Slashdot Mirror


Ninth Anniversary of Firefox 1.0 Release

Nine years ago today, Firefox 1.0 was released. Mozilla writes "Mozilla created Firefox to be an amazingly fun, safe, and fast Web browser that embodies the values of our mission to promote openness, innovation and opportunity online. In the nine years since we first launched Firefox, we have moved and shaped the Web into the most valuable public resource of our time." The first release of the little project to write a lighter alternative to Seamonkey is a bit over a year older.

153 comments

  1. don't care. by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    phoenix was where it was at.

    it all started going downhill after politics and marketing departments of mozilla got involved.

    the 1.0 release was pretty much meaningless milestone in the big picture for the project. imho phoenix 0.2 should be the release to celebrate if any.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:don't care. by maugle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Phoenix 0.2 was amazing for its day, but what we should really be celebrating is how the web was freed from the curse of "this site works in IE only". And that happened after Phoenix became Firefox.

    2. Re:don't care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politics, marketing, and a lot of funding from google.

    3. Re:don't care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we should be celebrating Firefox 0.8?

    4. Re:don't care. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yep. The youngsters won't remember that, and some of the not-so-young have forgotten it. If Firefox disappeared tomorrow, and we never saw another release, it would have served it's primary purpose. We would still have four major browsers available, all largely "standards compliant", along with a number of less popular browsers. Firefox changed the landscape, dramatically.

      I can't even remember which milestone I started on now, but it seemed to take FOREVER for 1.0 to come out. I guess it's close to a decade since I grabbed my first copy of Firefox now. To lazy to look up the dates for all the point.whatever releases.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:don't care. by Nimey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Truth. Back then websites were typically written for IE5 or 6 and sometimes Netscape 4. Writing web pages to standards was for activist nerds, because at that point IE's market share was around 90%.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:don't care. by linebackn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. The youngsters won't remember that, and some of the not-so-young have forgotten it. If Firefox disappeared tomorrow, and we never saw another release, it would have served it's primary purpose.

      This.
      People may not realize it, but we came dangerously close to a world where Microsoft Internet Explorer was the only accepted web browser. If Mozilla and Firefox had not gained popularity, it is quite probable that IE would have dominated enough market share to push out all other browsers. And nobody would bother creating sites that worked in anything else. Furthermore this would have virtually killed any OSes that Microsoft didn't feel like supporting with IE.

      As is is now, we have several open source browsers that are ported to many different OSes, and no dignified web site would even think of only supporting one browser.

    7. Re:don't care. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      funny thing is that I don't remember having any such problems with phoenix. everything worked or the things that didn't work were irrelevant.

      granted that I didn't have to use any intranet web apps or such...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:don't care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Four? How about TWO: Chrome (Chrome, Safari, Opera, etc.) and Trident (Internet Explorer). Everything else is re-branded duplicates of those.

    9. Re:don't care. by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      So we should be celebrating Firefox 0.8?

      Whatever. The early version numbers were little known, and when I came on board the browser was around 0.8 or 0.9 already.
      I recall having tried the predecessor, plain old "Mozilla browser" around 1.2 and wasn't expecting of my first trial of phoenix. Yet it was good enough to wean me off of Opera.
      Things were fine for a while, but by version 2.0 I was already preferring to install 0.9 to get around the sluggishness and large memory consumption of new builds on my single core PC. That was before I used extensions, even. Today, the browser never starts under 100MB even after their "on-demand" loading was implemented to lazily get around the real problems of their memory model. Under heavy work usage, FF will blow up to 1GB. It can't get any bigger because enterprises still won't comfortably deploy more 64 bit windows on our 64 bit machines. That leads to the theoretical 4GB ceiling going down to 3GB. Combined with bare essentials like antivirus, Outlook.exe and java-based VPN software, ram gets pinched so hard that Firefox just quits.

      I never understood why they can't copy 15-year old practices and just give you a warning that memory is low. If it weren't for built-in tab sessions, what would this FF world have come to?

    10. Re:don't care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google forked Webkit earlier this year, it now calls its fork Blink. While Webkit and Blink may be quite similar at the moment, they will diverge over time. Not to mention that Google has been using its own Javascript engine for a long time (I think since they started working on Chrome, but I'm not sure about that) and Javascript handling is a major part of a modern web browser, so it isn't fair to call Chrome and Safari the same browser just because they both (until recently) use the same rendering engine.

    11. Re:don't care. by tsa · · Score: 1

      Those were very dark times. Sometimes I would go to a 'website' only to find out that it really was a .exe file that IE could run (of course with full privileges). My friend, who back then was an avid supporter of all things Microsoft, came to me once to tell me he had been looking for registration keys on the internet and now his computer was infected with so many viruses that it was completely unusable. I laughed and said: I warned you many times to not use IE! He went to FF and never looked back.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    12. Re:don't care. by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Sadly, the web is now falling into the curse of "this site works in Google Chrome only". (*)

      (*) Google controls the "living" HTML.

    13. Re:don't care. by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Mozilla, behind the scenes, no in the open, at W3C and IETF is making sure it stays that way as much as possible.

      If you think things can't change you clearly don't live in the real world.

      Mozilla was important and Mozilla remains important.

      As an example is iOS. An other example is Androidm which is getting more and more closed:
      http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    14. Re:don't care. by antdude · · Score: 1

      FYI, it's = it is/has. ;)

      ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/phoenix/releases/ doesn't even show v1.0. Only v0.1 to v0.5. However, its readme says to go to ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/ that show v1.0 as 12/10/2004 (DOOM shareware's release 11 years old! 20 in 2013!).

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    15. Re:don't care. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "I guess it is close to a decade since I grabbed my first copy of Firefox now."

      If you choose to live life as an anal retentive, you could also choose to know what the hell you are being retentive about. ;)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    16. Re:don't care. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Alright - I clicked the links. I really didn't understand what you were saying, I guess. You're stating "it is" to confirm that it's been a decade? That being the case, I apologize for the snappy comeback.

      I think I got onboard about here:

      0.4/ 12/11/02, 6:00:00 PM

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    17. Re:don't care. by antdude · · Score: 1

      You don't care but NBA, CBS, Comcast, Care More, etc. care though! :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  2. Re:Chrome Is Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry to say, but Firefox is kind of irrelevant these days.

    Chrome is developed by a company whose sole purpose of existence is to spy on people in order to sell more advertising - a lot of it via their browser.

    Mozilla is just out to make a browser, email client and other useful tools.

    Also, any perceived superiority shall be removed in a release or so - the browser market is just too competitive.

  3. wtf happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to that 'lean' browser of yesteryear?

    1. Re:wtf happened... by rudy_wayne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      to that 'lean' browser of yesteryear?

      Exactly.

      The problem isn't just that Firefox is bloated and full of unnecessary crap. Even worse, they keep changing or removing existing features that are actually useful. Every new version now brings more pointless changes that make Firefox just a little bit worse. And no matter how much users complain about all the constant pointless tinkering and the nonstop treadmill of unnecessary changes, the response from Mozilla is always the same. A thinly veiled Fuck You We Don't Care What You Think.

    2. Re:wtf happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have to wonder if they even use their own browser

    3. Re:wtf happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      to that 'lean' browser of yesteryear?

      Exactly.

      The problem isn't just that Firefox is bloated and full of unnecessary crap. Even worse, they keep changing or removing existing features that are actually useful. Every new version now brings more pointless changes that make Firefox just a little bit worse. And no matter how much users complain about all the constant pointless tinkering and the nonstop treadmill of unnecessary changes, the response from Mozilla is always the same. A thinly veiled Fuck You We Don't Care What You Think.

      Their response is more along the lines of if you don't like you can customize it anyway you like. My Firefox is functionally and aesthetically pretty similar to Firefox 2.0. A clean install a of Firefox uses less than 100mb of RAM when first launched. It was very close second to chrome in Benchmarks. There are enough plugins out there you can get the functionality/aesthetics you want. It just might require a bit of tinkering on your part.

    4. Re:wtf happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A clean install a of Firefox uses less than 100mb of RAM when first launched

      Was this supposed to make Firefox look good? Chrome takes 60MB on load on my system (not that I use Chrome). What annoys me the most about Firefox is how not all memory it uses shows up next to firefox.exe in Task Manager.

    5. Re:wtf happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still the same lean browser as always. Memory usage is likely the least of all major browsers, performance is actually getting quite close to Chrome's, and it's even competitive in terms of the size of the source code, binary downloads, and so on. Hell, if you're pining for a leaner UI, that's coming in Australis.

    6. Re:wtf happened... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1, Troll

      My most recent Firefox experience was finding out that they broke their own Jetpack AddOn API, making it impossible to build an AddOn that works in both Firefox 17 and Firefox 24.

      That wouldn't normally be a big deal, but 17 and 24 are both LTS versions-- meaning our client was moving directly from one to the other! And it was impossible for us to make a single .xpi that supported both!

      Mozilla's a clown college now, I can only assume any real software engineer with talent has long since moved on.

    7. Re:wtf happened... by Zenin · · Score: 1

      It was very close second to chrome in Benchmarks.

      Which seems more evidence of how badly Tom's Hardware botched the testing than anything else.

      In real use Chrome is so wildly faster than Firefox it's incredible, thanks largely to its Javascript engine and the fact most modern web sites are incredibly JS heavy. I'm not even talking 20% faster, but closer to 200%, literally running circles around Firefox.

      It's to the point that just taking raw performance into consideration, I can't stand using Firefox lately even on very powerful hardware. I frequently have to fire it up for work, but man...what a drag.

      So you'll forgive me if I can't take Tom's "benchmarking" seriously.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    8. Re:wtf happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's you who don't care about reality. Mozilla has made several missteps over 9 whole years, and most of those were painfully trivial in the big scheme of things.

      But to self-entitled people like you, only YOUR point of view matters and only YOU should be catered to. Everything else is superfluous and useless, and it's not possible that you're wrong or that other people feel differently.

      It's all about you, and Mozilla is clearly out to get you and make an inferior product. Only the negative things register with your narrow little mind, and everything else is obviously irrelevant to the discussion.

      Your kind is a far larger problem than Mozilla ever was and I'm at the point where I've stopped complaining about Australis and WANT them to push it onto all the self-important blowhards like you who can only bitch and whine, but never step up to the plate and take a swing at helping out themselves.

      Someone else in these comments said it best: your kind don't deserve Firefox, and never did.

    9. Re:wtf happened... by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      I got a support call recently from a user whose whole office puzzled me when they said their local IT branch has them on version 17.
      Our official policy only observes 2 versions and I had never thought hard about those stray callers that blatantly appear to be ~10 versions "behind".

      Thanks for reminding me that LTS is the reason behind this. I much preferred the days of you could say "you're running 2.0 and should upgrade to 3.0" You can no longer tell that the huge number gap is no more than 12 months because of Mozilla's crazy version madness. FF 17 was released Nov 20 2012!

    10. Re:wtf happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should join the Google marketing team. You've totally convinced me of Chrome's superiority with your anecdotal evidence, and insightful look into why Tom's Hardware's benchmarks are invalid. In fact, to hell with my own experiences with Chrome and Firefox being neck-and-neck. If you say Chrome runs circles around Firefox, it MUST be true. You're a far more respectable source of information than myself or Tom's Hardware combined, even if you provide no evidence, just snark.

    11. Re:wtf happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like firefox needs year/month version numbers

      17 should be 12.11
      26 should be 13.11

      captcha is tortured

    12. Re:wtf happened... by Ark42 · · Score: 1

      Chrome's Javascript is terrible in my experience. Every time I write something that needs speed, both Firefox and IE are way better. The last example was a page that did nothing more than scroll and resize images across a page, so they were bigger when in the middle of the page, and smaller by the edges. The page just runs the images in an infinite loop, and the images are only about 600 pixels big, and there are only 70-80 of them. For maximum smoothness, I ran setInterval at 4ms for 250fps, and easily obtained 250fps on both Firefox and IE. Chrome and Opera, however, could barely manage 40fps on the same machine! On slower computers, it got worse too, with Chrome falling to 22 fps while Firefox still managed 250. The javascript is so basic and simply I could probably paste it in a comment right here.

  4. Firefox is not a browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's an updater.

    1. Re:Firefox is not a browser by lennier1 · · Score: 2

      Well, it allows you to visit websites while you're waiting for the next update. That's why people mistake it for a browser.

  5. Re:Nine years of Firefux by dale.furno · · Score: 1

    To be fair, my computer now has ninety times more memory than it did 9 years ago. well that may not be true, but Lynx is not invulnerable to malware, it is just not worth exploiting.

  6. Last good version. (1.5) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    FF1.5 was and still is the only good version.

    After that it went downhill with them adding crap features, bloating the hell out of the browser and breaking the API EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMN TIME. THEY STILL DO THIS NOW. LEARN WHAT AN API IS YOU MORONS, APIS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BREAK, THAT IS THEIR POINT!
    I gave up caring about their nonsense when Chromium became stable enough. (v0.3, still on my desktop for some reason)

    I still have one installed, webdev, etc.
    The only thing I mainly use it for is for a couple extensions that are not on Chromium, such as mass downloader or interception of data.
    It is an absolute chore dealing with their crap all the time. No wonder every damn developer has left for other browsers. Thanks Mozilla, not only did you ruin your browser you went against your original aim, to create competition. You shot yourself in the foot so much that everyone abandoned you. Genius.

  7. Re:Chrome Is Better by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

    I would agree, but all of a sudden I'm having huge issues with Chrome :(

    Tabs becoming unresponsive, mysterious downloads in the background stopping me from quitting, tabs taking ages to close etc etc.

    No extensions, no java, no flash.

  8. Re:Chrome Is Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh yeah, think for a minute --- what large company pays all the bills for Mozilla?

  9. Re:Nine, eh? by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, at least we can celebrate the first years. Before the new versioning system and adding everything but your mom's dong instead of letting addons do the work.

    It's worse than that. With every new version, useful features are changed or removed and people are being forced to use more and more extensions to regain functionality that has been ripped out. Which leads to the current ridiculous situation:

    -- You have to depend on some random person to create the extensions you need
    -- You have to hope that the random person continues to update the extension so that it works with future versions of Firefox
    -- Or you can spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to write extensions yourself just so you can restore functionality that never should have been removed in the first place
    -- Installing too many extensions is well known to cause performance and/or stability problems with Firefox.

  10. Re:Nine years of Firefux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, the Lynx html parser is supposedly riddled with bugs, but nobody really cares.

  11. Re:Nine years of Firefux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lynx is not invulnerable to malware

    or ascii goatse :(

  12. Re:Chrome Is Better by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 0

    You should try it on OS X and Linux. It is not really worth using apart from in testing.

  13. Re:Nine years of Firefux by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Text based browsers are great, when that's all you need or want. We can bemoan the waste and bloat on the internet, but at the same time, all of us like a pretty browser with some bells and whistled. Of course, "pretty" is in the eye of the beholder, but for most of us "pretty" is something more than a mostly blank with simple print. The solution seems to be, install your favorite (or least despised, as the case may be) and tweak it to your liking.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  14. Re:Last good version. (1.5) by Nimey · · Score: 1

    Pfft. Firefox 2.0.0.x was pretty good, it was with 3.x that it got slower and I eventually switched to Chrome for better speed.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  15. Re:Chrome Is Better by dugancent · · Score: 1

    I have no problem with it on OSX.

    --
    SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
  16. Re:Chrome Is Better by NotBorg · · Score: 2

    This is the part where Internet trolls mod each other up and start thinking they're relevant.

    --
    I want this account deleted.
  17. Lost its way by schwit1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They got off track when the goals stopped being about speed, standards, stability and security.

    At that point it became just another app.

    1. Re:Lost its way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      If that was true, they wouldn't have rewritten their Javascript engine twice, been obsessing about hardware acceleration, wouldn't have bothered to make it the browser using the least amount of RAM after being the one that used the most two years ago, etc. They haven't even finished implementing HTML5 yet because they're so focused on performance, including threading the browser and efforts to improve their DOM engine's performance that won't pay off for at least another year at this rate.

      In the face of those facts, I don't think it's necessary to point out how silly your argument sounds. Firefox has a lot of issues, so you really don't have to go out of your way to lie like that.

    2. Re:Lost its way by Zenin · · Score: 2

      The fact is they have to focus on performance, especially their Javascript engine...precisely because their performance sucks big harry balls, most especially their Javascript engine!

      Call me back when/if they ever actually make progress. All I've seen as a user is a browser that has gotten nothing but slower and slower with each release, a sharp contrast to Chrome and IE.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    3. Re:Lost its way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call you back? No thanks. The impetus is on YOU to try and give Firefox a fair shake, not me. If you want to be blind and ignorant about it, when even Tom's Hardware is giving Firefox props for being at least competitive, then it's YOUR problem.

      IE has had far more issues over the years, but you're clearly forgiving of them now. Chrome is half Firefox's age but it's already showing signs of the same general kinds of issues that Firefox experienced back when it hit it's low point a couple years ago. And yet, here you sit just picking on Firefox.

      I'm generally forgiving of people who take this stance, because it's always possible their PC just happens to have some issues with Firefox. But not when they're gigantic cocks about it like you are. Stop pretending that Firefox has to prove itself to you when you're not even willing to accept how far they've come, let alone the fact that they're at least competitive again.

    4. Re:Lost its way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you must not be using Firefox. Seriously, what ARE you basing this on? All the major browsers have been getting faster with every release. Have you simply not used Firefox for a few years, and are talking out of your ass? Because it simply doesn't align with reality. And I'm not talking about "my" reality; even Tom's Hardware noticed that Firefox is faster. Why can't you? There are PLENTY of things to be upset about with Firefox (like every browser), so I fail to understand why people feel they have to lie so transparently...

    5. Re:Lost its way by Zenin · · Score: 1

      I run Firefox constantly, albeit grudgingly, because it's sadly a browser we have to support. Across dozens of systems of a variety of hardware configurations and platforms. This isn't a case of "just my PC is funky". If it ever actually improves I'll be one of the first to notice.

      I haven't seen anything but significant degradation from Firefox for years. Every update is a downgrade. In performance, in functionality, in usability. You are right that Firefox it isn't at its low point today...only because it keeps digging its grave a bit deeper with each passing update.

      I harped on IE just as bad when they were the crappiest browser on Earth, but that hasn't been the case for years. I still hate the UI, but at least it's fast. More over Firefox's wounds are all self-inflicted.

      The only reason I pay Firefox any attention whatsoever is that it still has significant market share and thus, sadly must continue to be supported. I long for the future where it's as relevant as Opera and I can just not even bother having the turd installed at all.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    6. Re:Lost its way by Zenin · · Score: 1

      Because everyone and their mom must be running Firefox either without Javascript or with no more than a single tab open. And heaven help you if you open any dev tools with Firefox...yee gads!

      Although I do find it amusing that if you trust Firebug's load time metrics it's just as fast as everyone else....never mind it hasn't actually rendered everything it says is "completed" yet, or gotten half way through the billion lines of javascript that most serious sites now run.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    7. Re: Lost its way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually run both browsers side by side, on my PC, Macbook, and tablet. That's because I wanted to see for myself just how slow Firefox is. And the answer is that it's not. Maybe you have a stick up your ass about it because Firefox has issues on your system, but that doesn't mean it's common. Even Chrome has issues like that. I just tire of the misinformation. Chrome has its strengths but Firefox has vastly improved its performance and hearing this kind of nonsense pisses me off. If you can't forgive Firefox for something, fine. But you don't have to lie about Firefox getting worse to do so.

    8. Re: Lost its way by Zenin · · Score: 1

      I'll forgive Firefox when it can

      A) Pull its own weight without lagging on common sites despite being run on incredibly powerful systems.

      B) Stops forcing incredibly stupid "features" and UI design failures.

      ----

      With our test labs and such we're running every browser across an array of configurations and performance levels. On Javascript intensive sites Firefox simply lags far behind everything else. That didn't matter so much pre "Web 2.0", but today when JQuery is considered lightweight compared to many common frameworks in use, it matters a whole hell of a lot.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    9. Re:Lost its way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can seriously try an old copy of Firefox, say 1, 1.5, 2.0, 3, 4, or even 7, and STILL try to tell me that newer versions have "significantly degraded" then I'd like to sample whatever drugs you're using. There has been an obvious upward trend in Firefox's overall performance, and a painfully obvious downward trend in its overall RAM usage. You can try to convince me with whatever faux-credentials you'd like, but it's clear that you really just have a bone to pick with Firefox. There's no need to waste any more of my time on this, so go ahead and pretend all you'd like.

  18. Re: Chrome Is Better by jemmyw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No. I used Chrome for a few years there but I got unhappy that it was the only closed source application I was using on a daily basis. So I moved back to Firefox and have found it a good experience. The only gripe I have after 9 months is that the dev tools feel slugish.

    I'm even using Firefox on Android and find that better than Chrome.

  19. I wish they'd stop fucking with the layout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Almost every new iteration of FF removes or detrimentally alters a feature that people use and rely on.

    It's really starting to piss me off as I have to find extensions or workarounds to replace the functions they keep taking away.

    The most recent annoyance is to the find-in-page function, before it was well laid out and I had absolutely no issues with it, but now it's ruined, the close bar X button has been moved from immediately left of the search box to the right edge of the bar which is really far away on a widescreen display, the search next/prev boxes have been reversed and no longer have Next and Previous words on them which makes them a smaller target for your mouse pointer, and the Highlight All and Match Case buttons have also been moved to the right edge of the bar.

    Seriously Mozilla, what the fuck?

    1. Re:I wish they'd stop fucking with the layout by jez9999 · · Score: 2

      Yep. Switch to SeaMonkey.

      By the way, I'm working on a patch to make fork SeaMonkey's find bar code back to the old find bar so it's no longer reliant on the stuff in /toolkit/. Time will tell whether it gets accepted.

    2. Re:I wish they'd stop fucking with the layout by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 1

      You do realize that you can close the find bar by pressing the Esc key, and that search next/previous is available as F3/shift-F3 or ctrl-G/shift-ctrl-G. It's a matter of taste, but I think the new search bar is an improvement. And that the find bar is now local for a single tab is more logical, IMHO.

    3. Re:I wish they'd stop fucking with the layout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why switch to seamonkey when there is palemoon?

    4. Re:I wish they'd stop fucking with the layout by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Palemoon's OK but being Windows only it's not quite right for me. I'd probably use it over Firefox if SeaMonkey wasn't available, except on Linux obviously.

      The other thing about Palemoon is it all rests on basically one guy who develops it, as far as I can see. I don't know whether it's more or less likely to survive than SeaMonkey but it's risky to throw in with a project that could die any day if the one guy who develops it disappears. :-)

    5. Re:I wish they'd stop fucking with the layout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that you can close the find bar by pressing the Esc key

      Something which is not obvious at all. What else do you close in FF using the escape key? You sure as hell don't do it for tabs.

      and that search next/previous is available as F3/shift-F3 or ctrl-G/shift-ctrl-G.

      They used to be the more logical Alt-N/Alt-P for next/prev. Those don't work anymore, and instead we've a weird mishmash of Function key and G with shift and control. Hardly more obious, intuitive, easy or fast.

      It's a matter of taste, but I think the new search bar is an improvement.

      FF has so many problems that making arbitrary changes to the UI according to taste really shouldn't be what they're focussing on. If there was an objective performance, security or universally agreed usability reason for it great, but there obviously isn't for this so why the hell did they do it and make it a mandatory, un-revertable part of the update?

    6. Re:I wish they'd stop fucking with the layout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know I can press Esc to close the search bar, but that only works if the focus is on the bar and not the main browser window. Moving the pointer to the X on the far right is fairly quick & easy with a mouse but not so much with a trackpad on a laptop.
      Spreading out the buttons of the bar to the far left & right edges is a monumentally dumb move IMHO.

    7. Re: I wish they'd stop fucking with the layout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then press ctrl-f then ESC. A mouse only comes into play if Flash stole the keyboard for me.

  20. Re:Chrome Is Better by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Chrome Is Better

    I think you'll find it's possible for other people to have different opinions to yours and for both of you to be correct. Amazing, eh?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  21. Re:Nine, eh? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Installing too many extensions is well known to cause performance and/or stability problems with Firefox.

    Having too many extensions does not cause performance/stability problems. Individual, poorly written extensions do, when they leak memory.

    Every time Firefox comes up as a topic on /., people say they want it simpler and smaller, and follow the newest trends young browser projects bring. It's ridiculous to expect it to not change the UI at the same time.

    -- You have to hope that the random person continues to update the extension so that it works with future versions of Firefox

    Firefox extensions don't need to be updated by the developer for future versions.

    -- You have to depend on some random person to create the extensions you need

    If that is true, then there are not enough people that have your problem, and are happy with the change Firefox devs introduced.

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  22. Re:Chrome Is Better by Lisias · · Score: 1

    No, it's not.

    It keeps Chrome civilized, and feels niches where Chrome is not viable.

    In this exact moment, my Atom 330 box remains useful only because FIrefox runs fine on it - I don't know why, but Chrome performs extremely poorly on it.

    --
    Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
  23. It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take a look at these numerous different measures of browser usage shares: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_share#Historical_usage_share

    The most obvious trend concerning Firefox is the steady downward slide in its usage share. It has gone from over 30% of the market back in 2010 to down near 15% these days.

    Firefox 4.0 was released in March of 2011, although it was obvious before then that bad decisions were being made, and would continue to be made. This is when people in the know moved on to other browsers, followed by stragglers.

    The decline is very much due to how they've treated their users like absolute rubbish. They've focused on stupid UI changes, adding useless features and functionality that nobody wants, and removing very critical functionality that many users depend on, all while ignoring the pleas of the community to fix some very major issues like Firefox's slow performance and unbelievable memory usage.

    People aren't dumb. They know when they're getting shit upon, and they'll deal with it. That's why they've mainly moved to Chrome. It may have a shitty UI, but at least it's fast, at least it doesn't use far too much memory, and at least Google manages to not piss off most users with each release.

    When a product loses 50% of its usage share over just a few years, it'll most likely become a dead product within a few more. I hate to say it, but Firefox is on its way out. The numbers show it, and there's nothing being done to reverse this trend.

    1. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Ark42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The decline is solely from Chrome becoming mainstream and Google advertising it on their site, where lots of mom and pop Firefox users probably "accidentally" switch to Chrome because of some warning or advertisement from Google.

      The reality is both Chrome and Firefox are great browsers, and only a tiny fraction of people are upset with the changes from version to version. Generally, most of us should just be happy that people are NOT using IE6 anymore.

      Although personally, Chrome has not kept up with important CSS3 features nearly as well as Firefox, and now IE10 and IE11 have passed Chrome in my book. I mean, something as BASIC as linear gradients you'd expect to work in all modern browsers, but only Firefox and IE10+ can get it right. See bug 41756 - http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41756#c71

    2. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I must point out that Chrome doesn't beat Firefox in memory usage. I just swapped from a Linux Mint Debian installation, in which I used Firefox primarily, to a Sabayon Linux installation, in which I use Chrome primarily. Similar configurations, similar extensions, similar page load - very similar memory usage. I suppose that anyone could do that same test for themselves, and different people would get different results. Someone who loads a butt-ton load of Java apps in their browser may find that brand Z works better, while someone who gloms onto every Flash app will find that brand Y works best, while the other dude who runs a stripped down version with no extensions enabled finds that brand X is bestest and fastest.

      For MY purposes, it actually seems that Firefox may have a very slight edge on Chrome for memory usage, but I'd have to do some double checking before I committed myself to that statement.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re: It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you are still complaining about Firefox from 2 years ago. Modern Firefox uses half the memory of Chrome with multiple tabs open. Just look up some benchmarks.

    4. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd say waaaaaay beyond a slight edge thanks to the memshrink project.
      https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/category/memshrink/

      Old measurements. Situation keeps improving. Latest 2 or 3 firefox versions use smart loading/unloading of large images on image heavy web pages, for example.
      http://www.itworld.com/sites/default/files/figure3_browserfootprint.jpg

      Personally, on my chromebook, Chrome used 615MiB w/ 2 tabs open (crosh and a blank tab) while Firefox in Crouton used 385MiB with 18 tabs open, and that was after I had cycled through all the tabs to make sure they hadn't been unloaded.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    5. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is precisely the kind of whining that shows that we don't deserve a product like Firefox. A feature I don't want gets added in? Surely nobody wanted it! They removed a feature that I use? Surely it's because they're out to get me!

      You people whine like there's no tomorrow. In the meantime Internet Explorer changes it's UI in every release and keeps adding features "nobody wants" but their share keeps climbing. In the meantime Chrome makes boneheaded mistakes and invents tons of stuff that only a few businesses care about, and they're the saviors of the Internet.

      Really, Firefox fans need to chill the fuck out and (for lack of a better phrase) check their damn entitlement. You're not the only people in the world, and Firefox isn't dying because they're ignoring you. They're dying because nobody wants to use a browser that even the fans hate. They're dying because they can't compete against three companies with gobs of money. Even Opera couldn't compete, and they weren't a non-profit organization.

      It's clear as clear can be that Mozilla cares about its users. It's replaced half their codebase to appease user's addictions to Javascript and fancy special effects that require hardware acceleration. It woke up to their addon RAM problems and in 2 years have become the lowest RAM user of the major browsers.

      But do its fans care? No! Because they also removed a fucking checkbox from the UI, because it was causing other people problems. No! Because they couldn't keep moving Firefox forward without dropping some of their lesser-used UI elements and hoping the community will pick up the slack.

      Understanding is a precious commodity, and Firefox's own vocal fans are shooting themselves in the foot by pretending that Mozilla has to cater to their whims and their whims only. They cry about Firefox losing marketshare, then cry more when Mozilla works to solve that problem, because suddenly the tiny crowd of people they were catering to (which couldn't sustain them) isn't the only game in town.

      In short, you guys suck. I'm glad I'm not using Firefox anymore. I get to hear all sorts of praise for my browser of choice even when it screws up, because its fans understand that shit happens, and don't obsess over the problems. They realize that much more "good" has happened. You guys can't do that. You don't deserve Firefox anymore.

