Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Adds Do-Not-Track Feature To Firefox 4 Pre-Beta Builds
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla cranked out a new version of Firefox 4 (Beta 11-pre) that includes the proposed do-not-track feature. Both the nightly builds and latest trunk builds integrate the do-not-track feature. You could accuse Mozilla of wasting time with Firefox 4 beta-testing, but this feature certainly has surfaced fast."
Having a browser with a feature that no one else uses!
I used FF4 b7 in my Mac for a while - whenever I closed it, I get half my system's memory (2GB) back, visible from Activity Monitor's pie chart. This thing eats more memory than a Windows 7 VM for opening a bunch of YouTube tabs, there's no way I'll go back until they fixed this.
So i guess the privacy browsing feature doesn't work as well?? or at all?
Jack of all trades,master of none
They just need to fix the blurry fonts in 4.0 betas on Windows, geez I cannot use Firefox for more than 10 minutes with out getting dizzy.
---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Is this a header that nicely asks advertisers not to track you? And if they choose to ignore it??
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Whenever there's a Beta release (11 times so far) we get a post. And NOW we have a post about a release that not even a full beta, but just a pre-build.
But we don't ever get updates when Mozilla Seamonkey has a release (upto beta 3 now), or Chrome, or Safari, or Opera. Yes Firefox is my favorite browser (because of the addons), but can we at least have some balance? Coverage of other browsers would be good too.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Chrome's competition forced their hand I think. And that's good. Competition, is good. Not that anyone would doubt it anyway.
https://addons.mozilla.org/af/firefox/addon/configuration-mania-4420/
Install this addon.
Click Edit for Mac/Linux or Tools for Windows, Configuration Mania, which should be under preferences.
Make sure Browser is highlighted on the top row, if not click it. Click Browser Cache on the Left Column. Press Disabled under Max Number of Pages Stored in Memory.
It keeps closed pages all in RAM, and decides based on your total RAM how much it will save. There are almost no leaks, just dumb decisions (developers) and judgments (users).
You could accuse Mozilla of wasting time with Firefox 4 beta-testing, but this feature certainly has surfaced fast.
Actually, I'd rather accuse the Mozilla team of not understanding the purpose of a beta release. Adding support for shiny new features (and introducing, and then fixing, the inevitable bugs that follow) is great activity for a point release. The idea behind the beta is to make sure that all existing features work well, and that any true functionality gaps (often seen as bugs - for example, not supporting .png by design, while not a bug, would fall into this area) are addressed.
Once 4 is released, this type of minor change would be a great candidate for 4.0.1... As it is, it just makes it harder to get 4.x out the door.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
When enabled and supported by advertising networks
i.e., never.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Buzzer goes off>
another point for mozilla.....and nothing as usual for IE
When enabled and supported by advertising networks...
For its likely effectiveness at stopping the slimeballs, I'd put voluntary support by the advertising networks right up there with the sign at the bank entrance that says "No firearms.".
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
Do not track info scrambling.
Honestly they can give the user easy tools to scramble the browser response string, scramble the javascript info like fonts available and only report the standard list that comes with a clean XP install. etc.... Report random "referrer" responses/ etc....
The do not track flag is useless as most of the scumbag sites that track will ignore it or use it as a further flag on you. making your info random or looking like a standard that everyone else has will hide it better.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
On the one hand, Mozilla/Firefox has been taking control of cookies away from "regular users" - yes, it's all still there, but it is no longer obviously exposed, and instead most users would never even know what hides behind "Firefox will remember history" one-liner in a drop box.
So now, after cannibalizing the real control of privacy - one that rests with a user, they are trying to come up with an *http header* that is no more than a plea on part of a client to the server - "please don't track me". What are the chances anyone would give a damn (unless this is written into a *world wide* law with severe penalties?).
Sorry, this misses the mark completely. If you want to make sure users are not being tracked, restore control of information sites can store, make it *easier* and *more obvious* to users when they are being tracked, cooperate with or build into your browser functionality of "cookie jar", "ghostery", "adblock" and other click/cookie/link/image tracking control plugins. In short - do real work, rather than sticking a feel-good, do-nothing header which will achieve nothing.
