Mozilla To Enable Click-To-Play For All Firefox Plugins By Default

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla To Enable Click-To-Play For All Firefox Plugins By Default

Posted by timothy on Tuesday January 29, 2013 @06:16AM from the choose-your-own-adventure dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla on Tuesday announced a massive change to the way it loads third-party plugins in Firefox. The company plans to enable Click to Play for all versions of all plugins, except the latest release of Flash. This essentially means Firefox will soon only load third-party plugins when users click to interact with the plugin. Currently, Firefox automatically loads any plugin requested by a website, unless Mozilla has blocked it for security reasons (such as for old versions of Java, Silverlight, and Flash)."

119 of 181 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Need for speed! by sandytaru · 2013-01-29 06:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Hopefully this speeds up Firefox considerably. I stopped using it because it was so much slower than Chrome at some basic tasks. But considering Chrome is incredibly unstable on Windows 8, I'm willing to give Firefox another chance.

--
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
1. Re:Need for speed! by Synerg1y · 2013-01-29 06:24 · Score: 2
  
  Such a simple solution, they already have plugin detection, so they probably just expanded that with an on / off switch. And... nobodies thought of it, I like it, mozilla needs some fresh new features... I still can't get sync to work easily for what I want it to (multiple computers, 1 bookmarks file, idc about mobile devices for those). I'm willing to bet the next versions of chrome and IE will include it though.
2. Re:Need for speed! by bogaboga · 2013-01-29 06:25 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I stopped using it because it was so much slower than Chrome at some basic tasks
  Are you a "high speed" trader?
  What real useful difference does it make? Seriously?
3. Re:Need for speed! by Cinder6 · 2013-01-29 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Chrome works fine on Windows 8 for me. Of course, I've gone back to Firefox, but for different reasons.
  
  --
  If you can't convince them, convict them.
4. Re:Need for speed! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 06:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I stopped using it because it was so much slower than Chrome at some basic tasks
  Are you a "high speed" trader?
  What real useful difference does it make? Seriously?
  Step 1: Crippling addiction to absorbing information from the internet at all times.
  Step 2: Run out of information to absorb from familiar places.
  Step 3: Boredom.
  Step 4: Find new place from which information can be absorbed. That new place discusses application speed and responsiveness with nanosecond resolution.
  Step 5: Absorbed information must be used! Develop brand new crippling addiction of obsessing over browser speed.
  Step 6: ???
  Step 7: Gain attention by complaining on public forums! Which is a form of profit.
5. Re:Need for speed! by Beorytis · 2013-01-29 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Let me guess, your need for speed is so you can get first posts...
6. Re:Need for speed! by fbobraga · 2013-01-29 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  I use Firefox here (in work) and at home: I've tried Chrome some times: as aways, the difference in speed I've noted is, basically, in startup time only
7. Re:Need for speed! by sandytaru · 2013-01-29 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  I keep getting nasty "page has stopped responding" on everything from Facebook to Gmail. I keep hoping the flurry of updates they're sending out will fix it. This just started in the last week or two and it's getting quite frustrating. Hopefully the Google guys are getting the crash reports I keep filing...
  
  --
  Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
8. Re:Need for speed! by Mike+Frett · 2013-01-29 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Chromium works great for me on Xubuntu 12.04. However, I use Firefox mostly and it also runs fine. Have also tried various other WebKit based Browsers that are super fast, but I still use Firefox.
  Once you get use to something, it's difficult to switch, but very possible and doable. I used Windows since 1998, switched to Linux last year (2012) never looked back. Incidentally, In Firefox I use Flash Block and Stop Tube to 'click to play' HTML5 and Flash; great add-ons.
9. Re:Need for speed! by asavage · 2013-01-29 07:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Chrome uses a massive amount of RAM. About 3x more than Firefox. It is good if you have a lot of RAM but can even run poorly on 8 GB systems, such as if you have virtual memory disabled because of a SSD. I switched back to Firefox because of this.
10. Re:Need for speed! by X0563511 · 2013-01-29 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  The thought of high-speed traders working through a web browser amuses me.
  If they are so time sensitive that mere seconds of delay could through them off, they should not be using a consumer-level OS and browser, but something a bit more realtime.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
11. Re:Need for speed! by bogaboga · 2013-01-29 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  they should not be using a consumer-level OS and browser, but something a bit more realtime.
  Like...?
12. Re:Need for speed! by ahabswhale · 2013-01-29 08:13 · Score: 1
  
  I use Chrome on Windows 8 and I haven't had any problems with (no crashes or other odd behavior). Maybe it's you.
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
13. Re:Need for speed! by HAKdragon · 2013-01-29 08:24 · Score: 1
  
  And... nobodies thought of i.
  ..except Chrome already does this.
  
  --
  "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
14. Re:Need for speed! by X0563511 · 2013-01-29 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know, some proprietary system most likely. I have visions of some crappy AS/400 terminal that does the work on a trading system mainframe.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
15. Re:Need for speed! by lennier · 2013-01-29 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  they should not be using a consumer-level OS and browser, but something a bit more realtime.
  Like...?
  A Cyberdyne Investment Systems T-1989 Model 101 Tradinator (tm) rapid-response tactical securities infiltration, acquisition, monetisation and arbitrage platform. With optional cup holder and social-gaming connector.
  I'LL BE BANK.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
16. Re:Need for speed! by Dragonslicer · 2013-01-29 08:58 · Score: 2
  
  And... nobodies thought of i.
  ..except Chrome already does this.
  So does the FlashBlock extension.
17. Re:Need for speed! by Rockoon · 2013-01-29 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  ...and for Opera users, opera:config#UserPrefs|EnableOnDemandPlugin
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
18. Re:Need for speed! by KiloByte · 2013-01-29 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully this speeds up Firefox considerably. I stopped using it because it was so much slower than Chrome at some basic tasks.
  Eh? Firefox is so much faster than Chrome that I really wonder why would you spread disinformation like this. Or perhaps, your Adblock setup is lacking (or, horrors, missing at all). The default stops only visible ads, while Every. Fucking. Page. On. Teh. Internets. has a screenful of hidden trackers/etc that really slow you down.
  NoScript would be tempting, except that in today's Web2.0, too big a part of pages is useless without manually mucking with permissions. Yet even without it, Firefox is so much better at eliminating spyware than Chrome that minor differences in javascript speeds don't matter. Who cares that Chrome would execute the code faster if you don't want it being executed at all? Or it's domain name resolved, which is another source of slowness.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
19. Re:Need for speed! by jonadab · 2013-01-29 10:56 · Score: 2
  
  > Hopefully this speeds up Firefox considerably.
  
  You know what speeds up Firefox considerably?
  
  Noscript.
  
  It's amazing. I expected it to make some difference, but it had MUCH more impact than I imagined possible. Apparently about 99.8% of page "load" time is actually not spent loading page content, but executing completely gratuitous client-side scripts, most of which you never even realized were there, because they don't do anything the user would ever notice much less care about.
  
  Occasionally you will run into a site that actually doesn't work correctly with Javascript disabled, but this is the exception rather than the rule, and you can always tell NoScript to allow them on a case-by-case basis. *Most* of the javascript on the web, as near as I can tell, exists _purely_ for the purpose of increasing page load times. My tabset of pages that I load every morning before breakfast (including comics and some news sites) went from taking more than ten wallclock minutes to load down to more like five seconds with NoScript, and not a single one of those pages is missing any worthwhile content or meaningful functionality as a result, so near as I can tell.
  
  --
  Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
20. Re:Need for speed! by dbitter1 · 2013-01-29 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are looking for Ghostery...
  https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/ghostery/
  With apologies to Southpark: "They put the trackers on their webpages over there, and... they're gone."
  
  --
  For us carnivores, "Sucking the marrow out of life" isn't a transcendentalist philosophy but a practical instruction.
21. Re:Need for speed! by sandytaru · 2013-01-29 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, I have 16 GB on my primary system so that's not an issue. I'm on the much lower end Thinkpad right now, however, with only 4GB of RAM, and I'm not really noticing any performance hit.
  
  --
  Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
22. Re:Need for speed! by sandytaru · 2013-01-29 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, AdBlock crashed yesterday too! (In addition to all the regularly schedule dying Chrome pages.) I was rather amused by suddenly seeing advertisements in places I hadn't realized they existed, like on right sidebar of Facebook.
  
  --
  Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
23. Re:Need for speed! by sandytaru · 2013-01-29 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Did I get first post? I never even check that sort of thing. I just know that if a story has no comments on it yet, that's probably a lie and proclaiming "first post!" is going to either get me nuked to oblivion or make me look like a fool. So I don't.
  
  --
  Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
24. Re:Need for speed! by KiloByte · 2013-01-29 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Ghostery is too simplicistic, too inaccurate and too uncontrollable for heavy users, although it indeed may be a good solution for nontechnical users (ie, a vast majority). Adblock can do everything ghostery can, except that you need to configure it to do so.
  When coming to a new page I have a hunch may include something nasty, I ctrl-shift-V ("Open blockable items") and glance at the list, looking for something that needs to be swatted. Obviously, quite a few folks shared their lists so you don't need to start afresh on a new installation. Ghostery is nothing more than such a list with a flashy icon and some marketing.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
25. Re:Need for speed! by smellotron · 2013-01-29 18:29 · Score: 1
  
  they should not be using a consumer-level OS and browser, but something a bit more realtime.
  
  Like...?
  
  A well-tuned consumer-level OS and a dedicated trading GUI?
26. Re:Need for speed! by fatphil · 2013-01-29 21:04 · Score: 1
  
  ... and NCSA Mosaic back in 1993, which forced you to click on those external things called "images" before they were loaded and rendered onto the page.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
27. Re:Need for speed! by fatphil · 2013-01-29 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Why is your post not already at +5 insightful?
  
  Everyone's playing around with JIT compilers to make javascript faster (there must have been a dozen such announcements over the last few years from all major browser vendors), when the reality of life is that the way to make it fastest is to not run it at all.
  
  Speed-wise, for many sites, there's seems to be a half-way house by using AdBlock instead of having NoScript activated. At least then a large proportion of the loads that are initiated by javascript turn into no-ops. But still, if the javascript will be doing nothing for your benefit, you may as well disable it.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
28. Re:Need for speed! by higuita · 2013-01-30 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  If the GC didnt work, then you have some extension eating the memory, not FF.
  Start FF in safe-mode and test it... better yet, in a clean profile
  
  --
  Higuita
29. Re:Need for speed! by higuita · 2013-01-30 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  If you want control check noscript + requestpolicy.
  You have total control what you load on the browser.
  
