Mozilla Details How Old Plugins Will Be Blocked In Firefox 17

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Details How Old Plugins Will Be Blocked In Firefox 17

Posted by Soulskill on Friday October 12, 2012 @06:40AM from the another-warning-message-your-parents-can-ignore dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Last week, Mozilla announced it will prompt Firefox users on Windows with old versions of Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, and Microsoft Silverlight to update their plugins, but refused to detail how the system will work. Now, the organization has unveiled 'click-to-play plugin blocks,' which will be on by default in Firefox 17, starting with the three aforementioned plugins. (Expect more to be added eventually.) Furthermore, you can try out the feature for yourself now in Firefox 17 beta for Windows, Mac, and Linux." Also coming in Firefox 17 is support for Mozilla's "Social API." The announcement describes it thus: "Much like the OpenSearch standard, the Social API enables developers to integrate social services into the browser in a way that is meaningful and helpful to users. As services integrate with Firefox via the Social API sidebar, it will be easy for you to keep up with friends and family anywhere you go on the Web without having to open a new Web page or switch between tabs. You can stay connected to your favorite social network even while you are surfing the Web, watching a video or playing a game."

152 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Old News by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:43 · Score: 1

This afternoon I updated to Firefox 18.
1. Re:Old News by Samantha+Wright · 2012-10-12 07:30 · Score: 2
  
  It actually is indeed old news—Nightly 19 has been doing this to me for a week now (with the Acrobat plug-in) and it's been pretty obnoxious.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
2. Re:Old News by serialband · 2012-10-13 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  I've always had flashblock and noscript plugins turned on, so it's nothing new.
Yet another reason to dump FF by fluffy99 · 2012-10-12 06:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Mozilla has lost it's focus and instead of making a good, fast, secure browser they are trying to turn it into a social API with every gee-whiz-bang feature most users don't want or need.
1. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by hardie · 2012-10-12 06:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Don't those folks have anything better to do?
2. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  It hasn't been good, fast, or secure in years. The last good thing Firefox did was inspire a collection of captioned images of red foxes. Before that, the last good thing it did was show that an open source browser could be a match for IE6 and adhere to the HTML standards better.
  The big reason that Firefox managed to hold on for so long was the ad blocker plugin.
3. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Tumbleweed · 2012-10-12 06:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Mozilla has lost it's focus and instead of making a good, fast, secure browser they are trying to turn it into a social API with every gee-whiz-bang feature most users don't want or need.
  And yet, FF 16 is noticeably snappier for me than 15 was. Glad they got 16.0.1 out quickly. The developer tool updates in the last few versions are very welcome, as well, and certainly the reduced memory use is very nice.
4. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Actually this is a good thing. The new api that the plugins use do not break during each release.
  I just started warming up to Firefox recently. After I submitted the story last spring of FF using the least amount of memory I gave it another whirl. It is much faster, it no longer nags you, flash is now sandboxed, and it gets faster during each release.
  With 5.0 I agree. I actually went back to IE 9 which was a decent browser back in 2011 believe it or not contrary to popular belief on slashdot. I found Chrome too lacking with features and minimalistic.
  But FF is much improved and they already patched the 16 bug. 16.01 is out starting last last night.
5. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by thetoadwarrior · 2012-10-12 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah shame on them for turning around and fixing a security issue in days and enabling an update method that ensures everyone will have the fix.
  
  If you can't notice that Firefox is faster too then you're blind.
6. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · 2012-10-12 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  The big reason that Firefox managed to hold on for so long was the ad blocker plugin.
  and noScript
7. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by mario_grgic · 2012-10-12 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  How is this not making the browser more secure? Firefox is already pretty damn fast. Last 3-4 releases have consistently reduced browser and extension memory usage as well (it was never a concern for me personally, all systems I use have over 10 GB of RAM anyway). And this change only mitigates the third party risk in a least intrusive way possible. I say go Mozilla. Firefox is still very competitive and in my opinion the best browser out there. This is why I still use it. In fact I can't imagine using anything else without Pentadactyl extension.
  
  --
  As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
8. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Synerg1y · 2012-10-12 07:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Am I the only one who thinks that we need LESS social networking as opposed to oh say, actually meeting and talking to people in person?
9. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah shame on them for turning around and fixing a security issue in days and enabling an update method that ensures everyone will have the fix.
  If you can't notice that Firefox is faster too then you're blind.
  Shame on them for letting such a security flaw out in the first place. The release schedule and an over-reliance on automated testing is to blame for these. Some people have very twisted ideas on what is good practice.
10. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by EMR · 2012-10-12 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  One of my friend (real ones) likes to call anyone she 'meets' online through social networking as 'imaginary friends' And me personally I RARELY every use facebook. I log in maybe once every few months to clean out crap that collects and move on.. And the only time I use twitter is to promote the next Humble Bundle that unleashed new linux and mac ports in.
11. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Laxori666 · 2012-10-12 07:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You mean, meeting in meat space? Heaven forbid. These mortal coils of ours are getting more and more outdated. It requires such effort to synchronize two intellects to meet at a certain point and time, and then to move two 200lb bodies from wherever they happen to be to that point in time and place in space.
  The inconvenience of course is in experiencing any sort of fleshy exertion as well as having to deal with the vicissitudes of the physical world. Going up a flight of stairs, getting delayed in traffic, etc. All serve to frustrate the would-be mortal coil transcender.
  It will help when we have cybernetic implants such that we can control our environment more readily with our thoughts. I'm thinking bionic arms and legs, and perhaps jetpacks, which are mentally-commanded, much like our regular arms and legs are, except they won't tire or feel pain.
  However, that's still not ideal as the machinery can break and still has to deal with physical forces. That'll just be a temporary stopgap until we can integrate everything meaningful into a consensual hallucination existing only on the computers of the world. Plug in, upload your consciousness, and then move about in and interact with a world entirely of your own making. No more need to move heavy bodies in the physical world, thus all of those muscles required for motion can atrophy, reducing the required caloric intake. The body becomes a more capable yet more powerful machine thanks to the mental interface into cyberspace.
  This won't be ideal at first until all the kinks are worked out. You're not gonna want a server outage to fry the brains of everyone currently uploaded to that server. It's that blasted physical world, again. But eventually the electronics will get smaller, we'll need less and less of our bodies, and we'll have a brilliantly glorious future consisting of billions of disembodied human brains side-by-side in gigantic clusters all uploaded to the most powerful networked computer program ever made, dependent upon almost-invisible/ethereal hardware. Boring from the outside, but inside, we won't have to eat, drink or sleep to survive. Just one long massive near-eternal dream whose inhabitants can do what they want, when they want: mass orgies, gigantic visceral FPSs, mini-golf simulations, RPGs, petting kitties, you name it.
  What a glorious future awaits this human race. Until then, I will continue living in this painful physical world... my first action will be to finish consuming this bag of fried pork skins.
12. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by MMC+Monster · 2012-10-12 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  Mozilla has lost it's focus and instead of making a good, fast, secure browser they are trying to turn it into a social API with every gee-whiz-bang feature most users don't want or need.
  While I would agree with you ... Facebook has a billion (active?) users. While not a majority, maybe a significant minority of users of Firefox can benefit from this feature.
  Besides, the only time Firefox seems to slow down on me is when Flash is doing something crazy. And I can't really blame Firefox completely for that.
  