Okay, my screen just turned black. Every v4 pre since like b2 has been corrupting its own memory, slowly dying, then outright crashing. The crash reporter has submitted 4 or 5 reports after crashes; it usually fails.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Switching between FF 3 and 4 trashes all of my persistent sessions with "keep me logged in" sites, including Slashdot. Both directions (3 to 4 and 4 to 3). And FF 4 launches automatically if it's not up and I click on a hotlink, presumably because the OS wants to launch the latest and greatest. That means I have to keep FF 3 going all the time, in case, I want to click on a hotlink. Either that or default to FF 4 with all of its hounding for feedback. Stop punishing me for helping you test version 4's HTML5 features, Mozilla!
Why doesn't one version of Firefox want to honor a different version's "Keep until: they expire"???
Have you actually used Firefox 4 on a Mac? The usual excuses are simply invalid - you open FF4b10 with Google as home page with barely anything on screen - 230MB is now gone! Safari opening Apple's oh-so-blingy home page is only using 100MB. "Max Number of Pages Stored in Memory" simply doesn't apply.
Plus... I know there're about:config entries that can tune this behavior. But I also know I can use Chrome without setting anything and it'll work without slowing things down (and Chrome did have a similar problem in the past! But they fixed that). Or, I can use FF4, tweak a bunch of stuff and it's still bad, and slower. This "this is not technically a memory leak" thing is irrelevant when user experience is concerned. Chrome does the job better and faster without slowing the computer down, they also seem to fix bugs faster. The decision is really easy for the user.
If this were going to work, it would need to offer the remote site the opportunity to ping back "Tracking is required to obtain access to the content/services I am providing. Approve/Deny". I know most of us here don't like tracking but it's a two way street and if you make it all one sided, the other side is simply going to ignore your "Please don't track me" flag.
Have you actually used Firefox 4 on a Mac? The usual excuses are simply invalid - you open FF4b10 with Google as home page with barely anything on screen - 230MB is now gone! Safari opening Apple's oh-so-blingy home page is only using 100MB. "Max Number of Pages Stored in Memory" simply doesn't apply.
This "this is not technically a memory leak" thing is irrelevant when user experience is concerned.
This next statement direct answer to both your statements.
Webkit (Chrome and Safari) and Gecko (Firefox) work very differently. Firefox has sane disk cache limits (the default is 75MB), but instead opts to store much more in memory for the sake of speed.
There is no setting for Chrome nor Safari to change the disk cache, and in Chrome only a command line setting will change it. I've seen it balloon to 1GB.
So you see, for the sake of speed, something has to give. Firefox chose the route of RAM, probably following the philosophy that Linux users have that unused RAM is wasted RAM (hence Linux OS having the RAM cache full of files and regular users freak out. Since you are on a Mac, try running free in the command line and see your cache usage). Webkit I'm not sure why they do what they do, but considering the disk is currently much faster than any non-LAN network, it opts to use the disk.
So you see, there's very good reasons why these behaviors occur, and both have obvious advantages and disadvantages, all in the name of speed.
I'm babbling, I should get back to work now.
Would I need a feature that allows me to give control to a third party when I can have the control myself. NoScript Adblock flashblock BetterPrivacy and other plugin tools allow me to get the service I want. I choose to support them.
I am reminded once again of the "evil bit".
You made an interesting babble:
So you see, for the sake of speed, something has to give. Firefox chose the route of RAM, probably following the philosophy that Linux users have that unused RAM is wasted RAM (hence Linux OS having the RAM cache full of files and regular users freak out. Since you are on a Mac, try running free in the command line and see your cache usage). Webkit I'm not sure why they do what they do, but considering the disk is currently much faster than any non-LAN network, it opts to use the disk.
What we really need here is a way for the OS to handle some of the network retrieval protocols (or expose direct access in another way) so that webpages can be stored in the OS file cache space. That way all "excess" memory is used, but data is immediately kicked out (instead of being pushed out to disk or, worse yet, causing other apps to swap to disk) when memory usage becomes an issue.
Ironically, I'd guess that it would be a lot easier for the tighter integration in Windows to manage this :/
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!