    6. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats right, keep your head buried in the sand and blame everyone else. I've recently logged two bugs for Firefox, both of which make the browser unusable for the company I work for. It has been several months and no-one has contacted me about them. we tried several workarounds and then decided we would move onto something else, which we are in the process of. We won't be returning to Firefox.

      It has put a rather sour taste in our mouth as we would like to use other Open Source applications, but if this is the level of support we can expect, we can't afford to.

    7. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I must point out that Chrome doesn't beat Firefox in memory usage. I just swapped from a Linux Mint Debian installation, in which I used Firefox primarily, to a Sabayon Linux installation, in which I use Chrome primarily. Similar configurations, similar extensions, similar page load - very similar memory usage. I suppose that anyone could do that same test for themselves, and different people would get different results. Someone who loads a butt-ton load of Java apps in their browser may find that brand Z works better, while someone who gloms onto every Flash app will find that brand Y works best, while the other dude who runs a stripped down version with no extensions enabled finds that brand X is bestest and fastest.

      For MY purposes, it actually seems that Firefox may have a very slight edge on Chrome for memory usage, but I'd have to do some double checking before I committed myself to that statement.

      You know Firefox 24 is a big improvement over 4 but you know what? No one cares after what they did. Compare IE as an example?

      IE is a great browser now! No really. IE 11 supports HTML 5, CSS 3, hardware acceleration and low latency javascript that rivals both Chrome and Firefox. I tested it as snappy.

      But does anyone on slashdot care? NOPE!

      They remember IE 6 and some of us geeks who have suffered through developing old IE pages and removed malware last decade from silverhaired users who do not know what a browser is who think that blue E standard for E-internet have made up our minds. IE SUX! I will not try it again yada yada.

      Same is true with Norton AV, and even Windows 7 (XP diehards tried Vista and are scared of change now). Firefox is no different.

      The mindshare is lost regardless of the fact that Firefox 24 is a much much better browser than the horrible 4.0. Once you lose that trust with some bad products it is hard to get back.

    8. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by siride · · Score: 2

      Chrome is becoming a bloated piece of shit too. It used to start up quickly and load pages quickly. That's going out the window in my experience. They are also starting to have bugs that never resolve, or take a long time to resolve. One that's been bothering me recently is that YouTube videos playing in other tabs skip when you do pretty much anything in another tab. It's 2013 and it can't play sound properly under a modicum of load. Ridiculous.

    9. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When MS open source IE and port it to Linux I might care about it. I don't run Windows, why should I care about a Windows-only browser?

    10. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does IE11 have Adblock Edge, NoScript, Greasemonkey, Ghostery, or HTTPS Everywhere? Does it have any extensions?

    11. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does have adblock. You can also configure it to do HTTPS everywhere too.

      I am not saying I use outside of testing. But my point is for Grandma it is usable but no one cares as to what happened in the past.

      Firefox needs to recover its image if it is all possible. People remember the old and refuse to go back syndrome.

    12. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      AC already responded with my answer. Can I download IE and install it on Linux? I'll test IE tonight and report back . . . .

      Oh - same old story. In order to run IE, I have to run it in Wine. And, I suppose that I would be restricted to IE7 or maybe IE8. Possibly to IE6. There really isn't any test to be conducted here, Microsoft still doesn't make a browser for me.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    13. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by tibman · · Score: 1

      IE 11 keeps crashing on me : / Also VS2013 keeps crashing : /

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    14. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has adblocking and it has HTTPS everywhere. I keep javascript disabled. As for greasemonkey, needing an extension to fix problematic websites is a hack. Adblocking via browser extensions is also a hack. I prefer using an http proxy.

    15. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my case, there was no whining, crying, hand-wringing or stomping of feet. I simply moved on and chose another browser. Broken add-ons, sluggish performance, silly versioning and constant UI changes are what did it for me. Sadly, they lost a supporter that day - as I had been using it since Phoenix days. But perhaps you're right - perhaps I don't deserve Firefox. To that I say: I can live with that.

      By the way, you appear to have been drinking quite a bit of the WAHHHH-sauce yourself.

    16. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by lvxferre · · Score: 1

      The decline is solely from Chrome becoming mainstream and Google advertising it on their site, where lots of mom and pop Firefox users probably "accidentally" switch to Chrome because of some warning or advertisement from Google.

      I agree with it being due to the marketing Google does, but not with the medium. I think it's more like those fucking toolbars that comes bundled in the installation of other software.

      --
      Nerdy news for your nerdy needs? http://www.soylentnews.org Soylent News is people!
    17. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE hasn't changed its UI significantly since IE9, and the latest release is IE11.

    18. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Inda · · Score: 1

      "smart loading/unloading of large images on image heavy web pages"

      Awesome feature and fix. Some never-ending-scoll webpages would slow FF down to a crawl on this laptop because of the images.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    19. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for posting some actual specs, instead of the generic whining so prevalent here lately.

      I've worked in the IT industry for a decade and a half, seen changes and products come and go, and even the odd paradigm shift. The main trend I see lately is a boneheaded sense of entitlement. Add in the common misconception that every person that ever found the Power button of a piece of tech is an instant tech expert. Mix with a healthy dose of overzealous brand loyalty and technical ignorance, and you get the current climate of fanboys for/against all things Apple/Android&Google.

      Firefox was a game-changer. Be thankful for that, People.
      If you don't like options or extensions, don't use them - or write a better one.
      And if people knew a damn thing about 1) Who's watching, collecting, and tracking Today - to better charge you Tomorrow, or 2) Internet security; they'd be far less prone to use products like Chrome and Safari.

      Thanks Mozilla and Thanks Firefox. You rock!

    20. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by unitron · · Score: 1

      Granted I used 4.0 on Windows 98 SE and 24 (and now 25) on XP, but 4 crashed much less often.

      But then again, whatever version of Firefox I was running back around the first part of 2013 didn't crash at least once a day the way 24 and 25 have been on this same machine.

      I understand that I'm not justified in being very demanding considering I get it for free, but I wish there was a simple way to "un-upgrade" to whatever version I was running before I gave in to the constant nagging to upgrade.

      No, I don't remember what version--it was mostly working and not giving trouble, so I didn't give it that much thought.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    21. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      So, might be worth checking about:crashes to see if there's a bug associated with your particular crash.
      Maybe they enabled, like, graphics acceleration for a flakey card, and you can turn it off.
      Or maybe they need attention drawn to it.

      WRT installing old versions.
      ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/
      Grab one off of there, install it (or unzip it).

      If you're under windows btw, you can also try 64 bit nightlies for any date here:
      ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/

      ESR is another option.
      http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    22. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      Oh, and you can turn off autoupdate in prefs or about:config
      Preferences->Advanced->Update
      app.update.enabled

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    23. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by unitron · · Score: 1

      It didn't autoupdate (I try to avoid letting others change my computer behind my back while I'm not looking), they just kept nagging me to update and I was stupid enough to allow it.

      Then when it started crashing on a regular basis, I allowed the next update hoping they'd fixed the problem. No such luck.

      If they can update without having to do a full install from scratch, why can't there be a "rollback" button?

      Why can't it remember for me which version I was running the last time it worked?

      about:crashes doesn't provide anything I can decipher about why the crashes happened, but at least I can find out which version I was runnng when.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    24. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want to link to the bugs and explain why they're real? Or are you just making stuff up, or complaining about bugs that are problems with users and not Firefox, or bugs that are basically "Firefox doesn't support ActiveX" kinds of things?

      The only show-stopping feature I think Firefox has been missing for HTML5/CSS3 sites is probably MPEG-4 support on older OSes. Not that you can't EASILY auto-convert to theora files or use a Flash-backup to play MPEG-4 which gets you support for all kinds of other old non-Firefox browsers too.

    25. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      Well... Rolling back would require, I guess, using incrementally more and more space. Like, keeping a snapshot copy of each version in your profile. Not only would people object at some point, but it is a security risk, since unless you are on ESR, security fixes are part of new version increment now.

      No bugs associated w/ any of the about:crashes links ?

      Was stack trace in anything GL related?

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    26. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by unitron · · Score: 1

      "Was stack trace in anything GL related?"

      Unfotunately you're asking that of some whose programming expertise is pretty much on the level of getting Turbo Pascal to say "Hello World".

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    27. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      Welll, you could link me to a few of 'em. I might want to nag the devs or file a bug.
      Hrm. My e-mail address below is maybe a bit *too* obfuscated based on your response.
      Try:
      g r o (dot) y 8 m (at) l a r e n e g

      I hope that's discernable.
      Could probably just post them on /. too - I don't think there's anything particularly problematic in most of 'em, unless I guess you're worried someone would find something possibly exploitable and target you specifically.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    28. Re:It's a self-correcting problem. by unitron · · Score: 1

      I'm hip deep in TiVo wrangling at the moment so it might be a while before I darken your inbox.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  24. Seamonkey - Smaller, Faster, Less Memory, Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seamonkey
    -Download Size 20mb
    -Browser, Mail, News, IRC
    -Feature Rich
    -Fully Customizable Interface
    -Lower Memory Use

    Firefox
    -Download Size 31.2mb (Aurora, Firefox uses stub installer, but was over 30mb)
    -Browser
    -"Streamlined" Cut Down Feature Set (With more features cut all the time)
    -Fully Customizable Interface
    -Higher Memory Use (I have seen 50% more memory used than Seamonkey with same pages loaded)

  25. Re:Last good version. (1.5) by Lisias · · Score: 2

    On the other hand, that API issue is serious.

    For a lot of time, I were using Firefox instead of Chrome because of my NetBanking plugin. Chrome was a bit faster than Firefox at that time, but not that faster - and I enjoyed my Firefox add-ons.

    And then, suddenly, Mozilla start to spit new versions in a crazy way, and my NetBanking stop working after every single new (sub)version of Firefox. Hell by hell, I decided Chrome's "hell" was a bit more worthy - at least, I got some faster renderings and the Google's account syncing. Little time after, my NetBanking plugin for Chrome became more stable than the Firefox version, and the rest is history.

    --
    Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
  26. Re:Nine, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because of their new versioning system I have absolutely no interest in installing their upcoming Firefox "26.0". What a shitty number. They should call it Firefox 30.0 and increment by 5.0 from now on.

  27. Re:Nine years of Firefux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I use Opera for day to day browsing. I've got it setup to load pages with everything off, Javascript, CSS, graphics, and display text in a font that suits my eyes best. It acts very much like Lynx, but if I want to, I can turn on styling and graphics with a couple of key presses / mouse clicks, and see how perty or ugly a site is.

    Good side effects: I can click on most links without fear, knowing that even if the page is full of ads or other bloat, they won't get loaded unless I choose to, much easier to read those forums with 2-line messages surrounded by huge avatars and graphical signatures.

    For media-heavy sites like YouTube, I just start Firefox... Nothing forces people to use one single browser for everything.

  28. Re:Nine, eh? by master_kaos · · Score: 1

    what features were removed? I am sure there have been a few, but I used firefox from version 3 to version 19 and didnt notice any features removed (at least once that I used)
    I however was getting sick of firefox, and find chrome to be a much better experience (even though they are at version 30 already.. but at least they don't even advertise it)

  29. Re: Nine, eh? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

    They should use build numbers. Firefox 11,873 anyone?

    --
    Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  30. Re:Last good version. (1.5) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 was by far the slowest Firefox in history. It also had that annoying misfeature where it grabbed all the memory in the system expecting that it could dole it out to other application as needed.

    3 had an enormous speed boost over that, and it's been getting steadily better since then. HOWEVER, the for the last few versions having Firebug running causes serious slowdowns. That will be fixed in time, but until then I strongly recommend disabling it and using the (excellent) build-in dev tools.

  31. Re:Nine, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, that's exactly what they do. I believe you entirely, because every time I've reported a bug, they've completely ignored it and Firefox has been consistently getting slower and buggier over the years. That's because I'm living on bizarro earth.

    Look, Firefox doesn't need your help to die a slow death. Stop lying through your teeth already. It's painful to see this kind of childish nonsense get upvoted because like it's the truth. Even I, who've had some painful experiences with Firefox, am not so petty and vindictive that I have to pretend that Mozilla don't care.

  32. Re:Chrome Is Better by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    No problems worth talking about here in Linux Land. Chrome compares favorably with Opera and Firefox. There is not a great deal to choose between the three, IMHO.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  33. So many versions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and it STILL can't print many web sites correctly.

    This is beyond frustrating. I print many web pages to PDFs on a weekly basis for research purposes, and I have to remember which sites (like The Guardian's) never print, as well as check the output of every single attempt so I know when I have to fire up IE to get a readable, complete PDF of a freaking web page.

    Here's a hint, Mozilla: If IE does something as simple as printing a web page vastly better than your browser, and it's been that was for several years, then your priorities are severely screwed up.

  34. Re:Chrome Is Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that's the best case you can make, then I feel ashamed to be a Chrome user, just because I'm associated with the likes of you. Let Firefox have their fun too. Chrome has its issues and has done its share of stupid things.

    Chrome these days is only generally better at a few things: the process-tab model (arguably), better performance in some areas, and better integration with Google's services.

    Firefox doesn't need our help to die off. It's "fans" are doing a good enough job of that by demanding that it only cater to their narrow whims and stay the same forever, rather than becoming more relevant to a larger userbase.

    It'll be hilarious when Firefox finally dies off, and all the people who moved to Seamonkey and Palemoon suddenly have to do all the work themselves. They bitch about having to install a half-dozen UI addons, so I'm sure their brains will implode.

  35. Re:Nine, eh? by sconeu · · Score: 1

    UI for Disable Javascript.

    You either have to use about:config or NoScript (which you should probably be using anyways).

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  36. Re:Nine, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the awesombar removed the feature of having a normal behaving urlbar without it doing unwanted things.

    The statusbar

    The ridiculous versioning numbering removed the functionality of knowing when you were given a security update only, or a functionality breaking / user interface altering update. Before this only happened at major version changes. now it can happen during any random security update. The ESR is a farce. A token version, it is not taken seriously by the developers.

    The feature to not have bloat on you system. It just increases the attack vector. Like social API, PDfviewer, webrtc. These are not core browser functionality and should be add-ons. The first security bug in the PDF viewer has already been found (and fixed btw).

    The feature of choice. Some settings are removed and can only be set via about:config. not nice, but ok. The problem is that the setting in case is not only removed, but also changed without asking while you update. (disable images, disable javascript, disable tab bar, settings to allow allow javascript to do certain things or not)

  37. Re:Nine years of Firefux by westlake · · Score: 1

    and, like Internet Exploder and Fuckle Chrap...

    It's at this point when I begin to tune out the geek.

    Just use a text based browser like Lynx instead, uses almost no memory or processor resources and is virtually invulnerable to malware.

    Accessibility makes the case for Lynx. Extreme constraints on bandwidth makes the case for Lynx. Cekkular

  38. Re:Chrome Is Better by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Also Chrome is the only choice on Linux if you want to have a up to date Flash plugin (you can also transfer that plugin into Chromium, although it's a PITA). The old NPAPI Flash plugin (version 11.2) still seems to linger in various distros though (package flashplugin-installer in Ubuntu).

    Well, HTML5 video is already working quite well, and seems to have better hardware acceleration. Even YouTube could as well end the long-lasted HTML5 experiment and just go full HTML5.

  39. Re:Chrome Is Better by InTheSwiss · · Score: 4, Informative

    The difference is Google pay Mozilla to be number one in the search box and, I believe, when people use the search box whereas Chrome begs you to login with your Google account so it can link every god damn thing you do in your browser with your account. Google didn't make Chrome for any other reason than it gets them more and more data. Same reason they made Android and Google+ and Gmail.

  40. It's worse than that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla/firefox has been perverted, corrupted.

    "You can haz many many $$. Just insert some more tracking hooks for, you know, advertising and whatnot. Here, take a look at dis nifty spec for etags." [Wink-wink. Jingles the coins in the pocket.]

  41. Re:Nine, eh? by Max_W · · Score: 1

    What is an alternative to a random person? A well-organized corporation? Then we would be still stuck with IE4.

    Learning to write code, specifically to write extensions is a good investment.

    Firefox is my favorite browser, and I would like to thank the Firefox team and congratulate with the ninth anniversary.

  42. How about doing some real work on it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like adding support for vertical writing for which people have been asking for 10 years, instead of tweaking and tweaking the UI and worrying about version numbers.

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=145503

    Yes, this bug is older than Firefox 1.0 itself...

  43. Re:Nine, eh? by Megane · · Score: 1

    Try Seamonkey instead... they haven't fucked that up... yet...

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  44. Re:Nine, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If that is true, then there are not enough people that have your problem, and are happy with the change Firefox devs introduced.

    "Fuck you," explained the Mozilla developer.

  45. Re:Chrome Is Better by vlueboy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even YouTube could as well end the long-lasted HTML5 experiment and just go full HTML5.

    Google has some lies and secrets here.
    Their defacto behavior, which I'll call a "claim" is that you must have flash to play video xyz even in the HTML5 mode. This happens with MOST popular videos because they are monetized (the secret there is that Google's advertisement modules aren't ready in HTML5 yet)

    To debunk this, just load an iPad or iPhone and see if you're *ever* forced to suffer even half of the consecuences... when sir Steve Job decided to ignore Flash on mobile. The takeaway is that faking your UA string with a FF extension yields those nice mp4 files without fuss, and I don't recall seeing video ads in player with that variant. The annoying thing is you have to put up with the mobile navigation, AND as of about 9 months ago, clicking a playlist link to with a preordered list of long series of videos (videogame Let's plays) would link you to a standalone vid. When you have about 100 videos and need to continue from #86, it's a major pain to rely on searches and the unreliable sidebar randomly hinting episode #2 or #98 but not #87. I'm pretty sure there's some express secret reason youtube doesn't like you binging^W playing sequential videos.

  46. Re:Nine, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's worse than that. With every new version, useful features are changed or removed and people are being forced to use more and more extensions to regain functionality that has been ripped out. Which leads to the current ridiculous situation:

    This is the reality of the browser market. It happened to Netscape. Then Netscape, bloated shitpile it was, ended up usurped by IE. Which in turn became a bloated, bug-ridden shithole, and was replaced by Opera. Which in turn, blahdiblah, FireOHGODWENEEDTOCHANGEOURNAMEALOT. Which in turn, Chrome.

    Any browser, no matter how good, no matter how small, no matter how fast... Will eventually become bloated, bug-ridden crap.

    Verily - we've been stuck on the current generation forever. It's been far too long since we've had a sleek young browser whose only purpose is to browse the fucking web.

    It's time.

    Get on it, people.

  47. Re:Chrome Is Better by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Yep, you are correct. Some months ago I was able to set my UA simply to Internet Explorer 10 and got every video as HTML5. That trick seems to not work anymore though.

  48. Re:Nine, eh? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

    Wasn't SeaMonkey discontinued in 2009 or something?!

    Does it even get security updates? Support HTML 5? I am not a troll here but curious as I thought it was abandonware for quite some time.

  49. Re:Chrome Is Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to disagree; personally, I don't understand why so many people like Chrome. I find it to be very unstable, quirky, and buggy. Bugs that are so obviously bugs and are difficult to ignore still exist years after being reported. In theory I love the browser, so every time a new version comes out I give it a shot, and we're at version 30 now and I'm still disappointed that it still feels like an alpha or beta, not a final release.

    In all of the years I've used Firefox (since 2004) I think I may have reported one or two bugs, and they were obscure bugs that were easy to ignore. Only one is still oustanding. I've reported close to 10 bugs in Chrome and most still aren't fixed.

    Take one of the latest updates for example. Now whenever I scroll on a page I see a checkerboard pattern as the page loads. Seriously?

    Firefox might not be the most minimalistic browser out there, or have the snappiest user interface, but it's by far the most stable browser with the best set of standard features and extensibility.

  50. "Fun"? by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 2

    Maybe I'm getting hung up on the wrong thing here, but how the fuck do you measure how "fun" a web-browsing experience is? What does that actually mean? What is it that makes Firefox fundamentally more enjoyable during recreational use that, say, Chrome/Opera/Safari/IE/etc. are missing?

    I'm fine with the rest of this and happy birthday to Firefox and all, but what is it that actually makes for a "fun" browsing experience, other than the specific websites that I choose to use?

    --
    Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    1. Re:"Fun"? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

      It's not just you - this is precisely the word that I was coming in here to comment about.

      Firefox is still my primary browser, and I still think it's the "most free" and potentially most "featureful" one left (even Chromium is subject to Google's whims and reluctances - as an example, in my case I find it irritating that Firefox has had native .opus support for <audio> tags by default for over a year, while Google only implemented perhaps six months ago...and still has it disabled by default. Apparently they're not turning it on by default until their glacially-paced project to make "webm2" with opus audio is finally finished.)

      Mozilla feels like it's turning more an more into a corporation more worried about "market share" than its original mission. Reading about how it's a "fun" browsing experience seems like those commercials of "fun to eat" junk food. It's marketing crap. I fear their "mission" may soon no longer be "promote openness, innovation & opportunity on the Web.[...]so people worldwide can be informed contributors and creators of the Web"[1] but "making the Web the leading platform for the greatest number of users and developers"[2] (i.e. it doesn't matter how open or participatory it is as long as it has the largest number of consumers).

      I hope I'm wrong. It's possible I am - Mozilla DID throw quite a bit into development of the opus audio codec, which is the clear winner for performance, quality, AND freedom-of-participation (and seems to have a decent chance to take off as a real standard, despite Google's foot-dragging, Apple's terminal "Doesn't Play Well With Others" problem, and Microsoft's inability to keep up with the times), and they ARE throwing real effort and money into daala to be the video codec equivalent. These are awesome, and perhaps the problem is just that every time they poke their heads out they get shouted at by people who feel changes to the user interface are horrific insults, so they've taken to just listening to each other. ("Hey, General Public, do you think our browser is 'fun'?" "STOP CRAPPING ON ME AAARRGGGHH!!!" "Uh...okay, hey, just everyone who's getting a paycheck from Mozilla, do YOU think our browser is 'fun'?" "Oh, of course! It is the MOST fun, boss!" "Okay, tell marketing to go with that.")

      [1] http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/
      [2] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2013/11/05/mozilla-otoy-and-autodesk-work-to-deliver-high-performance-games-and-applications-on-the-web/ (2013-11-09)

  51. Re:xdog xturd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Linux version is xturd86.

  52. Re:Nine, eh? by cyfer2000 · · Score: 2

    seamonkey project website says you are wrong.

