Maybe not all users but enough of them to matter.

Have you heard the saying that generalizations tend to over-generalize? "this is not a feature the user demand" is pretty much a fulfillment of that saying.

and yours is a good example of rethorical tautology. people also pay bank bailouts and it doesn't mean they demand them.

i see nobody demanding drm support here: https://input.mozilla.org/en-U... nor here https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/b...
do you?

interestingly, if you read through the thread for this bug, you will have a clue about who is actually requesting this crap:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

Given that plenty of people use DRMed media every day, then I think it is safe to say that users are demanding it. Maybe not all users but enough of them to matter.

Have you heard the saying that generalizations tend to over-generalize? "this is not a feature the user demand" is pretty much a fulfillment of that saying.

and yours is a good example of rethorical tautology. people also pay bank bailouts and it doesn't mean they demand them.

i see nobody demanding drm support here: https://input.mozilla.org/en-U... nor here https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/b...
do you?

interestingly, if you read through the thread for this bug, you will have a clue about who is actually requesting this crap:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

Given that plenty of people use DRMed media every day, then I think it is safe to say that users are demanding it. Maybe not all users but enough of them to matter.

Have you heard the saying that generalizations tend to over-generalize? "this is not a feature the user demand" is pretty much a fulfillment of that saying.

and yours is a good example of rethorical tautology. people also pay bank bailouts and it doesn't mean they demand them.

i see nobody demanding drm support here: https://input.mozilla.org/en-U... nor here https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/b...
do you?

interestingly, if you read through the thread for this bug, you will have a clue about who is actually requesting this crap:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

Yeah, Youtube now only encodes 360p and 720p single-file versions of videos at this point; if you don't support DASH, that's all you get. Notably 480p doesn't seem to be on this list generally. Firefox itself won't support enough MSE to run Youtube until (I think) v31, bug here.

Point-by-quoted-point:

"Require administrative access and modification on each computer you use. This is an incredibly bad idea on work computers." - by LordLimecat (1103839) on Wednesday May 14, 2014 @05:59PM (#47003997)

You must not know much about networking then: Logon script or even scheduled tasks/chronjobs can move hosts from a CENTRALLY LOCATED LOCATION to ANY PC or SERVER on your LAN/WAN - easily & "automagically".

(Your 'point #1' = SHOTDOWN IN FLAMES...)

---

"Affect far more than the browser and may impact other programs in unexpected ways, such as a game being unable to properly connect" - by LordLimecat (1103839) on Wednesday May 14, 2014 @05:59PM (#47003997)

Oh, really? Like AdBlock chewing up nearly 5gb of RAM in FireFox perhaps -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

??

(No, "don't think so" & hosts do a HELL OF A LOT MORE than crippled by default 'souled-out' to Google Adblock ever could + using my app, it only gets you an initial 1-5mb of hosts tops to consume RAM with...)

(Your 'point #2' = SHOTDOWN IN FLAMES...)

---

"Are incredibly difficult to troubleshoot when they contain zillions of entries." - by LordLimecat (1103839) on Wednesday May 14, 2014 @05:59PM (#47003997)

Are you mentally challenged? You can do THAT using notepad... & my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o... makes it even easier... - totally "automagic"!

(Your 'point #3' = SHOTDOWN IN FLAMES...)

Continuing your last 2 points in my next post!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - You haven't disproven the 17 points of unassailable FACT I extoll enumerated here showing how hosts files give users of them more SPEED, SECURITY, RELIABILITY, & even ANONYMITY online... now have you? Nope - & all your points shotdown in flames above too?? The SMOKE is just POURING off you... no 1st vs. myself on your end though, lol!

... apk

Oh, and BTW, I find that https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
works pretty darn well if you want to watch YouTube in Firefox without plugins.

You might have to fiddle with the addon pref "YouTube video loading method" and possibly hit the http://youtube.com/html5/ opt-in page first, but it usually just works.

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see)

** Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too ( (& bloat memory, 4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

SO - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o...

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers & in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE - bloating memory consumption too ( (& bloat memory, 4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...) - Instead, I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk -

Of course, it's useful to cooperate and work on standards, but when you put that above your own principles -- in the case of Mozilla, that should be "an open and accessible internet" -- you're essentially dead.

If W3C institutes a bad standard, you don't have to follow them. Instead, Mozilla should've told them that they're not following suit, or even that this is the last drop and W3C can go fuck itself, and find a more creative solution to the problem of financing the internet's infrastructure.