  --
  Higuita
Please include flash! by Torp · 2013-01-29 06:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Subject says it all... why enable flash by default? Even if it didn't have any security holes, it's still the great battery eater...

--
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
1. Re:Please include flash! by Servaas · 2013-01-29 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Why even have flash enabled is equally valid but the simple fact is theres still a lot that uses it, and why have to click it when you dont have to worry about battery life? (desktop or AC'd laptop)
2. Re:Please include flash! by Torp · 2013-01-29 06:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Maybe you... i browse with FlashBlock on all machines, portable or not. If I want to watch a movie I'll click to enable just the movie, thank you.
  
  --
  I apologize for the lack of a signature.
3. Re:Please include flash! by pushing-robot · 2013-01-29 06:25 · Score: 2
  
  Quite a few pages have hidden flash elements that are vital to the operation of the page. Most web music players, for instance. Blocking flash by default would break quite a few sites.
  Software developers—and browser makers in particular—have to weigh security against user experience.
  
  --
  How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
4. Re:Please include flash! by gQuigs · 2013-01-29 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Flash is used on an order of magnitude more sites. See: http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/client_side_language/all
  I think they should (and will) eventually.. maybe start with any site that has more than 3 flash objects. Then more than 1. Then click to play on all flash. It does make sense to do flash more gradually.
5. Re:Please include flash! by Secret+Agent+Man · 2013-01-29 06:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Which is why Chrome's Click to Play also puts a puzzle piece in your address bar, which you can click to run all plugins on a page once or all the time for a given domain. Does Firefox do something similar? There are lots of cases where there's no clickable space to enable a third party plugin.
6. Re:Please include flash! by TheRaven64 · 2013-01-29 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  90% of auto-starting flash is adverts. For the few things that are actually useful content, it isn't much extra effort to click. I was amazed at how much my browsing experience improved when I installed a click-to-play plugin for Flash.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
7. Re:Please include flash! by crazyjj · 2013-01-29 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  I would probably go to Chrome if they had noscripts too.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
8. Re:Please include flash! by Tridus · 2013-01-29 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Probably to make sure the creators of FlashBlock still have something to do.
  
  --
  -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
9. Re:Please include flash! by Cajun+Hell · 2013-01-29 06:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Most web music players, for instance. Blocking flash by default would break quite a few sites.
  Some peoples' "broken" sites are other peoples' "fixed" sites.
  
  --
  "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
10. Re:Please include flash! by squiggleslash · 2013-01-29 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  In which case you put a yellow bar at the top of the screen with "This webpage uses the Flash media player to show some content. Do you want to enable this plug-in?"
  Also: do I need to guess that it's still not going to be the case that it'll be possible to prevent HTML5 video from playing if the bastards building the page have made it auto-play? NOTE TO MOZILLA: _nobody_ wants this. Nobody. There is nobody in the world who wants a massive multimegabyte video to download and start playing unless they've specifically acknowledged they're ready for it. I don't give a rat's ass that you've seen sites considered legit like Youtube auto-play videos, even Google f---s up from time to time.
  I don't want massive multimedia crap to start downloading until I've explicitly given permission. That should have been the default right from the beginning, when the good people of Netscape first created the plug-in concept. Nobody else does either.
  Why? Because people load pages in the background. Because others click on a link and go AFK for a moment while they wait for the page to prepare itself. Because people load pages where there are other people around and do not want their computers suddenly talking or playing music or otherwise disturbing others around them. And yes, because other people pay by the byte or have download caps, especially mobile users.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
11. Re:Please include flash! by rmstar · 2013-01-29 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Quite a few pages have hidden flash elements that are vital to the operation of the page. Most web music players, for instance. Blocking flash by default would break quite a few sites.
  True, although many sites, especially fash-heavy ones are only bearable when broken.
  The web music player issue can be solved in firefox with flashblock by right-clicking on the icon, and unblocking all flash content from that site.
12. Re:Please include flash! by gstoddart · 2013-01-29 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Quite a few pages have hidden flash elements that are vital to the operation of the page. Most web music players, for instance. Blocking flash by default would break quite a few sites.
  I consider that a feature ... any site I hit that whines it needs Flash gets the back button, and subsequently ignored.
  Except for my work machine which I periodically need Flash for something annoying but required, I pretty much don't even have it installed.
  As a user, if your site requires Flash, you'll likely never see me again.
  In the 10 or more years I've been avoiding Flash, there hasn't been a single compelling thing which made me think otherwise; and while I'm sure there are people who think it's awesome, I think it's complete crap.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
13. Re:Please include flash! by Lucky75 · 2013-01-29 07:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't understand how people keep getting their extensions broken by firefox updates? If they're written properly, they don't break with updates anymore.
  
  --
  DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
14. Re:Please include flash! by Derek+Pomery · 2013-01-29 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Huh. Better integration between desktop and mobile?
  I use Firefox Sync to link tablet/phone/desktop just fine.
  Which is nice 'cause typing passwords on mobile is a pain.
  Is also nice to see desktop tabs on tablet. Makes moving over it to show a nice reddit awww photo to family easy.
  
  --
  -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
15. Re:Please include flash! by jorgevillalobos · 2013-01-29 07:13 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes, Firefox Click-to-Play has the same feature.
16. Re:Please include flash! by GameboyRMH · 2013-01-29 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  I've been using Flashblock for years and I don't think I've ever had this problem (closest is Veoh, where you have to click on the plain black video area to make it work). Hidden elements appear as a flash object in the upper-left corner of the page.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
17. Re:Please include flash! by Derek+Pomery · 2013-01-29 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  The problem I ran into w/ FlashBlock was needing a ton of whitelisting. And for silly things even, like playing sounds.
  For example, gmail would use flash (don't know if it still does) for the ping when someone sent you a chat message.
  It created that invisibly, so FlashBlock didn't work - I guess prompting would, but it wasn't obvious what people were whitelisting.
  Another one that did that, the game Enlightenment would use flash as a fallback after attempting HTML5 sound w/ mp3 only (no ogg fallback) so also needed manual whitelisting due to invisible content.
  Again, the notification prompt in the new Mozilla interface will at least tell someone, but if they don't realise what they are whitelisting (assume it is some crappy flash ad or something) they'll get a worse experience.
  So. I'm going w/ pervasiveness, and use of hidden flash for audio.
  
  --
  -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
18. Re:Please include flash! by amicusNYCL · 2013-01-29 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't looked at the code to verify why it is that sites don't work, but I see a lot of news sites in particular where the videos don't play if I have plugins on click-to-play in Opera. The CNN video page is one example, the videos just don't start. I suspect that there is some Javascript that is injecting the Flash movie in a way that I don't even see it to click on it to enable it, but like I said I haven't looked at the code for the sites that don't work. I go to Chrome when I come across a site like that instead of whitelisting it in Opera.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
19. Re:Please include flash! by Derek+Pomery · 2013-01-29 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Oh. Then there are sites that use "detection" code and won't even show you a click-to-play area on the screen. They'll simply bounce you to some error content if they fail to create the invisible flash content.
  Hopefully this sort of poor behaviour is becoming rarer. Esp since Firefox on my Android tablet/phone prompts for flash too, which will hopefully drive some website awareness.
  
  --
  -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
20. Re:Please include flash! by wvmarle · 2013-01-29 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox's FlashBlock (click-to-play for Flash) extension works just fine. I don't have problems with sites being broken - or at least I don't notice they're broken. And if they're really broken (IE-only kind of sites, they still exist) I just get a blank screen.
21. Re:Please include flash! by Merk42 · 2013-01-29 07:56 · Score: 2
  
  So you're suggesting Firefox doesn't follow the W3C/Whatwg standard?
  
  I'm sure if it were spun as "iOS refuses to follow standards for <video> tag" you'd be up in arms.
22. Re:Please include flash! by colfer · 2013-01-29 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  JQuery can eat up cycles too. A common replacement for Flash animation is the jQuery "Cycle" plugin. Well, jQuery sets 13ms timeouts by default for effects. If I have two or three of those things running in ads on a page, my laptop's fan kicks on. The parameter, jQuery.fx.interval, is not that well known, and a developer on a decent system would not notice the CPU overuse. The 13ms resolution is not really needed for simple slideshows.
23. Re:Please include flash! by colfer · 2013-01-29 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  To be clear on jQuery effects, I'm talking about Javascript with no browser plugins, just those big redundant ad js files that often rival the total byte size of the images on a page. Flash is at least compact. (I develop with js instead of Flash, but I try to keep it reasonable.)
24. Re:Please include flash! by tlhIngan · 2013-01-29 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Also: do I need to guess that it's still not going to be the case that it'll be possible to prevent HTML5 video from playing if the bastards building the page have made it auto-play? NOTE TO MOZILLA: _nobody_ wants this. Nobody. There is nobody in the world who wants a massive multimegabyte video to download and start playing unless they've specifically acknowledged they're ready for it. I don't give a rat's ass that you've seen sites considered legit like Youtube auto-play videos, even Google f---s up from time to time.
  
  With HTML5, it's easy because the browser controls when and where it'll start playing - even if it goes against the site owner's wishes (because the browser can control it all). Site owner not wanting video to full screen? User can full screen it. Site owner wants it to autoplay like an ad? User can demand videos only play when commanded.
  Unlike flash video, which are not controllable by the browser.
  And yes, YouTube's autoplay is very annoying, espescially if you open the video in a new tab. I wish I knew how to just have it disabled globally.
25. Re:Please include flash! by flimflammer · 2013-01-29 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  He was talking about the past. The changes you talk about weren't even a thing yet.
26. Re:Please include flash! by Tharkkun · 2013-01-29 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox disables Java for enterprise users who are on the ESR release. Even after updating their plugins it still disables them. So now they go with this method to cover their asses while it breaks applications if you don't click "enable" fast enough.
27. Re:Please include flash! by UnknownSoldier · 2013-01-29 11:16 · Score: 2
  
  Once I switched to a YouTube downloader for FF ( "Easy YouTube Video Downloader" https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/easy-youtube-video-downl-10137/ ) there is almost zero reason to even have flash installed anymore except for the odd Web Game. i.e. These 2 have excellent gameplay:
  Gemcraft - Chapter 0
  http://armorgames.com/play/3527/gemcraft-chapter-0
  Desktop Tower Defense
  http://www.kongregate.com/games/preecep/desktop-tower-defense-1-5
28. Re:Please include flash! by hazeii · 2013-01-29 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Except there are some sites that really make it hard because the usual 'click to run Flash' icon doesn't come up on them (no, I haven't researched why). For example, bandcamp just tells you to go install Flash (or disable your blocker).
  
  --
  All your ghosts are just false positives.
29. Re:Please include flash! by hazeii · 2013-01-29 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, there are many people who run with Flash blocked by default. Not a lot of the 'net breaks - and those sites that do break are generally pretty clueless anyway.
  
  --
  All your ghosts are just false positives.
30. Re:Please include flash! by markdavis · 2013-01-29 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you will be amazed at how much your browsing experience will subsequently go down the toilet again as sites start using other methods to push useless, annoying, battery-eating, distracting animation into their sites WITHOUT Flash.
  It is already happening. It used to be easy to have a sane experience- just turn off Flash or use an Addon to regulate it and disable animated GIF. And now we will have no control at all... browsing is like watching TV, where the whole site is moving around out of your control. Banner scrolling, fly ups, mouse unders and overs, dynamic background changing, floating panes, moving text, you name it, it is being done. And they almost never add anything positive to the browsing experience.
  It is very sad. I have warned people for years it was coming, and yet there are still no tools to deal with it, other than crude things that either require you to be an expert or things that totally break sites.
31. Re:Please include flash! by jrumney · 2013-01-29 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  The first add-on I install for Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/flashblock/
  I suspect the main reason I install this is the main reason Mozilla don't want to disable Flash by default: annoying animated ads.
32. Re:Please include flash! by znark · 2013-01-29 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  And yes, YouTube's autoplay is very annoying, espescially if you open the video in a new tab. I wish I knew how to just have it disabled globally.
  There’s a GreaseMonkey “user script” called YousableTubeFix. If installed, it helps getting rid of many YouTube annoyances – including the completely needless autoplay feature.
33. Re:Please include flash! by fatphil · 2013-01-29 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  [SNIP - a list of obnoxious things that broken sites do]
  
  > there are still no tools to deal with it, other than crude things that either require you to be an expert or things that totally break sites.
  
  You are not breaking the sites. The sites are broken.
  
  My tool is Firefox 3.x (image animation disabled), AdBlock, and NoScript. I often turn off stylesheets so that I can see all the images in a gallery page that insists on only showing me 1 image at a time using javascript.
  
  Many people say my internet is ugly. I think exactly the same about the internet they look at.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
34. Re:Please include flash! by serviscope_minor · 2013-01-29 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  Once I switched to a YouTube downloader for FF
  Youtube downloaders are good. I have one installed for when I want to download the videos. If you want to play them instead, here's a good option:
  http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/87011
  It plays they embedded or fullscreen, but using MPlayer, so even my venerable eee 900 can keep up with moderately HD video (not 1080p).
  But yeah, I have flash on faster laptops for tower defense games too.
  Have you tried the Creeper World series?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by idontgno · 2013-01-29 06:22 · Score: 5, Informative

I found it Reading the Fucking Article:

Going forward, Mozilla will essentially be blocking all plugins except the very latest version of Flash. The company won't say why it is exempting Adobe's plugin, but it's most likely because users expect their videos to play automatically (and advertisers expect their ads to load automatically).
Emphasis mine.
"Follow the money." That's a reason I can understand.
Makes me glad I usually run with Adblock and NoScript.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
1. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by i+kan+reed · 2013-01-29 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Flashblock+adblock. they're not illegal. They solve all your problems in that regard.
2. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by sycodon · 2013-01-29 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  And here I though watching porn was going to get a bunch easier.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
3. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-01-29 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  So for me, nothing will change - I'll still have to keep FlashBlock installed.
  Seriously... if I could only enable one plugin, it'd be FlashBlock - even over AdBlock. It makes the web significantly better, and - after several years of use - I still only have a handful of sites (like YouTube) whitelisted. Flash just isn't necessary for most things.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
4. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by jfengel · 2013-01-29 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, thanks. My first thought on reading TFS was, "Oh, perhaps I could consider skipping NoScript," and wondering whether I'd miss its Javascript controlling features as well.
  But no, enemy #1 is still there, so NoScript stays firmly in place.
  Note to advertisers: I do NOT run with AdBlock. Just NoScript. Ads, yes. Singing dancing flashing noisemakers, no. And yeah, I have Javascript blocked, for the same reason. If that means that the site is unusable, then I will find an alternative that pisses me off less.
5. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Illegal? The fact that you even brought that up speaks volumes about the world we live in.
6. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by MozeeToby · 2013-01-29 07:23 · Score: 2
  
  Going forward, Mozilla will essentially be blocking all plugins except the very latest version of Flash. The company won't say why it is exempting Adobe's plugin, but it's most likely because users expect their videos to play automatically (and advertisers expect their ads to load automatically).
  Emphasis mine.
  FFS, you're bolding and ranting like that's the word from Mozilla when what you are quoting is uninformed speculation from the author of the article (though it very well may be true). I suspect the average user being confronted with what is, to them, an error message when they go to youtube.com (or any number of other flash reliant sites) might have some bearing in the decision.
7. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by GameboyRMH · 2013-01-29 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  I use Flashblock, NoScript, BetterPrivacy, Ghostery (with GhostRank aka Plugin-Based Analytics disabled) and CookieMonster but not Adblock. I allow the unobtrusive ads to appear on purpose.
  Adblock is good for dial-up users though.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
8. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-01-29 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  While that's a correct statement, it doesn't negate my point at all.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
9. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by stewsters · 2013-01-29 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  I hope they still load automatically, they wouldn't be nearly as useful if i needed to click to use them.
10. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by donatzsky · 2013-01-29 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  If you run NoScript only to block Flash, then you might want to have a look at Flashblock instead: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/flashblock/
  Or perhaps QuickJava: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/quickjava/
  
  --
  VPS-like shared hosting, on under-crowded servers.
11. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by poofmeisterp · 2013-01-29 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  I found it Reading the Fucking Article:
  
  Going forward, Mozilla will essentially be blocking all plugins except the very latest version of Flash. The company won't say why it is exempting Adobe's plugin, but it's most likely because users expect their videos to play automatically (and advertisers expect their ads to load automatically).
  Emphasis mine.
  "Follow the money." That's a reason I can understand.
  Makes me glad I usually run with Adblock and NoScript.
  Um, remember Windows 7 and the "OMG I have to click 'Open' every time I want to open an application?'
  It's annoying. They just bypassed the annoying by allowing the plugin that's used almost everywhere. Secure? No. Convenient? Yes. Threat? Who knows?
12. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by idontgno · 2013-01-29 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. I'm emphasizing speculation. Credible speculation, IMHO. And probably in the honest opinion of anyone who's paying any attention.
  Maybe I'm too cynical. More likely, you're not cynical enough.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
13. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by Rockoon · 2013-01-29 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Its not a default in Opera unless it was a recent change and old installations grandfathered in the previous default...
  
  For those opera users that want this enabled, click or manually enter opera:config#UserPrefs|EnableOnDemandPlugin.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
14. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by roca · 2013-01-29 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  The real reason is that Flash gets used a lot --- much more than any other plugin --- so leaving the latest version of Flash unblocked and blocking everything else gives the best tradeoff of attack surface area reduction vs user convenience.
  But don't let me disrupt your enjoyment of your own cynicism.
15. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by Johann+Lau · 2013-01-29 14:58 · Score: 2
  
  I completely uninstalled Flash along with Java about a week ago, and haven't looked back since. Whenever something doesn't work without flash, as cool it as may be, I can *always* answer the question with "do I need this, as opposed to just wanting it?" with a resounding no... your mileage may vary, but I dare doubt it does :P http://www.youtube.com/html5 is working better and better for me, too.
16. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by Luckyo · 2013-01-29 17:35 · Score: 1
  
  This is basically yet another case of mozilla trying to implement functionality that is already done better in a widely used plug-in or extension. It's also yet another case where they do it in a much worse way.
17. Re:So why the hell does Flash get a pass? by Luckyo · 2013-01-29 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  Adblock plus had an option to allow unintrusive advertising for years now. They even maintain their own database on which advertising is intrusive and which is not.
I predict chaos by Phoenix+Rising · 2013-01-29 06:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

While we as technical users might enjoy a plugin-free experience with no extra clicking involved, the average Joe User is going to be pissed off.
I run with NoScript - does pretty much what Mozilla wants to do (plus script blocking), except without the big gray box. The average user is not interested in NoScript type functionality - they want a rich web experience out of the box, and if that includes Flash, PDF files, and audio, then that's what they want.
I suspect the reason Flash is turned on isn't because of ads - it's because there are a number of high profile corporate websites out there that become unusable if Flash isn't enabled.

--
Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
1. Re:I predict chaos by The+MAZZTer · 2013-01-29 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Also some Flash objects do not have a visual presence, and in fact sit off the screen since they do other things. I believe Google's Pacman logo uses Flash to power sound in IE (since it doesn't support HTML5 audio).
2. Re:I predict chaos by GameboyRMH · 2013-01-29 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  A lot of those are just for the Flash tracking cookies.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
3. Re:I predict chaos by Dragonslicer · 2013-01-29 09:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  While we as technical users might enjoy a plugin-free experience with no extra clicking involved, the average Joe User is going to be pissed off.
  I know this can be a dangerous idea, but I think you may be underestimating the average user. I suspect the conversation will go something like this:
  
  Average User: Hey, why doesn't the video play automatically anymore?
  Other Person: You have to click the big Play button first.
  Average User: Oh, okay.
  
  The average user probably won't ever understand why they have to do it, nor will they care, but they'll be able to repeat the necessary step(s).
4. Re:I predict chaos by Phoenix+Rising · 2013-01-29 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  It is a bad thing for some users, yes.
  I've turned on Flash to hear background music when listening to recordings of a musical instrument I was considering purchasing. And again, while I as a technical user am interested in clicking buttons in order to enable things, Joe User is not.
  
  --
  Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
5. Re:I predict chaos by Phoenix+Rising · 2013-01-29 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Average User: Hey, why doesn't the video play automatically anymore?
  Other Person: You have to click the big Play button first.
  Average User: Oh, okay.
  The average user probably won't ever understand why they have to do it, nor will they care, but they'll be able to repeat the necessary step(s).
  But they're not clicking the big 'Play' button - they're clicking the 'Are you sure you want to enable this possibly dangerous third-party software' button, and it is altering (read: degrading) the experience the web page designer intended to present to the end user.
  And depending on what they just enabled, after they click the "we'll try not to make this scary warning too scary" button THEN they might have to press the 'Play' button that shows up.
  
  --
  Let us live so that when we come to die, even the undertaker will be sorry -- Mark Twain
plugin-container contained? by empties · 2013-01-29 06:29 · Score: 3, Funny

What will I do with the excess memory if plugin-container.exe doesn't get out of hand anymore? Or perhaps we'll see a new big process: plugin-container-container
Firebug by schneidafunk · 2013-01-29 06:39 · Score: 1

Agreed, the really only reason to use the memory hog firefox is for the sweet plugin firebug.

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
1. Re:Firebug by schneidafunk · 2013-01-29 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  yup, thank you for the correction, sorry for the mistake.
  
  --
  Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Poor misfigured HTML, hateful and hated all around by VortexCortex · 2013-01-29 06:42 · Score: 2

The features tacked onto HTML5 like <audio> and <script> aren't considered a plugin, thus writing your animation w/ sound in it would seem to bypass the new default click-to-play. Ah, but it doesn't matter anyway since they're not making Flash click-to-play. So either this will make annoying BS more difficult to block without breaking the site, or it stengthens Flash in opposition to HTML5. Now browsers will be even less usable without NoScript and AdBlock.
Either way you look at it HTML5 is dead to me; It's been 13 years (half the age of the Web) and we're still stuck on HTML 4.01... Time to give up folks, HTML6 won't arrive before the Singularity. The Web even tanks as a cross platform dev platform -- I can make pixel perfect feature rich cross-platform native application for Linux, Win, BSD, OSX, Android, iOS in 1/3rd the time it takes me to ensure the same "web app" works in all the browsers and OSs. It was a bad idea to begin with -- Hack together the most inefficient scripting language and a stateless static document display engine to create stateful internet enabled applications (Every damn site is a stateful application now). HTML is ugly, and pointless. Long live the Internet, but Fuck The Web.
Turn it on now: about:config in the address bar... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 06:53 · Score: 1

Type about:config in the Firefox address bar, search for plugins.click_to_play and double-click the entry to toggle it to true.
This should prevent all plugins from loading until clicked on.
(Read about Finfisher and Flashback trojan at Wikipedia, great shame on you Apple!)
Re:no pr0n by DickBreath · 2013-01-29 06:59 · Score: 1

This will make pr0n sites useless without the animated thumbnails.

But maybe that's a good thing.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Don't see the difference by sjbe · 2013-01-29 07:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Chrome is really fast. It does stand out when you use it, even if I prefer to use Firefox.
I use both daily and frankly can't really see any speed difference for anything I need to do. While there probably are some differences I'm usually more limited by the speed of my connection to the ISP than anything else.
1. Re:Don't see the difference by Fallingcow · 2013-01-29 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox kicks on my MacBook's system fan when I start it with one or two tabs. Chrome doesn't when I start it with two dozen tabs, and it still launches faster.
  Firefox with a dozen tabs open noticeably increases occurrences of the Spinning Beachball system wide. It's almost as bad about that as Eclipse, in fact. Chrome doesn't start to crowd out my other work or even itself slow down until I reach ~40 tabs open; until then, new tabs open damn near instantly and switching tabs takes just about no time at all, while the same cannot be said for Firefox.
  As a bonus, a crashed tab generally doesn't kill the whole browser.
  In short, I can tell when Firefox is open even if I'm not using it, while I can't with Chrome.
2. Re:Don't see the difference by Flammon · 2013-01-30 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  You must be running Windows. It's a different story on Linux.
  
  --
  ayottesoftware.com
3. Re:Don't see the difference by netsentry · 2013-01-30 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  The disparity of your quoted numbers lead me to question your claims. This is not intended as bait, this is to point out that people in general tend to exaggerate. I can't speak for everyone, but I for one do not believe the validity of a comparison of 'one or two tabs' versus 'two dozen tabs'.
4. Re:Don't see the difference by Fallingcow · 2013-01-30 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Firefox runs like ass on my systems. It's really as bad as I say.
  Maybe I'm just unlucky, but it's absolute shit on my work MacBook, and it's not much better on my Win7 desktop at home. My whole office has slowly switched to Chrome over the last year because just having Firefox open was making everything else on our systems slower.
  I might not realize how bad it is if I didn't have Chrome to compare it to, which does everything I want it to (including key extensions/plugins) faster and with less fuss. Sort of like when Phoenix—the future Firefox—came out and suddenly IE and the full Mozilla browser seemed intolerably clunky and resource hungry.
Re:Opera's had this for years by ledow · 2013-01-29 07:12 · Score: 1

Seconded. This is the one of the best things about Opera - I don't get bogged down in junk or risk my computer on junky adverts loading because they "need" Flash.
I just click the play button that takes place of the Flash / Java / whatever plugin image if and when I want to view it and it loads and plays JUST THAT ONE.
Why would anybody use anything else? Hell, I can kill my modern laptop just scrolling too much down a popular image site (which just auto-loads more images as you go) and get to the point where the browser CRAWLS along by doing nothing more than looking at some images. God knows what it would be like for someone with a browser that loads every Flash video, plugin, etc. along the way.
What's so special about Flash? by viperidaenz · 2013-01-29 07:15 · Score: 1

If Click-to-play was enabled on all browsers for all plugins there would be less tendency to use useless plugins to make a website pretty.
It's not like Flash is security-bug-free. You could also use a flash plugin to store a flash based cookie if the browsers privacy settings don't accept your traditional tracking cookie...
Re:Poor misfigured HTML, hateful and hated all aro by Corporate+T00l · 2013-01-29 07:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

I can make pixel perfect feature rich cross-platform native application for Linux, Win, BSD, OSX, Android, iOS in 1/3rd the time it takes me to ensure the same "web app" works in all the browsers and OSs.
I want whatever development tool chain you're using. Just dealing with the different installer mechanisms on those platforms makes my head spin. What's your secret?
So what you're saying is by Pope · 2013-01-29 07:32 · Score: 1

is that Eolas won in the end? LOL

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Whitelisting by phorm · 2013-01-29 07:39 · Score: 1

Will this allow me to whitelist a particular domain/site?
It sounds like a great feature (one I already have with existing addons), but only if you can whitelist domains that you trust and not otherwise have to click-to-allow every time.
With that in mind, a blacklist for evil domains (like doubleclick) would be nice too. Especially if one could import it from a master file.
1. Re:Whitelisting by Todd+Knarr · 2013-01-29 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  I believe it's site-by-site, when you first get the warning you can select to always allow or always deny for this site or allow it for this visit only. What I'd like is to have that domain-by-domain, so I can allow Flash from the site but deny it for random ad networks that place ads on the site.
Re:Turn it on now: about:config in the address bar by snemarch · 2013-01-29 07:48 · Score: 1

I had that turned on - but since click2play in firefox reqires (required?) the element to be visible, a few sites broke without any warning. For instance, the Garmin Communicator plugin I use to upload training sessions from my GPS running watch doesn't have any visible UI widgets.

--
Coffee-driven development.
if you want flash to be click to play by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-29 07:51 · Score: 1

about:config
plugins.click_to_play true
Re:Opera's had this for years by colfer · 2013-01-29 08:40 · Score: 1

Chrome has it too, but hidden under Settings / Advanced / Privacy / Content Settings / Plugins / click-to-play
Not sure what the default is these days.
Opera is a great browser, but sites with media content can be so complex, I just start with Firefox and the Browser View extension (very simple), and open the page in successive browsers until it works, with IE as a last resort.
The problem with click-to-play schemes is that sometimes there is a smaller Flash controller you don't see or notice. I've been running Firefox with Flashblock for years and this is a common problem, so I imagine it will be hitting click-to-play as bugs. People who use Noscript instead probably haven't noticed the issue, because once you whitelist a page in Noscript, it reloads and the Flash and everything else runs. But with click-to-play, you may need to reload the page whitelisted so all the triggers can fire in whatever js/flash system they have cooked up to keep count of the count-count. Remember when the Count just liked to count, and wasn't such a vampire?
Opera used to be the fastest non-IE browser to open up, so was handy for getting a quick weather report before heading out, but I think that has gone the way of Firefox as a 5MB download. With mobile not ruling the web, maybe we'll get some of that back.
Whatever turned Firefox into 20MB download I assume it should be able to do a good HTML5 emulation of Flash! http://www.oldapps.com/firefox.php (And Flash is monumentally bigger than its old versions too.)
Re:Opera's had this for years by colfer · 2013-01-29 08:41 · Score: 1

mobile not ruling -> mobile now ruling
For Great Stability! by zdepthcharge · 2013-01-29 09:33 · Score: 1

Firefox with Adblock and Noscript. No Flash or java installed on the OS. Chrome (with its built-in flash) for Youtube and the handful of sites I visit that require flash. leave FF running for weeks, never uses more than 300 meg. With this approach I no longer have any stability issues. The only downside is my kids bitching about not being able to play Minecraft. Oh the pain!
Strange how things turn out by Chuck+Chunder · 2013-01-29 10:49 · Score: 2

Remember back when the EOLAS patent was being waved about and it was suggested that browser makers may have to implement "click to play" to avoid it.

Strange that a year after EOLAS gets their arse handed to them in a Texas court we get to a similar place for entirely different reasons.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Re:Poor misfigured HTML, hateful and hated all aro by RocketRabbit · 2013-01-29 10:50 · Score: 1

Java .jar files with AWT, of course!
Netflix and silverlight... by reg · 2013-01-29 10:53 · Score: 1

Hopefully there will be some way to enable silverlight automatically without clicking, otherwise Netflix on a PC is going to suck even worse...
Regards,
-Jeremy
1. Re:Netflix and silverlight... by Disfnord · 2013-01-30 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully you can whitelist sites like click-to-play in Chrome/Chromium.
Re:Poor misfigured HTML, hateful and hated all aro by StripedCow · 2013-01-29 11:13 · Score: 1

Indeed. The web should have been low level virtual machine combined with low level (opengl) graphics.
Instead, they (w3c or whoever) decided that the web should be programmable by novices, so they made HTML and it sucked for real software engineers.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
incredibly annoying doorhanger popup in Firefox 19 by bcrowell · 2013-01-29 15:19 · Score: 1

Hopefully this will mean a complete rewrite of their click-to-play setup, including fixing this incredibly annoying misfeature of Firefox 19:
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=2644157
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=820678
As far as I can tell, this whole aspect of firefox was never designed properly. It grew into an unmaintainable mess, and now they're having a hard time finding their way out.

--
Find free books.
It's about time they did this. by QuietLagoon · 2013-01-30 01:12 · Score: 1

The ability for websites to activate plug-ins has been a security issue for a long time.
Re:Turn it on now: about:config in the address bar by cybernanga · 2013-01-30 23:46 · Score: 1

You should be able to add that particular site the the click2play whitelist, then flash will be run automatically, just for that site (and any others you have added to the whitelist), bit of a pain, but you only have to do it once.

--
www.Buy-Proxy.com - A "buyer-driven" global marketplace.