    --
    There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
  53. I remember using Phoenix 0.9 by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1

    It went from Phoenix to Firebird, then to Firefox

    1. Re:I remember using Phoenix 0.9 by tsa · · Score: 1

      Me too. I started with Netscape. I never used IE and I marveled at people who kept using the rusty and bent piece of junk IE6 was when the rest of the world had moved on.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  54. Re:Nine years of Firefux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? How the fuck is Lynx not invulnerable to malware? Does it run Java? Does it run extensions? Fuck no, it doesn't even run Javascript so how the fuck can it run or become infected with malware?

  55. Mozilla did great but the battle is elsewhere by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > we came dangerously close to a world where Microsoft
    > Internet Explorer was the only accepted web browser.

    We dodged that bullet but now we're heading to a world where facebook.com plus a small few other sites are the internet.

    It's not Mozilla's fault but, as Stallman says, freedom is about controlling your computing on your computer, so it's a real problem that a lot of computing is being done on Facebook's servers.

    (That said, it would be useful if Mozilla Firefox did more to make its users aware of what free software is - such as putting a clearer link in the menu or in the About dialogue box.)

    1. Re:Mozilla did great but the battle is elsewhere by NotBorg · · Score: 1

      We dodged that bullet but now we're heading to a world where facebook.com plus a small few other sites are the internet.

      If that were true, there would be no point in search. Yes there are a few that are very popular, but their relative popularity doesn't come at the expense of the very long tail.

      --
      I want this account deleted.
  56. Re:Nine, eh? by NoMaster · · Score: 2

    Every time Firefox comes up as a topic on /., people say they want it simpler and smaller, and follow the newest trends young browser projects bring.

    I agree, it's easy to find examples where the majority on people in a /. discussion are wanting the first two.

    But, Mr. Mozilla Developer, can you point to any examples where the majority of people in a /. discussion are wanting the third?

    I suspect you might have a lot of trouble with that - which is why I'm just going to sit back and consider the Mozilla developers in general to be an out-of-touch autocratic cabal, and you specifically to be a liar, until there's evidence to the contrary.

    --
    What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
  57. Re:Chrome Is Better by vlueboy · · Score: 1

    Yep, you are correct. Some months ago I was able to set my UA simply to Internet Explorer 10 and got every video as HTML5. That trick seems to not work anymore though.

    You didn't say if the other UA tricks were tested so...
    try an extension with selectable agents and pick Safari for iPad or iPhone. Coupled with adblock, disabling flash and using noscript is closer to my setup and probably confuses their sniffing.
    I haven't tested in while

  58. Fork-Bomb tab-model by NuShrike · · Score: 1

    Chrome's tab-model is a literal Fork-Bomb. If I have to explain it to you, you need to get off /.

    Unlike Firefox where it JIT loads tabs as you need them. Try restoring a 30+ multi-tab session with Chrome, good-luck.

    1. Re:Fork-Bomb tab-model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Moreover, Firefox realized how stupid it was to load all your tabs at once when you restarted the browser. It's insane. 50 tabs open, and I have to wait for them to load? No thanks! I can see maybe wanting a specific subset of the tabs load that way upon restart, but given how quickly pages load and how infrequently you're going to use each of those 50 tabs, it's just insane not to wait until you switch to them to reload them from cache/website.

      Especially given that whenever I reopen Chrome that way, a good fifth of the tabs have to be reloaded because Chrome can't load web pages properly the first time. People like to tell me how fast Chrome loads web pages, but at least I only have to load them ONCE in Firefox.

  59. Re:Chrome Is Better by tsa · · Score: 2

    I love FF. It has some features that make it much more usable than Safari for me. I never considered Chrome because I'm happy with FF and see no reason to change browsers. And now I have an extra reason not to change.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  60. Re:Last good version. (1.5) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like the spiked dildo in your ass... STOP PUTTING IT THERE. We don't care about your butt hurt. Use a different browser and STFU. You're like a one of those small yippy dogs that barks incessantly no matter how many times you throw it against wall it just won't shut up! On and on and on with high pitched yipping. For god's sake give it a rest. 9 years of bitching hasn't worked. Prove you're smarter than a fucking bitch and move on.

  61. Re:Chrome Is Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've stalled development of the email client, and the "usability" team is hell bent on making the browser unusable.

  62. Re:Nine, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time Firefox comes up as a topic on /., people say they want it simpler and smaller, and follow the newest trends young browser projects bring.

    Yes, some people say that. But why don't these people use Chrome and shut up? Why must they wreck Firefox for the rest of us? If Firefox is unrecoverably dumbed down, we have nowhere to go.

  63. Re:Nine, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The feed button. Feed autodiscovery. Search plugin autodiscovery. UI for disabling images and Javascript. Click-to-play per element. Consistent search engine for addressbar independent of active search engine in searchbar (keyword.URL). Nowadays half of my addons are hacks that try to restore removed functionality in Firefox.

  64. Re:Nine, eh? by bcmm · · Score: 1

    The Mozilla Suite (codenamed "SeaMonkey") was discontinued. A new project, outside of (but not on bad terms with) the Mozilla Foundation, was started to continue development under the name "SeaMonkey" (now as a brand, not just as a codename). As far as I know, they use recent upstream versions of Gecko and thus automatically support HTML5 and so on.

    This is only confusing to people who followed Mozilla development closely enough to have seen "SeaMonkey" used to refer to the Suite. I'd guess that it was somewhat inspired by the origins of the Mozilla project - "Mozilla" was the old codename for Netscape Navigator.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  65. Re:Nine, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The awesomebar hate was never justified. You could use browser.urlbar.maxRichResults to disable the results. But the people who whine about it don't care. They think it's the end of the world to have to disable it. I'd argue the "awesomescreen" is the worse offender here, at least on mobiles where you can't disable it for some reason.

    The numbering problem is basically in your own head. They still do point releases for critical fixes, it's the rapid release cycle that's the root cause of the actual problems. They finally started doing ESR releases, but I agree they're more token than anything at this point.

    The bloat argument is inane. It's the most minor of the minor gripes. If you care about that kind of thing, Firefox and its spin offs are the only browsers with addons like RequestPolicy and NoScript that work properly, and the only browsers that let you generally disable new features easily (Chrome does too, but usually only for experimental features).

    The "feature of choice" thing is another vapid argument. After 9+ years of Firefox there are only a meager handful of things you can't customize back in some relatively simple way. You just don't care because you happen to be one of the people inconvenienced, and it's easier to whine about it then find the oh-so-painful solution. It's not like other browsers and software don't do the same bloody thing.

    If this is the worst people have to complain about then Firefox is WAY ahead of the curve.

  66. I dumped Firefox for main use. by thejynxed · · Score: 1

    When they decided to start hiding or removing useful settings while adding so much bloatware into it that they might as well have renamed it FireIE 6.0, I quit using it for daily browsing habits.

    Now that it is up to version 25+ (which is fucking stupid in its own right, trying to play version catch-up with Google just because), I still find that I don't use it for anything but Twitch.tv and Disqus.

    For some reason the chat interface for Twitch never loads in Chrome no matter what I do, and Disqus comments never load in Chrome no matter what I do.

    Not that I interactively use the Twitch chat, since it requires a Facebook account to post, but I can at least read the commentary and maybe send the developers a more full-fledged response via email when I am watching something from Digital Extremes or Trion for instance.

    As for Disqus, I can't figure out what it is - it may be Chrome mangling the Disqus cookies in some way or hating the number of redirects the Disqus system itself uses when logging in and loading comment sections, but it just sits and spins and never loads. Loads instantly on IE10 or Firefox though (yes, I use Windows 7 exclusively at the moment).

    --
    @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.