Remember MCI? Yes, tell us all about how much less competition we'll have when you're forced to compete on service instead of in disservice. Blow it out your interconnect. We've already been down this road. ISP definition of "competition" is how much more they can over charge for shit than their competitors without actually delivering service. Thus the throttling unless the endpoints pay even more for the shit they already paid for.

ISPs are quadruple dipping: The website pays for access, the end user pays for access, OK, but then they charge extra for non-NATted IPs (hello, IPv6 exists) and unblocked ports ("business" class), and now they want to sell the websites "faster" access to the customers when we both already paid for that speed of access to each other, AND they want to put caps on the number of bits downloaded -- Hint: That's not how it works. They have to have the hardware to handle peak load, it doesn't matter if I suck in tons of gigs during off-peak time, caps are not about congestion, they're just yet another way to monetize. Not to mention "bursting" plans where they allow the first n-bytes of a download to come in fast, then throttle the shit out of it. "Up To X MB/s, (minimum 0 BAUD, yes Zero)", WTF. Damn, that's more that quadruple, but I lost count of how many dippings that is.

Visit OpenCongress and locate your congress critters via zipcode. Politely call each of them and say, "I want the FCC to classify broadband Internet services providers as common carriers", and have them repeat it (a real person will answer, and they'll have written down your words). I also mention that it should be considered illegal anti-competitive business practices for municipalities to granted ISPs monopolies, and that breaking up said monopolies will allow new competition to flourish. You can leave a comment on Issue #14-28 via the FCC Comment Filing System. Contact the FCC by Email: openinternet@fcc.gov, or call the FCC comissioners (but remember they're not beholden to voters). The most effective thing to do is write a letter to the editor mentioning your congressman's name and the net neutrality issue and send it to your local news outlet, that really gets their goat -- they care about the newspaper for some odd reason, maybe because old folks read it? Here's a petition, but these don't do shit, really it's just the illusion of shit-doing.

P.S. Here's a vid explaining the net neutrality issue. Here's another more sarcastic and long winded vid on the subject. and here's a video from an actual honest ISP. (NSFW, for brutally honest language).

Protip: Use a download accelerator to open multiple connections to the same file and trick the ISP into allowing you a faster speed. When the D/L starts getting throttled (hover to view the speed graph), pause it then unpause it and the speed goes back up (new connections = new "bursting" counter).

If so, analysis of the impact ABP has on Firefox shows how much it bloats Firefox which it does even against any savings there are from not loading ads.

1) That tries to create an adversarial issue when there isn't one. Slashdot comments are not complete examinations of all usage cases. It's a fact that most people use Windows, by far. So, not all comments consider the less common cases.

2) "Minor oddities in the UI do not make a drastic difference in how the feature works..." That misses an important point. Someone at Mozilla Foundation made a mistake. That in itself is not a big issue. What is a big issue is that there are numerous managerial and coding mistakes: a) When Google began pouring a huge amount of money, Mozilla Foundation announced that it would not continue improving its Thunderbird email client. b) In the last 2 years, Firefox has seemed to become less stable. c) See the first comment in this Slashdot story. Quoting: That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:4, Insightful) laugh... but you would have gone ahead with it if you could have gotten it past the "community". We need a new Firefox...

"3) Why should Mozilla focus on making a backup solution? That's not their business." What is their business? See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011." Have you seen $311,000,000 of development of Firefox in ONE year? Where does the money go? Who gets the money?

Again, the problem is not one issue. The problem is that there are a lot of issues.

"4) Yes, they would have to be crashier if Mozilla wants to replace the problematic parts of Firefox. You have to remember that Mozilla are the ones doing the real hard work in the trenches, we're just complaining about them not doing it perfectly."

That's an interesting point. Mozilla Foundation is doing hard work. However, couldn't there be better management for $311,000,000 in a year? Couldn't someone at Mozilla Foundation do better checks of the code?

"5) My point is that Pale Moon NEEDS Firefox to survive."

I agree. That's true at present. However, suppose Pale Moon eventually has 10% of the users? Will Google pay Pale Moon 10% of the money? Little by little, couldn't it happen that Pale Moon is the world's favorite browser and Mozilla Foundation slowly dies?

Why Firefox? A major reason Firefox is popular is not because it is Firefox, but because there are so many extensions. For example, consider the rapid adoption of Google's Chrome browser.

Settle, I was merely replying to the chain of comments:

Turns out most people may actually like these changes.

(How exactly do we prove this by the way?)

and here's the stats to prove it!. Oh wait...