  --
  Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
13. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  So you're saying you love having Flash objects that play obnoxious sounds loading by default and a page full of YouTube embeds loading them all at once?
  I'm sick of FF's crap lately too, but click to play is extremely useful. I download a flashblocker addon in every Firefox install I have, not only because it's convenient but because a lot of malware takes advantage of Flash.
14. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Nocturnal+Deviant · 2012-10-12 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  I really wish I had mod points right now. I havent laughed this hard in ages.
  
  --
  -Noc
15. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for cherrypicking what you don't like and using it to pretend that Mozilla isn't making their browser faster, leaner, and more secure with every release. And for saying what you did as though they're the only browser vendor that's adding extraneous "stuff" to their browser.
16. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by r1348 · 2012-10-12 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Not the only one, but definitely a minority.
  Also, remember that personal meeting greatly restricts your range of contacts. I would hate to ditch my foreign friends because "Facebook sux".
17. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by LordLimecat · 2012-10-12 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone has security flaws. Or did you not see the issue that Chrome just had to deal with recently?
18. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  No you stupid waste of a cumshot, not every single Firefox improvement is due to a prior regression.
19. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  While I would agree with you ... Facebook has a billion (active?) users
  90% of them are scammers. 90% of the other 10% haven't logged in for six months.
20. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Synerg1y · 2012-10-12 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Your post immediately made me think of Ghost in the Shell lol, been a while since I watched that.
21. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by dkleinsc · 2012-10-12 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, dealing with all the difficulties of moving 200lb bodies to where they physically meet has a significant advantage: If you meet in meatspace, you have a very slight chance of getting laid.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
22. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by digitalaudiorock · 2012-10-12 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  Don't those folks have anything better to do?
  Yea, like maybe coming up with a Linux version that at least sucks balls a little less...
23. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Threni · 2012-10-12 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  > Am I the only one who thinks that we need LESS social networking as opposed to oh say, actually meeting
  > and talking to people in person?
  No, because it would be expensive, environmentally damaging and logisitically impossible to perform all the conversations I have with friends, family and colleagues around the world in person rather than from my phone on the bus to work, train home from work or during adverts on tv shows.
  I mean, I could talk to people online less, so that my real-life meetings try and catch up, but what would be the point of that?
24. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Threni · 2012-10-12 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Chrome still doesn't have that. And it doesn't have a working mouse gestures add on, either. The half-decent one was pulled because it was sending all your visited pages back to its server, and the currents ones aren't very configurable and you either have the context menu pop up when you right click, or you have to double right click on links to open them. What a piece of crap. I don't care how fast it is - it's not as safe or as comfortable an experience as FF. Oh, and i'm not sure if you've checked lately but Chrome is now about 35 megs and that's a compressed download.
25. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by hairyfeet · 2012-10-12 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  THIS, this right here. People scream that I must be hating on FOSS when I point out Mozilla has gone off the rails (even though the browser i recommend for security features, Comodo Dragon, is based on Chromium) but the simple fact is they had a mission statement, which they used to get us all off the Mozilla Suite, which ever since Chrome started getting users they seem to have thrown right out the window. Remember what that statement was? "To make the best small fast and light browser that is standards compliant we can" and ever since Chrome showed up its just come unglued.
  Look I was on FF before it was even called FF, The Moz Suite before that going back to the first betas, so its not like I did not like the product or didn't stick with it through the bad times like the train wreck that was 2.x.x but lets be honest folks...right up to V4 you could see progress with every. single. release. Sure they had bugs and memory issues but with each release you could see that slowly but surely things were getting better every time and you honestly looked forward to the next release because you just KNEW it would be better, with less bugs and cool new features, it was just great.
  But since then its just taken a nosedive, especially for those of us that like to use low power devices to save electricity like nettops and netbooks Take for example the 1.8GHz Sempron I use as a nettop here at the shop. With Dragon or any of the Chromium based i can have multiple tabs, listen to music, even do full screen SD video without GPU acceleration and the system still is great...Firefox? Open it slams the CPU to 100%, new tab 100%, hell even scrolling through my fricking bookmarks pegs the CPU.
  In the end I think I know what the problem is...its Gecko. That engine simply wasn't designed to support all the whiz bang like fluffy is talking about and it shows in the performance. Instead of focusing on giving the engine the capability they bolted it on so they could go "Me too!" with Chrome features yet the truly important security features like Low Rights mode, which has been out since 07? They don't have.
  So we just have to be honest and call a spade a spade. while I try every new release on my nettop and my netbook, as well as the spinoffs like Pale Moon and IceDragon at the end of the day? Firefox just isn't a good browser anymore guys, they have lost their way. It sucks too many resources, supports too much bling and UI crap while not supporting good security practices like least permissions, they just keep bolting more and more shit onto the aging gecko engine while not fixing the problems like CPU spiking, memory creep, or general lack of responsiveness.
  Its a damned shame but at least we have a wealth of choices, for guys that need cross platform there is QTWeb and Chromium which both run on anything, there is the Chromium variants like Dragon, SWIron, Chrome and Chromium, there is the one offs like Opera and Safari, hell there is even Kmeleoon and Kmeleon CCF-ME for those still running old Win9X and Win2K boxes and we really need to thank Mozilla for that as they blazed the trail, its just a damned shame they lost themselves along the way.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
26. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Laxori666 · 2012-10-12 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  Bah! An evolutionary left-over. A pitiful remnant which only goes to show the limitations of blind nature. I'll take my genetically-enhanced pleasure receptors massively stimulated by the electrodes plugged into my brain-in-a-vat set in tandem with the visual, auditory, and tactile hallucinations of dozens of impossibly (and I mean physically impossibly) attractive females, each specifically designed by the PleasureSystem to cater to my specific tastes thanks to it having completely emulated my brain neurons and run hundreds of thousands of simulations to predict with almost 100% accuracy what I will most respond to above and beyond even what I know, servicing my mentally generated avatar for days at a time, any day.
27. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  People don't listen to you because YOU'RE off the rails. You seem to be pretending that Firefox is so bloated, ill-equipped, and under-performant that people should just ditch it. And then you tell them to choose a browser that you prefer, like some insane marketing droid for Chromium, which isn't a rationally better choice in any general way.
  You can pretend that your favorite features are the most important, but they aren't. Chromium has its own security problems, performance bottlenecks, and basic compatibility issues. But I'm sure you'd rather not be honest about those when you're so busy bashing on Firefox.
  And guess what? Firefox isn't the hog you claim it is. They haven't stopped working on their issues. They haven't deserted their fans, no matter how inanely you jump up and down because they aren't exactly like you want them to be.
  YOU face it. Firefox hasn't "lost its way." It's still highly competitive at worst, and the web would be a worse place if it vanished because of willfully ignorant misinformants like yourself. Firefox may be pandering to a larger userbase now, but it is still adhering to a vision of the web that no longer matches yours precisely. Browsers are changing, even if you aren't.
  Now shut up and go back to your preferred browser, and stop trying to tell us that Firefox is crapware like your tiny little opinion matters. Mine doesn't, but I don't go crying about Mozilla or Google when I dislike something about their browsers. I write plugins, file bug reports, and even contribute.
  And I hate hearing self-entitled whiners like you pretend that nothing in Firefox ever improves, and that it's substandard scum when it's YOU who have a chip on your shoulder.
28. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  Besides, the only time Firefox seems to slow down on me is when Flash is doing something crazy. And I can't really blame Firefox completely for that.
  Yes you can blame Firefox for the fact that one misbehaving tab can kill all of the tabs. How about some proper threading and isolation, eh?
29. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by fluffy99 · 2012-10-12 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  I think you totally missed the fact that they were in such a hurry to release this new feature that they missed a major security bug. Their focus was on adding new features and not verifying that any code that was changed is still working correctly and securely. They should be embarrassed that the user community had to point out this glaring issue. Also FF16 apparently broken a number of add-ins as well. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Firefox-16-Bug-Causes-Some-Add-ons-to-Malfunction-298217.shtml
  Obviously they do have functionality testing as evidenced by https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases/Firefox_16/Test_Plan, but security testing seems to be lacking. Interesting to note btw, that FF17 is due out next month. Also interesting to flip through the test plans and see that they regularly (re)break things that were previously working.
30. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by hairyfeet · 2012-10-12 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Hi Mrs AC, can't waste the 3 seconds to make an account? And where did you see me plug ANYTHING? In fact I gave a HUGE list of choices, all of which run better than Firefox since V7, Chrome, Chromium, QTWeb, SWIron, Dragon, Safari, opera.
  But if you want to pretend needing a fricking multicore for a browser is "competitive" why you go right on ahead and think that Mrs AC, meanwhile look at the numbers and you'll see month after month after month FF usage is going DOWN and not up or even holding.
  You see Mrs AC that is the nice thing about having choice, if something goes off the rails and doesn't listen to the people they go somewhere else. Gnome shell for Mate, Vista for XP and then 7, FF for Chrome, if you don't listen to your users they go somewhere else. But enjoy your delusions Mrs AC, whatever makes you happy.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
31. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by JonySuede · 2012-10-12 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  To me they feel slower than Firefox on machine with lot's of GHz and RAM
  
  --
  Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
32. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Crosshair84 · 2012-10-12 13:55 · Score: 1
  
  Do they make a 64-bit version of CDragon?
33. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 22:40 · Score: 0
  
  Mozilla has lost it's focus and instead of making a good, fast, secure browser they are trying to turn it into a social API with every gee-whiz-bang feature most users don't want or need.
  https://plus.google.com/108593029180814377168/posts/KfFnupwxPeU
  Not much to add.
34. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by hairyfeet · 2012-10-12 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well if you throw enough resources at a problem? I'm sure you'll find something it'll run great on. problem is the market seems to be moving AWAY from the big power hogging ultima systems and towards low power computing which FF? Really REALLY blows at.
  Again I REALLY wish it wasn't so, I was a FF fan going back to the Moz suite, and I still try each new release and the forks. Its just....its just NOT good. Each release sucks more resources, has more senior moments, its just not good.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
35. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by serialband · 2012-10-13 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  I only started using firefox when I could add adblock, noscript, flashblock and mouse gestures, but it's still my secondary browser.
36. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Lennie · 2012-10-13 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  You know what is funny tests show that Firefox Mobile is the fastest browser on Android, faster than the default browser, Chrome, Opera or Dophin.
  So it can't be completely crap, can it ?
  If only I had bookmarked the tests...
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
37. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by UltraZelda64 · 2012-10-13 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks--your comment (specifically, the insult) had me laughing for like ten minutes. But I'm not sure I will mod an AC up for what is basically just an insult/troll post.
38. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by hairyfeet · 2012-10-13 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  That's like saying "Well it runs great on Linux"...uhhh...and? its a totally different beast and since the majority is NOT using FF on a smartphone that isn't what we should be looking at but the Windows desktop where most of their users lie, and in that arena they suck, I'm sorry but they do. take any tool that will give you a CPU and RAM meter in the tray, I use AnVir Task Manager but there are plenty of others, put the same bookmarks into both FF and any Chromium based and do your own shootout. In my own tests FF and its variants ranked consistently at the bottom, with Opera and the Chromiums always at the top.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
39. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-13 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  LOOK at the kind of ppl working there. Not hard to see why. 20-somethings that think they are owed a job, getting paid to make changes for the sake of change. Companies like IBM probably have an internal decree, "no hires from FF". LOL
40. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-14 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  LOL, I did not expect a mod but thanks for the support. I get a bit tired of the constant FF hate when most people just haven't used the browser for years...
41. Re:Yet another reason to dump FF by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-10-14 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  That's what point releases are for. Also, I bet you that if you installed an old copy of FF2 on your modern machine, you may change your mind.
how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:52 · Score: 0

so if I replace mozilla.org in my hosts file and stick with 16, how long do you think it would continue to work (and be halfway safe).
Is there a better version to lock as a permanent one? Sorry folks, don't want the facebook browser
1. Re:how long by AuMatar · 2012-10-12 06:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Switch to SeaMonkey. They have the same renderer, don't change their UI every week, and actually seems to use less memory.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
2. Re:how long by DarkOx · 2012-10-12 07:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yes it does. SeaMonkey uses 13% less memory on my system with the same three tabs, slashdot, slate, and LQ open as does FireFox. Which is funny considering FF was started to be lighter weight than SeaMonkey. SeaMonkey is far and away the better browser now in terms of UI as well.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
3. Re:how long by Bacon+Bits · 2012-10-12 07:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  seems to use less memory
  I use modern computers. At work my computer has 32 GB of memory. At home I have 16 GB of memory. My laptop has 8 GB. I honestly could not care less how much memory Firefox uses because it can't use enough for any of these computers to care (Firefox being a 32-bit program) and I would rather the program use RAM (which is fast) instead of disk (which is slow).
  I have better things to do using the web browser itself instead of incessantly complaining about the fact that the program that encompasses 80% of my home use as 30% of my work use uses an equally large amount of the resources of the computer. I want the personal computer to spend it's time running the programs I'm using. I don't want 90% of the fast resources to be always available and doing nothing whatsoever. If this were still 2006 or if we were talking about servers, the memory usage shtick would be a valid complaint. However, now that memory capacity is an order of magnitude greater than it was (thanks to 64-bit operating systems and lower cost per GB) and considering that web browsing is never something you should be doing on a server, it's really not a valid complaint anymore.
  You're either doing something stupid (like running badly coded extensions), using ancient hardware (which can't keep up anyway), or just enjoying playing the same old song and dance over and over. The Firefox memory complaints were valid when there were actual memory leaks that might consume 90% of available system memory. That is no longer reality, and unless you're running beta and third party 64-bit builds, it's a technical impossibility.
  
  --
  The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
4. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  I honestly could not care less how much memory Firefox uses because it can't use enough for any of these computers to care (Firefox being a 32-bit program)
  On a real OS, Firefox is 64-bit.
5. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox being a 32-bit program
  $ file /usr/lib/firefox/firefox
  /usr/lib/firefox/firefox: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64
  Firefox has been available as a 64 bit program for many years now. Granted, it is *also* available as a 32 bit program.
6. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You don't care if a program is designed poorly and eats up memory because you enjoy buying more?
  Are you a fucking moron?
7. Re:how long by Kinematics · 2012-10-12 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  The amount of memory Firefox uses has always been a catch-all statement for bad behavior and poor performance, not a strict indication of the problem of running out of RAM (usually).
  Personally, for a very long time, if Firefox crossed 1 GB of RAM usage, I could pretty much guarantee issues with slow tab switching, glitchy scrolling, the browser as a whole briefly hanging every few minutes, sometimes even bogging down my entire OS if it decided to saturate the CPU.
  The degree to which this effect manifested could pretty much be exactly tied to its current RAM usage. I started to notice it at 700 MB, it was annoying at 900 MB, and at 1.1 GB it was completely unusable. This had absolutely no correlation with the total amount of RAM in the system. If I have 2 GB or 32 GB, it doesn't matter. Once Firefox crossed 1 GB, it was all over.
  So when people say, "It uses less RAM", I hear, "It's less likely to reach a state that I have noticed invariably leads to poor performance all around", not "I just saved $300 on my car insurance"... er, "I just saved 300 MB of my overall RAM pool that I can use for other stuff".
8. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  Gee the computers where I work (more in the real world I may add) all have 256 to 512 megs of ram. Many of us are downgrading back to IE 7 due to the less ram requirements
9. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, if only everyone thought like that. We'd be back in the days where you could only use one program at a time.
  Sorry, some of us multi-task and actually can do it well, unlike those retarded trials done by moronic scientists wasting money with probably actual retards so they can state "yep, people can't multitask" for the trillionth time.
  Firefox is atrocious with memory, it leaks out the ass even now.
  I can leave both Chrome and FF open for weeks on end , oh, wait, nope, FF starts eating up memory almost exponentially when being opened over half a week that I end up having to terminate it.
  I shouldn't have to end things because of sloppy programming. I should never need to restart because developers were too lazy to read things dynamically. I should never have to buy a super computer just to browse god damn Slashdot!
  Firefox was built as a lightweight browser, something without all the bloat that the other bloated mess had.
  Firefox became MORE bloated than it. And it continues to get worse with time.
  I am fine with extensions, but they continue to add feature after feature after feature without a single thought to the impact it has.
  And during all that, bugs out the ass, stupid decisions still hindering customization which is one of the things they were known for. (Looking at YOU Video Download Helper devs, let me move your damn extension button already!)
  Fix bugs, add new HTML, CSS, JS and everything else features, FORGET BROWSER FEATURES ENTIRELY.
  Come back in FF25 and add some silly new social crap or whatever when you even have a competent stable browser base. No wonder Netscape failed. Had nothing to do with Microsoft. At all. /rant
10. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  But Firefox is the browser with the lowest memory usage out there, so people are effectively complaining because they're too unintelligent to file bug reports or disable buggy plugins/addons.
  Just look at the thousands of complete morons using FireBug who whined about FF15's memory usage. The FireBug page stated explicitly not to use their addon with FF15 due to memory usage. They still used it and bitched and moaned, most of them never filing a (useless) bug report.
  You need to fix the people, not the browser. The browser has an entire project dedicated to reducing its memory footprint, and it works.
11. Re:how long by asa · 2012-10-12 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  The feature is there for those who want it and not for those who don't. It's "off by default" and only enabled if you are using a service that supports it (like Facebook today) and you opt in to it.
12. Re:how long by fast+turtle · 2012-10-12 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Palemoon - Version: 15.1.1-x64 on Win7-64 with 16GB. The only difference is in a few settings and tweaks that are more useful for desktop users.
  
  --
  Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
13. Re:how long by lkcl · 2012-10-12 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  I use modern computers. At work my computer has 32 GB of memory. At home I have 16 GB of memory. My laptop has 8 GB. I honestly could not care less how much memory Firefox uses because it can't use enough for any of these computers to care
  baconbits.... um... my main computer is a 2006 24in imac with a 2ghz dual-core xeon and 2gb of RAM. oh, and debian gnu/linux booting grub2-efi of course. it's *really* struggling with the number of tabs that i keep open (over 50).
  but here's the thing: i actually consider myself lucky to have 2gb of RAM. i don't fucking well have enough money to go buying new computers right now and i resent what you're implying by saying "yeah who cares, just get more RAM, what's the big deal??"
  you're aware that many ARM systems - many of them 1.5ghz - cannot run more than 1gb of RAM? i'm working on an initiative to reduce power consumption and the price of computing, and you're saying "yeah who cares, just get more RAM, what's the big deal??"
  i'm just pointing out that just because *you* happen to have lots of resources, it doesn't mean that everyone else in the world does, ok?
14. Re:how long by amicusNYCL · 2012-10-12 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Do you spend a lot of time on the La Quinta site?
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
15. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 09:43 · Score: 0
  
  No. You are, for claiming that it's badly designed. And for saying that it "eats up memory" when all browsers eat as much (or more). And for calling them a moron for not sharing your perspective, whilst not offering anywhere near the level of thought-out counterpoint they've offered.
16. Re:how long by steelfood · 2012-10-12 10:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Some of us are still using 32-bit netbooks or laptops, which have 1GB to 2GB of memory. Some of us don't have these so-called "modern" computers because we find our slightly older ones are sufficient for our purposes, and are not interested in casually spending money on things we don't really need.
  Not to mention some of us know what the median U.S. household income is, and know what that actually means (that fancy ultrabook that costs $2000 in New York City still costs $2000 in Atlanta).
  I like when people trot out the old "I've got a computer from two years ago that has no problems running this program, and cost next to nothing for me when I got it, so you should have one too" argument when it comes to resource hogs. It really shows how detached from reality they actually are.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
17. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  And yet, Firefox is the only up-to-date browser that will even run properly on my own "ancient" netbook. I think the people claiming it's inefficient are largely overstating the problems. Chrome won't even run on some of my old hardware, while custom versions of Firefox will.
  Ultimately, no matter how snobbish some people are, there are also snobs on the other side who think they're entitled to whine about Firefox, just because their particular hardware isn't as well-supported. Not all us, mind you, but the most vocal ones aren't helping anything and just incite more useless vocal responses.
18. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  Only as alpha/beta releases, There is no official stable 64-bit release for any platform.
19. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 12:34 · Score: 0
  
  I have an idea. Neither of you is a moron. It's a debatable point, kind of like the national election.
20. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 13:05 · Score: 0
  
  Regardless of how much RAM you have, you're going to have to care about how much of a memory hog firefox.exe is when it consumes the limit of virtual address space in a 32-bit x86 OS, which is typically 2GB or 3GB. At that point it's going to crash or at least fail in some way, regardless of how much RAM you have.
  Does Firefox typically have multiple processes? Because if it's typically a single process it's not going to be able to use "80%" of your "16GB" of memory.
  On 32-bit systems it's not RAM that is precious, it's per-process address space.
21. Re:how long by JonySuede · 2012-10-12 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  I use nightly, version: >=19.0a1 (yyyy-mm-DD) 64bit. The advantage of using nightly are -1day exploits unique to my system on that day and speed, lot's of it. The worst infrequent problem I got from running nightly were solved by restarting it, letting it update itself and restoring my recently closed tabs from the history submenu.
  
  --
  Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
22. Re:how long by JonySuede · 2012-10-12 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  WTF !!! Are you paid less than 5$ an hours ?
  If not your boss is a total moron. Let's state that a worker cost 10$/hour and that he work 40h/week and use a computer with 256mo to make something worth 1000$ each week to the company. Assuming a linear relation, using 2Go would at least produce 2000$ worth of work. Now, those workstation need super special RAM, priced at 2000$ for 2Go. It would take a month for the RAM to pay for itself. After that it would be profit
  The lesson, your boss is a moron
  
  --
  Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
23. Re:how long by Lennie · 2012-10-13 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Official 64-bit builds for Linux have been available for atleast a year if not years.
  Nightly 64-bit build of for Windows have been available for atleast a half a year if not a full year.
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
24. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-13 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  He sounds like a post-1995 software developer to me.
  * His program is the only one that matters and the user shouldn't be running anything else
  * All computers should be as powerful as his development system
  * Historically consistent user-interfaces are frowned upon
  * The user should have a full-time internet connection we can push updates over and pull tracking data
  * Software is always sold with known bugs
25. Re:how long by maxwell+demon · 2012-10-13 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you are not doing other work on the same computer you are running Firefox on. Other people do.
  Also, the "memory is cheap" attitude unfortunately means that there are hundreds of processes running on the computer which each by itself eats a "negligible" amount of memory (usually less than 1 %), but together they eat a considerable amount of memory.
  Oh, and not everyone buys a new computer every two years (and the computer I've got at work is indeed from 2007, so not too far from 2006).
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
26. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-15 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  So on Windows then?
27. Re:how long by NotBorg · 2012-10-15 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  YES!!!! I finally feel like a real bad ass running systems with *only* 1 or 2g of RAM!
  Seriously, Firefox is fine on small machines too. That means that it's not an issue on an average machine or big machines (which will be average soon enough). Also, most articles comparing browsers show that Firefox is competitive with other browsers WRT memory usage. You kids just need to find something else to bitch about that's all.
  You memory trolls are starting to sound as stupid as the version number trolls.
  
  --
  I want this account deleted.
28. Re:how long by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-15 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  The user should have a full-time internet connection we can push updates over and pull tracking data
  ZOMG FF IS THE TRAXOR BROWZAR!!!!!
  Yerrr dumb.
Where are the ideas coming from? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:53 · Score: 0

Reading announcements like this makes me wonder where their ideas for features are coming from. Are people actually writing to Mozilla and asking them to disable old versions of plugins? Heck, whenever I upgrade Firefox the plugins usually break anyway, that should keep out of date ones from being a problem! The social media bar sounds like something cooked up by Facebook or Twitter devs, not something suggested by users or internal Firefox developers.
I would really like to see Firefox focus on being a better browser, fast, light, secure. Instead we are seeing them mash bug fixes and new features into the same releases, we're getting heavy handed attempts at security and social media. Things I really don't want to see in a web browser.
1. Re:Where are the ideas coming from? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-10-12 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  The 'social API' stuff sounds like utter nonsense; but plugin blocking is both a logical evolution of a previous feature(the https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/ link in the part of the interface for viewing plugins) and a very good idea for security.
  Between Flash and Java, though not exclusive to them, browsing the internet with outdated plugins is about as safe as picking up used needles from a shooting gallery floor and injecting yourself in the hopes of scoring free heroin...
2. Re:Where are the ideas coming from? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Are people actually writing to Mozilla and asking them to disable old versions of plugins?
  No, they're writing in complaining that Firefox is not secure enough even though the root cause is absolutely horrible plugins from the likes of Adobe and Microsoft. Users have taken up the position that it's the Firefox's fault when Adobe or Microsoft happen. It doesn't seem that unreasonable for Mozilla to point out to the user that they're using bad software which may be causing the thing that the user is bitching about.
3. Re:Where are the ideas coming from? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  Be careful not to confuse plugins (eg, Flash, Adobe Reader, Java) with extensions (eg, AdBlock, NoScript, Ghostery), both of which are add-ons. People have complained a lot about extensions breaking with upgrades, but the complaints with plugins are more often that they're causing memory leaks or security holes (which are often due to people running old versions of them).
4. Re:Where are the ideas coming from? by Lennie · 2012-10-13 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, even though browsers get security fixes every release.
  They are usually one of the parts of the system that do get these updates regularly.
  They deal with input from the open Internet on a daily basis, they have to be updated.
  It has been very clear the last few years that most drive-by-infections happen through plugins.
  But the plugins don't get the updates. So what are browser developers supposed to do ? Firefox developers would like to prevent drive-by-infections, because they are the most common way virusses get on to computers now a days (for a couple of years now).
  So they (temporarily) disable the plugins that have known security problems.
  Is that so strange ?
  
  --
  New things are always on the horizon
whats firefox? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:57 · Score: 0

i remember a mozilla firefox 4 or was it 6
but 17?
haha there done and so will chrome if they keep it up
1. Re:whats firefox? by ArsonSmith · 2012-10-12 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  if it makes you feel better, think of it as 6.17
  What's in a number?
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
2. Re:whats firefox? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  I remember your troll from the last dozen or so articles about Firefox. The trolling hasn't gotten any better you should probably give up. You look stupid by saying anything about version numbers at this point.
Social API? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 06:58 · Score: 0

Please to pointing out the opt-out function... if I need to dump Chrome for some reason.
1. Re:Social API? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  It's an API, not a feature. You would need to install a plugin to take advantage of it. That's essentially an opt-in requirement. You're covered.
2. Re:Social API? by NotBorg · 2012-10-12 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  Perhaps Chrome should include a text-to-speech feature to your posting back to you so that you can actually hear how your posted sound with incorrect or missing.
  ...
  Preemptive woooooosh. (Note: woosh more Os than usual because it mentions a Google product.)
  
  --
  I want this account deleted.
3. Re:Social API? by asa · 2012-10-12 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's not an opt-out. It's an opt in. Users who don't want to see it won't. You'll only see it if you're using a supported social service and you opt in. Otherwise you'll never know it was there.
4. Re:Social API? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  Otherwise you'll never know it was there.
  
  Other than slow start-up times and reduced run-time performance as the execution path ambles through the if active ( social ) then guards.
Social API Sounds Like a Privacy Nightmare by jerquiaga · 2012-10-12 07:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hopefully there is something built in separating that social API sidebar from what you are actually browsing. Facebook/Google/Apple/Skeezy Advertisers wouldn't need tracking cookies to know exactly where you surfed.
1. Re:Social API Sounds Like a Privacy Nightmare by asa · 2012-10-12 08:51 · Score: 2
  
  The API doesn't allow for the sidebar or other social features to know about the content of the pages you're visiting. You can read the docs if you want to learn more. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Social_API
privacy controls in social API? by alef.01 · 2012-10-12 07:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Will Mozilla provide isolation for its social apps from the rest of the tabs, when requested by the user; i.e providing cintrols on what browsing data, session, cookies and history the social API will be able to access, or will this make it more difficult for users to wall social apps than it is to do so with web-based social apps using plug-ins as many now do?
1. Re:privacy controls in social API? by asa · 2012-10-12 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  The Firefox Social API doesn't allow for the sidebar or other social features to know about the content of the pages you're visiting. You can read the docs if you want to learn more. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Social_API
Only 18?? by Viol8 · 2012-10-12 07:09 · Score: 5, Funny

I updated to 24 only 10 mins ago ... no wait, its updating itself again to 25 ... oh , no thats got some security issue , now its on 26 ... I'll get back to you...
Firefox sucks day after day by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:13 · Score: 0

Social network?? WTF?? I don't have a Facebook account, neither a Twitter account, so the browser is not made for me, is that it? Why won't Mozilla spend its time trying to fix bugs, instead of trying to copy Chrome with galloping version numbers or adding fancy little things to the browser?
1. Re:Firefox sucks day after day by asa · 2012-10-12 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't use any social providers, you'll never enable the social integration features in Firefox. Mozilla has hundreds of engineers working to make Firefox better. Not everyone is going to find value in what every one of them are working on. Social API is a small team, just a handful of developers, working on something that *will* be useful to hundreds of millions of Facebook and other social service users.
Eat your own dogfood by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:15 · Score: 0

I assume that Mozilla will play fair and if Firefox detects I'm running an older version of Firefox too long or someone discovers a Firefox 0-day exploit it'll warn me on launch and ask me to approve running my vulnerable Firefox browser?
1. Re:Eat your own dogfood by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 19:35 · Score: 0
  
  If you have the default Mozilla home page it will at least warn you.
Once again Apple Shines bright! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:27 · Score: 0, Funny

I have a MacBook 13" that I use at work. This is the only thing I can get. Believe me when I say I've tried everything* to get a different laptop. My boss is a big Apple user so I get this one in the end - pun very much intended.
So here I am, OS X 10.5, unable to update the OS because I can't get a new machine, and up comes this neato message from Firefox.
"Sorry, you are SOL. We won't let you upgrade to the new version of Firefox because your OS is SOOOOOOO old."
Something like that.
And then I have a flashback. It's eight years ago. I'm sitting in my living room. I'm on my Quadra 800. I'm on my bank's website and up flashes this message. "Update your browser"
But I can't! To update my browser I need a new OS. To upgrade my OS I need a new Mac. TO upgrade my Mac I need a whole lot of money.
That was the day I switched to a PC.
How is it that eight years have passed and APPLE IS STILL DOING EXACTLY THE SAME CRAP THEY ALWAYS DID?
1. Re:Once again Apple Shines bright! by armanox · 2012-10-12 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  If you have a MacBook then you can run OS X 10.6. OS X 10.6 supports all Intel Apple Computers. And last I checked (on a MBP 1,1) Firefox still runs on 10.6.
  
  --
  I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
No Thanks by neffezzle · 2012-10-12 07:34 · Score: 1

Because Facebook and Google Pluse aren't invasive enough on your browser already???
midori by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-10-12 07:36 · Score: 1

I'd like to see some more progress in MIdori. It's already pretty functional (in Linux), though it has a bug or two and could use a few extra features. I switch back and forth from Midori and FF for now, at least until FF gets too weird, which seems inevitable.

WTF can't there be an all-around good browser that doesn't turn to crap?

--
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Safari does this - it doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 07:53 · Score: 1

(warning: hearsay to follow since I'm not a Mac User)
If I recall, Safari does something similar; if it detects an older version of Flash it disables the plug-in and throws up a warning message prompting the user to update.
Or at least, that's what my mother told me happened. At which point she switched to Firefox and used that instead.
Mind you, it was an ancient version of FF I had installed for her two years ago; God knows how old the Flash plug-in was.
These "warning" notifications - even if they also disable features - do NOT cause the average user to update software. It just gets the user upset that their software doesn't work and find workarounds to the new problem.
Firefox is better off getting together with Adobe/Oracle/whomever and working so Firefox's own automatic updates include the updates for the plugins as well.
1. Re:Safari does this - it doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 19:38 · Score: 0
  
  It was even more annoying at work a few months ago when Firefox blocked Java plug-in all across the company meaning no one could access Oracle.
Bizarre selection of core features by JDG1980 · 2012-10-12 07:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Also coming in Firefox 17 is support for Mozilla's "Social API." The announcement describes it thus: "Much like the OpenSearch standard, the Social API enables developers to integrate social services into the browser in a way that is meaningful and helpful to users. As services integrate with Firefox via the Social API sidebar, it will be easy for you to keep up with friends and family anywhere you go on the Web without having to open a new Web page or switch between tabs. You can stay connected to your favorite social network even while you are surfing the Web, watching a video or playing a game."
Can someone explain to me why crap like this is being incorporated into Firefox as a core feature, but if we want a traditional status bar or address bar, that has to be a plugin?
1. Re:Bizarre selection of core features by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  Good question. Mozilla does tend to ignore a few things. (I am using the ESR version by the way. This November I'll be jumping to v17 I think. Personal computer, not work-related.)
  They should focus on simple things. How about an option so when I do an CTRL-F, it doesn't search as I type? How about the number of results instead of me trying to guess? At least IE8 tells me how many matches there are. And while a plugin does quite well, a toggle for javascript needs to be a must. I mean, seriously, it'd be safer surfing if you can toggle off javascript before going to questionable sites (or leave it off until going to a trusted site). Yes, I know, I think NoScript covers that, but still.
2. Re:Bizarre selection of core features by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  There isn't any sensible reason for this if the product your are manufacturing is a web browser.
  If you start thinking of it as a social networking tool, then it makes more sense. It's also abandoning the core purpose of Firefox.
  I used to like Firefox. They keep upgrading it and breaking my favourite plug-ins (most updates are not security related). And they seem to like to screw with the UI fairly regularly too. I'm getting sick enough of it I'm going to probably start using Chrome all the time despite my dislike of Google and of some of the Chrome implementation aspects. At least it tends to stay simple, fast, and the UI doesn't change too fast.
  Firefox, the love affair is over.
3. Re:Bizarre selection of core features by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:24 · Score: 0
  
  Because casual users are far more interested in that than having a traditional status bar or address bar? When's the last time a casual user cared about those things, and wasn't wishing they could use their social apps more efficiently?
4. Re:Bizarre selection of core features by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  I couldn't agree more. Out of all the top addons - none of them are this shit. Firefox, fuck you.
5. Re:Bizarre selection of core features by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  I know. I couldn't get 90% of my friends and family to use Firefox over a default browser (IE or Safari) if it came with a FreeBeer API Sidebar.
  Seriously - most people would rather deal with spyware and trojans, than fuck around with installing Firefox and noscript, and clicking on the little "allow such-and-such" button every time they visit a new site for the first time. I think MOST software authors have a serious blind-spot in the technical gap between themselves and the "average user". (And this has been the case since. . . oh, I think about 1980.)
API for what? by VGPowerlord · 2012-10-12 08:13 · Score: 1

Just to be clear, is this API for plugins only or can any JavaScript on the web run it?

--
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
ninite anyone?? by RobertLTux · 2012-10-12 08:16 · Score: 1

of course one could just hit ninite.com for an autoinstaller and not have to worry about outdated versions.
i have a few different versions downloaded one that has all the "stuff" i like to install when i do a computer setup.

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Tabbed browsing by Cid+Highwind · 2012-10-12 08:20 · Score: 2

You can stay connected to your favorite social network even while you are surfing the Web, watching a video or playing a game.
Yeah, it's called tabbed browsing. Been in Firefox since version 2.0...

--
0 1 - just my two bits
Social API by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:28 · Score: 0

Looks like yet another sandboxed plugin/addon/extension type. It's similar to the search plugins but much more advanced. Seems like an API for additional service like thingy that can be added to the browser for those who want this kind of stuff :p. Well, I think the name "Social API" seems like a misnomer. It can probably be used for integrating other stuff as well. If they advance this further, it could make a better blogging or comment/forum posting interface from the browser.
I guess this is how they try to make the usage of these kind of things opt in rather than having tons of buttons and whatnots seen in many news sites. Not that I think this will actually get those sites to remove those things :p.
Seriously Firefox get your act together.... by NinjaTekNeeks · 2012-10-12 08:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

First you install Firefox...
Then Flashblock....
Then Adblock Plus
Then Noscript
Then Fasterfox...
Then....

Make a browser that has the ability to turn off crap like ads, flash, easily white or black list javascript enabled sites (google, gmail, etc.) and reduce bloat (170mb of ram just to browse slashdot in firefox?!?!?!) and I'll be happy. Social Media integration? wow, who gives a flying firefox.....
1. Re:Seriously Firefox get your act together.... by maxwell+demon · 2012-10-13 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Given that NoScript blocks Flash quite fine, I don't see the need to install Flashblock in addition.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 08:40 · Score: 0

GOTO Subject
get your facts straight by asa · 2012-10-12 08:46 · Score: 3, Informative

This is simply inaccurate. Firefox 10 (via changes that arrived way back at Firefox 7) was dramatically better than Firefox 4-6 and Firefox 15 was a good bit better than Firefox 10, thanks to killing add-on leaks and some other minor but incremental improvements in Firefox 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Or to put it another way, Firefox 7 and Firefox 15 both made major advances in memory usage. More memory and performance optimizations hit in 16 or will in upcoming releases with Incremental Garbage Collection, IonMonkey, and then a Compacting Generational GC.
I realize that unsupported assertions based on anecdotes is the norm around here, but expect to get called when they're the opposite of the truth. For the details, read the last few months worth of posts here: https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/
1. Re:get your facts straight by gothzilla · 2012-10-12 09:13 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  While reading that, the "Who's on first" routine kept going through my head. One of the many reasons I stopped using FF. I might try it again in a month when they get to version 28 though.
2. Re:get your facts straight by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that you keep saying 'made major advances in memory usage' should tell you something.
  If its sooooo good, how do they keep making major advances?
  Answer: Its not that good, you just have low expectations.
3. Re:get your facts straight by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 17:49 · Score: 0
  
  and you've just explained science and civilization
4. Re:get your facts straight by Waccoon · 2012-10-12 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  No way in hell is my experience inaccurate.
  I've been keeping a very close eye on Firefox memory usage for quite a long time, and every release uses more memory than the previous version. I've done everything from disabling plugins and extensions, running in safe mode, and even uninstalling the browser, wiping out my profile, and re-installing with no plugins or extensions, and the results are the same. If I surf a Javascript heavy site like DeviantArt for 20 minutes, memory usage goes up to 600-800MB (Firefox 10 was about half of this). When I look at about:memory, the browser clearly shows that Javascript heaps are using about 80%+ of the total memory usage. Forcing garbage collection on about:memory doesn't clear anything. I have to restart the browser several times a day. The pauses every 10 seconds are still there, and they kick in after about 10 minutes of surfing, and only get worse after that (though the pauses have noticeably improved in 14 and 15).
  All the while, nobody ever believes me when I tell them I have plugins and extensions disabled. Arguing with people over memory issues is like discussing politics. People either deny it's a problem, or think it's a huge issue. There's no middle ground, and there's no sensible discussion about what's going on or what to do about it.
  The most memory I've ever seen Firefox use is 1.6GB, at least according to Process Explorer. That was after two days of surfing, then closing all but one window, and pointing the last open window to about:blank. I'm looking at a blank page and the browser still has more than a gig allocated? Go ahead and tell me about unsupported anecdotes. I am not making this up.
  I have multiple browsers installed. Chromium causes no issues. Opera causes no issues. IE has no problems. Every other program in my machine from Photoshop to Goldwave has no issues whatsoever. Firefox runs like a pig, at least after it's been running for a while.
  I'm getting a bit tired of people either telling me I'm a troll or agreeing with me completely. Such polarization over the issue suggests to me that Firefox memory usage is just some kind of geek taboo, with some people denying the problem and other people just having to suffer with it. It's just frustrating how passionate people get about the whole issue, all the while there's nothing I can do.
  BTW, I have the same problems with PaleMoon as I do with Firefox, so it's not just one particular build of the browser that's giving me grief. Firefox does indeed have major issues with memory management, and people are just pointing to recent changelogs as proof that Firefox is just fine are outright ignoring the problems that are indeed real. Hell, I'm having problems right now. As I type this comment, the textbox is pausing occasionally and I can't even see what I'm typing for a second or two at a time.
  The only thing I can think of is that I never use tabs. I always open links in new windows, because I prefer to use the Windows taskbar to switch between web pages rather than the tab bar. When people tell me they run Firefox for days with 50 tabs open and have no problems at all, that's what I refuse to believe. I have no idea how the browser can continue working in that state.
5. Re:get your facts straight by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 20:07 · Score: 0
  
  Don't just post it here. Tell the developers. bugzilla.mozilla.org is your friend. Maybe someone there can actually fix this for you.
  You can actually get rewards for helping them identify and fix the problem you have.
  Just saying...
6. Re:get your facts straight by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-13 00:36 · Score: 0
  
  NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  *mods u down, picks the cheeto flakes out of his beard, then smirks ... JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED*
7. Re:get your facts straight by serialband · 2012-10-13 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  You're not a troll, you're obviously just visiting the wrong sites with firefox ;) Actually, it's the javascript and flash at fault for the RAM usage. Turn that crap off completely whenever you're not using it and you'll be able to keep firefox open for months, or until the 2nd Tuesday denial of service. Some sites just have very buggy code.
  You've also obviously never run opera with 50 tabs. With that many, you have to turn off javascript and plugins or it will crash constantly and suck up RAM like there's no tomorrow. As for firefox, you should have noscript, adblock and flashblock installed. I also have 50 tabs open in firefox right now and memory usage is under 300 MB. 100 tabs in Opera uses 300 MB, with scripting and plugins off. Even after about a month of keeping firefox open, I might reach 500MB of RAM usage. Ditto with Opera. Since Palemoon is based off firefox code, you'll have exactly the same problems if you enable scripting and flash.
  I would never have used firefox if it weren't for the plugins to block unnecessary scripts and flash elements that suck up RAM like there's no tomorrow. I leave scripting and flash off unless I really need it. In those cases, I turn it on when I need it and immediately turn it off when I'm done to kill of any lingering scripts. Besides, many sites just don't need it and are still surfable without it.
  You don't have the same problem with IE, Chrome or Srware Iron, because each site is encapsulated in a separate instance. When you close the window for the site, it's closed for good. They did this because some javascript flash is just buggy, and this was the way to kill them without having to kill all those other sites you like to keep open. If you open 50 chrome windows, you'll have 50+ chrome instances, and without flashblock or adblock, those 50 instances will add up to just as much RAM as a single firefox with scripts on. In my case, about 15-20 windows would take up the same amount of RAM as firefox with 50. (I just tested opening a few windows with Iron & IE)
  Bottom line == keep javascript and flash off and you won't suck up RAM so you'll be able to leave firefox on longer. OR just stop visiting your porn sites with firefox -- use IE, chrome or srware iron instead. :)
8. Re:get your facts straight by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-13 06:18 · Score: 0
  
  JavaScript was always the problem, even way back on FF 3.5x. Turn it off in the browser settings, and FF wouldn't leak so much memory it couldn't be left running overnight (FF 3.5 almost made me switch).
  
  ...you should have noscript, adblock and flashblock installed.
  I'm curious, does flashblock provide anything that noscript doesn't? Noscript already blocks flash and allows selectively plying it. What more does flashblock do?
  - T
9. Re:get your facts straight by Derek+Pomery · 2012-10-13 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, flashblock just blocks flash, but some people prefer that to the more comprehensive noscript.
  Nowdays in Firefox you can go to about:config and set plugins.click_to_play to true to accomplish the same thing, although Flashblock, last I checked, still has a better UI
  
  --
  -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
I like my Google Toolbar as it is, thanks by scsirob · 2012-10-12 08:56 · Score: 2

Not sure why Mozilla is forcing this on their users. I have ran FF for a long time, and one of the additions I really like is the Google Toolbar. It has not been maintained for a while, and it takes a tweak to convince FF12 and up to load it, but it does what I want. Losing this ability will be time to move on to another browser. Chrome, Opera, or heavens forbid, Internet Exploder...

--
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Re:Silent update still broken by asa · 2012-10-12 09:06 · Score: 1

Can you point me to the bug you're talking about? Thanks.
Will Firefox ever allow users to remove plugins?! by BrendaEM · 2012-10-12 09:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Release after release, Mozilla has taunted us with the ability to remove unwanted plugins, but that promise has never been realized. Why?
For Firefox to be secure, it should never allow a plug to be added and activated without the users's permission.
Please fix this!!!!

--
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
The Open Source Chromium Browser as Alternative? by evolutionary · 2012-10-12 10:04 · Score: 1

What about Chromium? Its Chrome without the Google stuff to extract data to track people for showing ads. http://www.chromium.org/Home I really liked Firefox and recommended to everyone, but with this loss of focus in an attempt to reprove its relevance with it so called "rapid release", its having the reverse effect and may give MS a new opportunity to push its semi-w3c complaint browser. Apple Safari may be a good alternative for MS windows clients but I haven't looked into whether it collects data. I need to see what plugins I can use with Chromium which is the biggest advantage Firefox has in flexibility over its competitors. Ironically, Firefox 17 seems like it will kill some plugins. Is the cure worse than the disease?

--
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
How about... by NoMaster · 2012-10-12 10:47 · Score: 2

How about they jam their "social API" up their arse, and use the now-free developer time to maintain feature users want?
Or, at the very least, those developers could be retrained and fruitfully employed. Testing cluebats on the Mozilla community co-ordinators & technical evangelists - who would rather gaslight people with different opinions than listen to them - might occupy a few...

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Screw the new versions! by gabrieltss · 2012-10-12 10:59 · Score: 1

I've stuck with V3.6.x. I don't like the UI of the 4.x and newer versions and I don't like the route mozilla is going. If there was another browser that supported all the developer plugins FF has I would be dumping FF. Time to get the source for FF3.6 and modify it to tell sites it's the newer version even if it isn't. Mozilla's "rapid" outdating is just a little much. Newer isn't always better.... I don't want to go back to IE!

--
The Truth is a Virus!!!
1. Re:Screw the new versions! by runeghost · 2012-10-12 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Amen. Wishing I had mod points.
2. Re:Screw the new versions! by Vaphell · 2012-10-12 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  good luck with that. The internet becomes jscript heavier with each passing day and performance of ff3.6 is abysmal. What about evolving standards like slowly finalized CSS3, SVG and what not? Your idea is yet another IE6 story, the bane of webdevs, which is ironic, considering you've mentioned dev plugins.
People still use firefox? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 11:18 · Score: 0

I'm impressed, thats some glutens for punishment right there.
Re:Silent update still broken by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 12:09 · Score: 0

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=711475
Guess I won't update then... by wakeboarder · 2012-10-12 13:37 · Score: 2

Firefox needs to get their act together regarding updates, they are driving people away.
Idiots by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 14:12 · Score: 1

Funny how you idiots complain about firefox updating so much but probably use chrome, which updates way more, pfft.
You Bloated Sack of Protoplasm by petsounds · 2012-10-12 18:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Firefox team is off the rails. In fact, the whole Mozilla Foundation has lost its way. First they basically abandon Thunderbird for no reason, and now they're bolting on entire social media interfaces. Commercial, closed-source ones at that. All because their egos make them want to stay with the big boys, instead of innovating, instead of just trying to be the best browser.
If there was a fast, secure, standards-compliant browser that was compatible with the Firefox plugin architecture, I'd jump in a second.
1. Re:You Bloated Sack of Protoplasm by AlabamaCajun · 2012-10-13 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  Watch it, Protoplasm is probably patented by those big corps that have strangled FF into a media sack. LOL Not funny is that FF/MF is cowtowing to the big corps so that we loose control of our web experience. I prefer not to use the recent flash and pdf reader because of all the strings attached and adds popping up in the middle of videos or the services running constantly contacting home base to report in (acrobat). I'm not against ads but the media they use is distracting past annoying, many are stupid like jiggling credit cards. I do have to say some car and game ads use nice graphics and render in a less distracting way but to many ad companies don't get it. Sorry, my tinfoil hat turned into metal flakes along time ago making it useless. Gone are the days we had control of our stuff and could own copies of music and do what we wanted. I think the droids are great because they are less tied to a "i" corp but on the droid platform you still have little control of the content unless you are into rooting and take the risk of getting bricked. Hey Mozilla, I'm starting to see monkeys.
The only thing I can think of is that I never use by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-12 23:26 · Score: 0

"The only thing I can think of is that I never use tabs."
Well I can assure you that it wouldn't change at all because I always use tabs and FF is a memory HOG plain and simple, and has been on my multiple computers for quite a few years now.
I try other browsers but I like the plug-in's and feel of FF, so I stick with it.
About 8 or 9 years ago I switched to Chameleon for a few months and it was snappy and low memory usage but the plug-in installation wasn't user friendly and it wasn't maintained.
FF has been crashing on exit since they mucked it by lpq · 2012-10-13 09:48 · Score: 1

Ever since they sent their update change to force FF to go to the plugin site to update to plugins I can't use,
FF hangs at 100% cpu usage on exit... I have to use Process Hacker to kill it...
What a piece of Excrement.
Re:Will Firefox ever allow users to remove plugins by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-13 16:43 · Score: 0

+ 100000
Damn right! I get so tired of starting Firefox and jumping to the addons to disable the Java plugin that I know will be there after I update. I have to use Java but I DO NOT WANT Firefox using it.
Re:adons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-15 07:29 · Score: 0

Link to your addons or it didn't happen, son.