Given the sheer number of users and the small number of downloads of the linked addon, most people don't care enough to provide feedback either way so they continue as is. I stand by that. UX feedback in the past from "the rest of us who do care" is proof enough that Mozilla isn't listening to all of it (the TFA being an exception by the looks of it – clearly we didn't yell loud enough WRT the current UX situation).

But I'm with you. I like the usability of where we've come from. I don't like small, constant (annoying) changes to UI that require addons, userchrome, about:config, et al. I'm not enjoying the current trend. I knew 29 was coming, I tried it, I didn't like it. I tried the addon, but as I've read somewhere else in here, it's the 'what's next' perspective that concerns me. I don't owe Mozilla anything, nor do they owe me. I jumped; but I'm keeping it in the family for the moment: Pale Moon.

Just install the Classic Theme Restorer extension. A bit of configuring and you have a better Firefox than either version 28 and Australis.

3) Pale Moon has backup software. Firefox has only Mozbackup, which works well, but isn't Mozilla Foundation software.

No, Firefox also has FEBE - an arguably superior backup solution than Mozbackup.

3) Pale Moon has backup software. Firefox has only Mozbackup, which works well, but isn't Mozilla Foundation software.

No, Firefox also has FEBE - an arguably superior backup solution than Mozbackup.

Good questions. I'm not certain of the answers. I have only just begun to use Pale Moon because I have complained about the Firefox memory-hogging for several years, and nothing has been done. I plan to run tests on Pale Moon using Session Manager add-on sessions that cause Firefox to crash.

The Pale Moon site owner says that there have been considerable changes. See the Pale Moon FAQ. Here is a quote:

"As Pale Moon has developed, so has the amount of individual code for the browser, steadily diverting Pale Moon from its sibling in the direction aimed for in this browser - having transformed it from an optimized build into a true "fork" of Firefox."

Firefox managers are apparently poor communicators and very poor managers. The subject of this Slashdot story is one example. Maybe the money Google gives Mozilla Foundation has corrupted the entire company.

Whoever writes the Pale Moon web site seems to be very knowledgeable and a good manager.

Mitchell Baker is the "Executive Chairwoman of the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation, a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation". She is a lawyer with no technical knowledge, apparently.

See The State of Mozilla: 2012 Annual Report -- Frequently Asked Questions. Quoting: (Seriously, this is copied from the site.) "Mozilla's consolidated reported revenue (Mozilla Foundation and all subsidiaries) for 2012 was $311M (US), up approximately 90 percent from $163M in 2011."

Have you seen $311,000,000 of development of Firefox? The amount of money is shocking to me. When someone clicks on an ad, Google may get 10 cents or 50 cents or $1.50. The cost to Google of linking to an ad is maybe .001 cent? It's easy money, from a company that makes money from having Firefox use Google as its default search engine.

I would be very interested to know who gets the money, and how it is spent.

Australis has been generally well-received as far as I know. A few loud people here and there though didn't like the change.

HAH! Classic Theme Restorer already has 150,000 users, and that's just the people who had the time and inclination to download it. Who's to say how many others dislike Australis but just put up with it? Others have switched to Seamonkey, Pale Moon, or even the real Google Chrome.

No, Mozilla definitely seem pretty picky about when they want to listen to negative community feedback. Sometimes they stubbornly ignore it.

Most people couldn't care either way. Those that like it won't normally comment, those that don't end up here: https://input.mozilla.org/en-GB/?date_start=2014-02-09&selected=90d (or in the comments at /.)
Largely whiners, but you can't argue with the fact that there are a few common dislikes in FF29.

Turns out most people may actually like these changes.

and here's the stats to prove it!. Oh wait...

Their original announcement reads like public relations bullshit: https://blog.mozilla.org/advan...

The Pale Moon browser is a better version of Firefox. Pale Moon appears to have better management than the Mozilla Foundation gives Firefox.

Pale Moon Windows version
Pale Moon Linux version

Here are some of the advantages:

1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.

2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search.

3) Pale Moon has backup software. Firefox has only Mozbackup, which works well, but isn't Mozilla Foundation software.

4) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.

5) Pale Moon is completely independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.

Migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool.

The Pale Moon browser is a better version of Firefox. Pale Moon appears to have better management than the Mozilla Foundation gives Firefox.

Pale Moon Windows version
Pale Moon Linux version

Here are some of the advantages:

1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.

2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search.

3) Pale Moon has backup software. Firefox has only Mozbackup, which works well, but isn't Mozilla Foundation software.

4) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.

5) Pale Moon is completely independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.

Migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool.