Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 35 Arrives With MP4 Playback On Mac, Android Download Manager Support

Posted by Soulskill on from the onward-and-upward dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla today launched Firefox 35 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Major additions to the browser include room-based Firefox Hello conversations, H.264 (MP4 files) playback on OS X, and integration with the Android download manager. Mozilla has opened up the Firefox Marketplace for the desktop, currently in beta. While Firefox Marketplace is already available on Firefox OS and Firefox for Android, the company is now asking users to help test apps on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Full changelogs: desktop and Android.

177 comments

  1. MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck off Mozilla, we do NOT want this cesspool of added crap. Light, fast and bulletproof is what is wanted, not this repulsive nonsense.

    1. Re:MORE SHIT??? by gweihir · · Score: 2, Informative

      Couldn't agree more. And I also want the classical UI back, you know the one that was actually usable.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just press F10 to get the old menus back.

    3. Re: MORE SHIT??? by nimbius · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up! I was livid after the recent advertising changes. Firefox is now the realMedia player of browsers. How much longer until we get an askjeeves or bonzi buddy bundle, assholes

      --
      Good people go to bed earlier.
    4. Re:MORE SHIT??? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Together wit classical theme restorer, that is actually usable. Thanks!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:MORE SHIT??? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fuck off Mozilla, we do NOT want this cesspool of added crap.

      Then don't use it. Installing Firefox is optional, you know. Or do you feel Mozilla should be beholden to you in return for all those thousands of dollars you never quite got around to donating?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I have donated, maybe I have supported.

      But I sure as fuck wont with this garbage.

    7. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Or right-click almost anywhere.

    8. Re:MORE SHIT??? by steelfood · · Score: 2

      It's not advertised, but key pinning is an important security feature that's finally made it into the base program.

      Now, if only they wouldn't throw up so many roadblocks with self-signed certs. But cert pinning is a good start that they recognize the old model of secure vs insecure based on a cert alone is no longer sufficient. I say, switch to a new model based on the grade of security. E.g.:

      Secure and authentic (green)
      Secure but maybe not authentic (yellow)
      Authentic but possibly insecure, also mixed content (orange)
      Neither secure nor verified as authentic (red)

      When they do that (and maybe go back to a sane GUI with sane version numbers), I will upgrade.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    9. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then just move on already to the next thing you'll complain about over and over. Forget all the bug fixes, speed-ups, feature removals and such they've been working on, they ADDED A FEATURE! They CHANGED THE UI A LITTLE! Those fucking monsters!

    10. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off Mozilla, we do NOT want this cesspool of added crap.

      And yet if they didn't tell you about the new additions I suspect you wouldn't even have noticed. They're not obtrusive. Firefox Hello is good. Have a look at it.

    11. Re: MORE SHIT??? by Redbehrend · · Score: 1

      They need to change the focus AWAY from "Let's keep throwing stuff at Mozilla something's gotta stick"

    12. Re: MORE SHIT??? by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Hey, assholes! Stop trying to make some money! You should just be happy that a few people donate to you at all, rather than trying to pay your employees, compete with the three biggest tech firms on earth, and do all those other initiatives that should obviously cost nothing!

      Why is it necessary for Mozilla to have paid employees, let alone an actual corporate structure?
      Why does Mozilla need to "compete" with Google. Mozilla is a non-profit. What's the endgame here?
      Why can't they just write their software for people who want it and let people use Chrome who want to use Chrome.

      There's lots of open-source software projects out there that continue to run based solely on the contributions of their developers.
      Given the choice between "Commercial Mozilla" trying to compete with Chrome, and a slower changing, community run affair, I'll take the latter.

    13. Re:MORE SHIT??? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Or you can just press Alt, as in any Windows application to open the menu?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re: MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >Why can't they just write their software for people who want it

      Um, they are doing so. It's just that there are a lot of different people who want it, and many of them have conflicting interests, needs, and outlooks on what Firefox should be.

      As for the rest of what you say, sure, if you're happy with Mozilla giving up entirely on trying to steer the web, and just letting Google, Apple and Microsoft dictate the way the web evolves, then you won't see a need for Mozilla to make money and compete. But a "slower-changing affair" simply isn't tenable, let alone one that doesn't try to compete. Name one OSS browser engine that even works on the modern web. Name one slower-changing major browser that isn't dead or has changed to a faster-changing model. Just consider the fate of Opera, KHTML, and Internet Explorer's mad scramble back to maybe-relevance.

      Frankly speaking, you're asking the wrong questions. The real one is: why does Mozilla need to exist? Shouldn't there already be an OSS community creating and maintaining a web browser, and keeping Google, Apple and Microsoft on their toes? Until that happens, I'd say we need Mozilla to do the job for us. And that's assuming it's feasible to begin with.

      And all of this still ignores that everyone is getting upset about a few features that Mozilla are using to try to make some money. Is it a sin for them to want to raise funds and pay their employees better wages? It's fine to question whether they're "losing their way" or some jerks are hijacking the whole thing, but people act like Mozilla as a whole is doing nothing but trying to make money by doing nothing positive at all. Granted it's easy to ignore all the good and obsess over the bad (that's human nature after all) but it's incredibly unfair. Especially if we're not going to do it ourselves.

    15. Re: MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Firefox's market share keeps on dropping, dropping and dropping. Now it's only around 10% as of December, 2014. That includes both desktop and mobile versions of Firefox!

      Every one of these bad decisions that Mozilla has made over the past number of years has driven away yet more users. And we see no great migration of users to Firefox. After all, why should we? Firefox no longer offers anything that users want, and a lot that users absolutely don't want. It's worse than its competitors in pretty much every way.

      If anyone is "just letting Google, Apple and Microsoft dictate the way the web evolves", it is Mozilla itself. Mozilla is doing everything it can to drive users away from Firefox. And every user that leaves Firefox for Chrome, Safari, Opera and even newer versions of IE means that Mozilla has even less influence that it had before, while its competitors have more influence.

      Mozilla is destroying itself through these repeated shows of idiocy, even after so many Firefox users have yelled STOP! The total lunacy involving how they savagely attacked their former CEO, Brendan Eich, doesn't help, either.

      Mozilla is destroying itself much more efficiently than Google, Apple or Microsoft could ever hope to destroy it.

    16. Re: MORE SHIT??? by Microlith · · Score: 1

      Why is it necessary for Mozilla to have paid employees, let alone an actual corporate structure?

      Because they complete with Microsoft and Google, and have done a good job at it.

      Why does Mozilla need to "compete" with Google. Mozilla is a non-profit. What's the endgame here?

      Staying relevant and keeping up with standards, and delivering a browser with updates on a timely basis.

      Why can't they just write their software for people who want it and let people use Chrome who want to use Chrome.

      Because in short while the project would likely fall apart when faced with the pace of development MS and Google can do.

      There's lots of open-source software projects out there that continue to run based solely on the contributions of their developers.

      And a great many of those contributors are compensated for doing so, via other sources. They are very fortunate.

      Given the choice between "Commercial Mozilla" trying to compete with Chrome, and a slower changing, community run affair, I'll take the latter.

      And enjoy it as it falls behind.

    17. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off Mozilla, we do NOT want this cesspool of added crap.

      Then don't use it. Installing Firefox is optional, you know.

      Optional? to what, installing IE? no, the option WAS firefox. GP and I just resent that being taken away, like you would resent living w/ a rotting heart once more after Mozilla foundation took away one they once had *donated* willingly to a new body, to replace the IE heart we all had no choice being born with.
      We have been painted into a corner. Some people do not consider Chrome a choice or cannot officially support it at work. I find it stupid that they are beta testing a brand new FF app store instead of freezing it until they complete E10 support. Just this morning I saw they still cannot even support noScript and flashblock on the betas. E10 is more than 4 years old. We already have an extensions repo system, so we need FF Stores as much as we need a Windows 8 app store.

    18. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Foske · · Score: 1

      Not intrusive, maybe. But still: Firefox Hello is not good.

      It is is Firefox specific, and since they have little market share chances are small that I can use it with whoever I would like to use it with.
      It is doing something that has nothing to do with browsing the net
      There are already way too many standards for chatting with or without video, and this one requires Firefox while till now I could get away with pidgin and skype.
      It is not an extension I choose to install, and I am sure I will never use it. Therefore it only makes my Firefox bigger and more bloated.

      I wouldn't care if Firefox were a small and fast browser, but it is a big, slow piece of junk and they added more crap to it, instead of fixing that.

    19. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mozilla corporation does not survive on donations. Firefox isn't some dinky project that's done by volunteers in their spare time. Their 2013 income was $314 MILLION and they currently have almost $300 MILLION in the bank. See http://www.computerworld.com/article/2850881/mozilla-reports-flat-revenue-from-google-firefox-search-deal.html. For the amount of money they have and the amount they spend on development, I've been quite disappointed at their product. I was an ardent user of firefox for a good 10+ years before I became fed up and switched. Firefox is a web browser first and foremost, so they should've perfected that first. Instead, the browser is slow, leaks memory, and crashes since they've decided to implement all their added crap instead of improving the core. That's why they are losing marketshare.

    20. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume that anything signed by a Chinese or Russian certificate, VeriNSAign or one of the other "trust us" certificate authorities on the default list would be in the red on your list?

      But you can't really expect that from a browser that for years has been popping up a big warning for any site using a certificate not from any intelligence agency (aka. self signed).

    21. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, could not care less for the added features. What annoys me more is what existing feature did they remove or change into unusable on this release. Did they disable right mouse button on Linux/Win for "improved and unified experience"? Or moved the tabs to some other border this time, as they have now a tradition of forcing them to their one and only true location? How about screwing the "find" even more by distributing each of the related button (next, prev, cancel, match case) into maximal distance from each other?

    22. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is is Firefox specific, and since they have little market share chances are small that I can use it with whoever I would like to use it with.

      It isn't. You can use it with whoever has a good enough browser.

      It is doing something that has nothing to do with browsing the net

      WebRTC is or will be supported in all major browsers so you'll have to boycott all of them.

    23. Re: MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google, Apple and/or Microsoft should really hire some better shills. This one is pretty transparent. 3/10

    24. Re: MORE SHIT??? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I guess they think that they need paid developers to keep their browser up to date. Apple and Google, as well as many others, have thrown considerable resources at Webkit and their browsers, and it seems to be paying off if you judge by market share. Moz started with a crap code base that needed massive amounts of work to keep it competitive in terms of speed and robustness, not to mention standards compliance.

      The problems started when they fixed most of the architectural issues (except add-ons, which are still screwed up but probably unfixable) and then started to look at the UI and other "UX" features.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    25. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then make your own browser, clearly you know the one true way a browser should be. You should join up with other people in these comments to make one. I'm sure you won't have conflicting views with one another or limited resources without getting funding or anything.

    26. Re:MORE SHIT??? by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      Pale Moon for the win !!!!

      I switched from Firefox about two months ago and I haven't looked back.

      Take back the web with Pale Moon :)

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    27. Re: MORE SHIT??? by westlake · · Score: 1

      Why is it necessary for Mozilla to have paid employees, let alone an actual corporate structure?
      There's lots of open-source software projects out there that continue to run based solely on the contributions of their developers.

      How soon we forget.

      Firefox had the money and manpower needed to develop the first credible open source alternative to Internet Explorer on the mainstream Windows platform.

      The uncomfortable and unspoken truth about open source is that projects beyond a certain size and complexity need a formal organization, full-time staff and funding that rivals their commercial --- proprietary --- alternatives.

      This is never more true when the target audience or market is not the computer geek.

    28. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I'm still of FF 30.0 and turned off updates. Yeah, maybe there's a small security risk, but I'm not willing to pay the price of downloading new, unwanted features and crapware just to get the latest security patch.

    29. Re: MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is falling behind, and those of us who were around to watch Netscape commit suicide get a strong sense of deja vu with Mozilla. Never, ever let marketing control the product. It always ends in disaster.

    30. Re:MORE SHIT??? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I am hoping for that. I already have it installed on a memory stick, just did not have the time to test it out. I very much like their commitment to keep the UI and not experiment recklessly on their user-base. And with FF as basis, it should be able to get a good security track-record as well.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    31. Re: MORE SHIT??? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      As for the rest of what you say, sure, if you're happy with Mozilla giving up entirely on trying to steer the web, and just letting Google, Apple and Microsoft dictate the way the web evolves, then you won't see a need for Mozilla to make money and compete.

      Mozilla had already given up trying to "steer the web" the moment they stopped trying to do things their own way and started copying Chrome. At that point they are simply helping Google control things better than Microsoft or Apple.

      Frankly speaking, you're asking the wrong questions. The real one is: why does Mozilla need to exist? Shouldn't there already be an OSS community creating and maintaining a web browser, and keeping Google, Apple and Microsoft on their toes? Until that happens, I'd say we need Mozilla to do the job for us. And that's assuming it's feasible to begin with.

      And all of this still ignores that everyone is getting upset about a few features that Mozilla are using to try to make some money.

      Mozilla's attempts to "make some money" are increasingly making the product a more commercial affair and less user-focused one. Treating the users like a product to deliver to advertisers is exactly the reason many people don't use Chrome, even if at this point it is the faster browser. If Firefox is going to turn into a Chrome-imitator in interface and features, I might as well just use Chrome and get a faster browsing experience.

    32. Re:MORE SHIT??? by patniemeyer · · Score: 1

      You'd rather have to rely on the Flash plugin? You realize you can now watch YouTube and other sites flash-free but you don't see that as reducing bloat?
      Related - MP4 in Firefox fixes one of the most irritating bugs in the history of the web - the fact that browser shortcuts don't work while you are watching a flash video.

      Pat

    33. Re:MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No true scottsman strawman dangling much?
      Anyway, the one true way is already there. Or WAS there. That is the WHOLE POINT! it was already made in the GP and by others release after release: A good approximation to the One True Browser was already there and is being chipped away by foolishness.
      YOU are leeching at it (you must be posting here from somewhere, huh? what does that make YOU?) like the rest of us.

      If you are apathetic to be led around by new chaotic currents of senseless disfunction, you have the right to remain silent, like the majority. Have fun with your crumbling user experience. After all, Netscape cant happen twice, can it?

      The rest of us can just experiment with more conservative forks already there, like SeaMonkey.
      The pain is, Mozilla already broke compatibility with hundreds of extensions by changing their API in a way that extensions have to be built FOR the fork, from the official SDK compiler, which is stupid to do if the mainland could just target both by default.

      Fork/rolling your own? 1/2 fail. I sometimes just run with outdated versions of FF. Alternatively, I have tried well-meaning but obscure or half-assed browsers that have been dying from disuse, like Kazehaze, Epiphany (which is the Gnome browser, but even *Gnome* distros refuse to include it by default). Back in the days of Mandrake a decade ago, I recall having Netscape or Mozilla itself installed, plus Konqueror and two or three alternative browsers. Now, we see every distro lock onto Firefox and hide everything else. Speaking defaultwise, Firefox is the IE of linux now, and it has been dying to its Mozillas ideals since v4.0. Chromium is a pain to find in default repositories, so when you do not want Google snooping in your OS, and are stuck with a red-hat based distro, more frustration is created.

    34. Re: MORE SHIT??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've not been paying much attention if you sincerely believe all of this. Or you've simply looking at the few things they "copied" (weakly) from Chrome and have jumped to the insane conclusion that "well, that must mean they're copying EVERYTHING from Chrome!"... at which point I wouldn't even bother arguing with you because you're a ninny.

      I honestly wonder why all you people who make this stupid claim aren't just using Chrome already. Could it be because it's NOT a Chrome clone, and all the stuff they copied in don't really affect you as much as you think it does? I guess it's just easier to not care about all the other good stuff Mozilla has been doing to Firefox when you've got such a hardon for criticizing the negative ones.

  2. I'm done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok... I'm done... I want a web browser. Not a video chat application.

    1. Re:I'm done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Like the 20 previous times you posted this?

      I found this today I had marked it apparently.

      Here is the kraken benchmark results from v6

      http://krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org/kraken-1.1/results.html?%7B%22v%22:%20%22kraken-1.1%22,%20%22ai-astar%22:%5B852,857,858,861,858,854,865,859,866,855%5D,%22audio-beat-detection%22:%5B458,480,458,456,458,458,483,457,457,484%5D,%22audio-dft%22:%5B435,441,434,431,427,701,425,431,439,431%5D,%22audio-fft%22:%5B353,352,359,357,357,357,357,372,354,354%5D,%22audio-oscillator%22:%5B621,620,620,621,621,624,621,619,626,621%5D,%22imaging-gaussian-blur%22:%5B726,728,740,735,737,740,734,738,737,735%5D,%22imaging-darkroom%22:%5B307,310,299,302,303,302,304,301,303,306%5D,%22imaging-desaturate%22:%5B699,714,709,719,711,712,709,702,706,701%5D,%22json-parse-financial%22:%5B136,136,135,135,136,135,134,135,136,135%5D,%22json-stringify-tinderbox%22:%5B100,101,100,102,99,100,100,101,101,101%5D,%22stanford-crypto-aes%22:%5B241,240,238,240,239,240,240,240,238,207%5D,%22stanford-crypto-ccm%22:%5B170,168,169,176,177,168,178,166,177,181%5D,%22stanford-crypto-pbkdf2%22:%5B343,330,332,338,334,334,333,331,335,335%5D,%22stanford-crypto-sha256-iterative%22:%5B131,133,135,133,135,133,131,133,134,133%5D%7D

      Today's v35
      http://krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org/kraken-1.1/results.html?{%22v%22:%20%22kraken-1.1%22,%20%22ai-astar%22:%5B83,86,82,93,86,92,86,82,90,87%5D,%22audio-beat-detection%22:%5B106,107,120,113,110,108,122,106,110,111%5D,%22audio-dft%22:%5B139,138,152,145,144,143,158,142,144,148%5D,%22audio-fft%22:%5B63,62,75,65,63,63,68,66,65,66%5D,%22audio-oscillator%22:%5B77,78,81,81,78,80,75,80,79,81%5D,%22imaging-gaussian-blur%22:%5B101,101,101,106,104,103,108,106,104,105%5D,%22imaging-darkroom%22:%5B108,115,119,121,112,119,126,112,110,118%5D,%22imaging-desaturate%22:%5B88,89,83,85,86,83,85,84,85,94%5D,%22json-parse-financial%22:%5B68,71,92,81,82,73,79,90,79,98%5D,%22json-stringify-tinderbox%22:%5B57,55,58,57,56,58,57,58,57,54%5D,%22stanford-crypto-aes%22:%5B66,70,65,66,66,67,65,68,65,206%5D,%22stanford-crypto-ccm%22:%5B89,96,88,87,87,88,85,93,89,91%5D,%22stanford-crypto-pbkdf2%22:%5B140,143,148,136,150,134,140,148,140,138%5D,%22stanford-crypto-sha256-iterative%22:%5B119,67,70,70,67,63,186,68,59,61%5D}

      That is nearly a 9x speedup in those years. On the same hardware. I think they may actually be working on it...

    2. Re:I'm done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kraken is a meaningless benchmark. Microbenchmark optimization is meaningless in actual applications.

    3. Re:I'm done... by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Which benchmark is suggested?

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    4. Re:I'm done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same results in v8. Which uses a gameboy emu and zlib... Sorry I didnt use the benchmark you liked...

    5. Re:I'm done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      v8 is just as worthless.

    6. Re:I'm done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whichever one makes Firefox look bad, Chrome look good, and supports any other biases he already has, of course.

    7. Re:I'm done... by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Good, JavaScript is faster. Now where is my in-browser ad blocking engine written in C? Since lots of articles have run that whine about Adblock Plus slowing down browsing due to injecting a massive CSS file into every page, let's see the ad blocking capability put where it really belongs. THAT is a feature that almost every user of Firefox wants: ad blocking in the browser.

    8. Re:I'm done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the guy with some stupid bias that I use Chrome. No I use Safari. Wouldn't touch Chrome with a 1000 foot pole.

      No, all such benchmarks are worthless. Geekbench is another one of the most hilariously worthless benchmarks. None of them reflect real-world application speed. They are as dumb as the people who create benchmarks to prove that Java is "fast" by timing a method call by looping it a million times.

    9. Re:I'm done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the guy with some stupid bias that I use Chrome. No I use Safari. Wouldn't touch Chrome with a 1000 foot pole.

      The statement was sarcastic, not an actual assumption that you use Chrome, and you know it. I could have put $PREFERRED_BROWSER in the statement in place of Chrome for the intellectually challenged, but I didn't think it necessary. You're only picking that part of the statement out to nitpick the comment as some juvenile attempt to "win" a discussion, not because you actually failed to understand the comment itself.

      No, all such benchmarks are worthless. Geekbench is another one of the most hilariously worthless benchmarks. None of them reflect real-world application speed. They are as dumb as the people who create benchmarks to prove that Java is "fast" by timing a method call by looping it a million times.

      MMC Monster raised a valid question and your only reply is that benchmarks are "worthless". If benchmarks are worthless, how does one measure performance improvements? Are benchmarks not allowed because they might invalidate some precious special snowflake's "feeling" that a browser has gotten worse? If not, can you provide a "proper" benchmark of an older Firefox version versus the current one and show an increase or decrease in performance? If not, you have no real argument beyond "I don't like benchmarks that disagree with me because MUH FEELS"

  3. Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Now FF thinks it has both version 10 and version 11.

    Someone messed up bad. Real bad.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yeah, the guy who installed adobe reader :-P

    2. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Some of us use PDF for almost everything, especially in research.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd wager that the one who messed up is Adobe, that's pretty much their entire business model.

    4. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shame that firefox does not have an embedded pdf reader ;)

    5. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But with so many good FLOSS PDF viewers that refuse to run Adobe-compatible malware, why would you use the bloated Adobe reader?

    6. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      than you have alternatives to adobe.
      Foxit is allegedly less prone to malicious pdf's.

    7. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by Alan+Shutko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Shame that Firefox does not have a good embedded PDF reader.

    8. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      Everything breaks the Adobe reader. Get rid of it and install Sumatra PDF.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    9. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Now FF thinks it has both version 10 and version 11.

      All your versions are belong to us?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    10. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      Shame that your OS of choice can't seem to download a PDF and open it with the default application.

      PDF in the browser is a security nightmare. So is PDF in Acrobat Reader, but at least you have a bit more control about what can poke the PDF that way.

    11. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If your OS can't handle a PDF file natively, it's time to change your OS.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    12. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Now, if Firefox could finally render TeX, we could get off of HTML altogether.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    13. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Foxit has started going the way of Adobe, or Firefox itself for that matter, with all sorts of unnecessary bloat built in. Sumatra is currently where it's at on Windows.

    14. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 2

      Do you mean the default embedded one that is so slow I'm better off drawing the PDF by hand?

    15. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      PDF in the browser is a security nightmare.

      Why? It's a data format. By this logic, HTML and JPEG and PNG in the browser are security nightmares and we should remove them as well.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by houghi · · Score: 1

      If your OS can't handle a PDF file natively, it's time to change your OS.

      Great. I will start implementing it into systemd.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    17. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by rvw · · Score: 1

      Now, if Firefox could finally render TeXt, we could get off of HTML altogether.

      There! FTFY! You need a good spellchecker and you're done! ;-)

    18. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you actually tried to use it? It is ok as a plan B on machines which do not have pdf reader installed for some reason, but it just too slow to use for any PDF file which has dozens or hundreds of pages. If it takes literally minutes to open some document file, it is just a emergency backup feature.

    19. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by nctritech · · Score: 1

      I browse by typing raw HTTP into Telnet sessions on port 80. Text looks fine.

    20. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a data format that allows the execution of javascript embedded in the document which can be triggered merely by opening the document..

      Fucking dumb idea, same as it always was.

    21. Re:Breaks my Adobe Reader plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are good FLOSS PDF softwares that create PDF/A and PDF/X compliant files the same size or smaller than Acrobat, and also allow you to manipulate document resolution, and perform OCR? All of this without ads or crapware? I haven't seen such a thing.

  4. You forgot something in the summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Increased attack surface.

  5. owners of older machines, behold... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... how your machines stubmle upon huge memory hunger?

    1. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's still less memory hungry than Chrome.

    2. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      chrome uses more memory, but doesn't get slow as molasses after a few hours.

      not even when installing flashblock. most youtube videos skip frames here on my i5 laptop.

      surf over 30 tabs and close them and you will see ram use over 1 gig on firefox

      --
      Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
    3. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox doesn't get slow as molasses for me after a few hours. Maybe it's time you guys complaining about this helped profile what the problem is? It's not like Mozilla is unwilling to help fix things.

      Likewise, I see Chrome using well over a gig if I open 30 tabs, so I don't know what the point of mentioning that was at all.

      Also Youtube is Google's. The same guys who make Chrome. They constantly fuck with it, and switch to new video specs before Firefox (or others) are ready. If you're going to blame Firefox for not being ready with MSE/EME and all the other shit Google foisted on us, or complain about Flash support when Adobe doesn't give two shits about the non-Chrome version of Flash anymore, then enjoy pissing in the wind.

    4. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by MSG · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Firefox is also a smaller download, a smaller install, starts faster, runs JavaScript faster, allows plugins on the mobile version, and allows users to run their own sync server, compared with Chrome.

      Mozilla's work is really shining these days. Firefox is a better browser by every metric I can think of.

    5. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Google shipped admx/adml files for us corporate users. Mozilla glaringly shines unfavourably.

    6. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by Malc · · Score: 1

      How's that Electrolysis project coming along? Will they ever be done?

      I switched to a modern browser years ago simply because multi-process is better. With Firefox there is no way to know which tab is draining your battery or consuming all you memory. Actually memory stopped being an issue for me when I switched to Chrome, so perhaps Firefox was just leaking it everywhere, but being able to identify pages using a lot of CPU and selectively killing them is the must-have feature that all the other major browsers have had for years. The improved performance, stability and security is a bonus.

      Mozilla devs and the Netscape ones before them never could get their heads past the whole monolithic process concept.

    7. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 1

      Firefox is also a smaller download (...)

      I'm not so sure any more.

      v35 was a 46 MB update: firefox-35.0.complete.mar 09-Jan-2015 09:23 46M

      Offline installers are 38 MB.

    8. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      allows plugins on the mobile version

      This is the big one for me. Firefox on Android is the only Android browser that I've found that lets me have a decent policy for cookie management. The Self-Destructing Cookies plugin is the main reason that I switched to Firefox on my phone and tablet. The lack of tab sandboxing is the main reason that I stick with Safari on the desktop.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same. With firefox, I had the browser taking 2GB+ of RAM everyday (of course it never gives any of it back!), and frequently pegging a CPU core, becoming unresponsive for seconds and what not, even on a new install with zero extensions. Chrome fixed all of that. It's the best browser by a long shot!

    10. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      there was an announcement a couple of months ago that Electrolysis was enabled by default in the nightlies.

      Trunk is several versions ahead of release.

      So probably the release after this one, i.e. 36

    11. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Firefox doesn't get slow as molasses after a few hours either. Perhaps you are thinking of a very old version or have a pretty low-spec computer.

    12. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actively being developed for desktop (shipping on mobile). The roadmap is here:
      https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis/Roadmap
      To test it out install a nightly and flip the switch:
      https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis#Enabling_and_Disabling_Electrolysis

    13. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything Mozilla does to Firefox demonstrates the contempt they have for users, whether it's making update non-optional, or removing the ability to disable Javascript from preferences, or hiding the protocol in the URL bar, or ignoring dozens of the highest-voted bugs.

    14. Re:owners of older machines, behold... by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      i always use the latest version on my hp i5 laptop with 8gb ram. Right now, firefox is consuming 750mb of ram.

      I relate the issue with the flash plugin.

      --
      Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
  6. stick with 34 or esr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the next one (next week? no. sorry, that joke is dead.. next month), 36, will be a doozy when it ships multiprocess enabled. tons of stuff to break, guaranteed.

    1. Re:stick with 34 or esr by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 0

      But have they fixed the memory leaks yet? :-P

      *ducks*

    2. Re:stick with 34 or esr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you in the aurora channel? How bad is the breakage?

    3. Re:stick with 34 or esr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this an improvement?

      https://i.imgur.com/FWxbCOp.png

    4. Re:stick with 34 or esr by RebelWebmaster · · Score: 1

      FWIW, multiprocess isn't shipping with 36. It hasn't even migrated off the nightly channel at this point. That said, Win64 builds are.

    5. Re:stick with 34 or esr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How should we know with absolutely no context?

    6. Re:stick with 34 or esr by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Could you not tell by the ":-P" that I was joking? The aspergers is strong in this one.

  7. What's scary is by steveg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...that Firefox is still my favorite browser. I really don't care for any of the rest, but my gods, what kinds of drugs are they doing over at the Mozilla compound?

    --
    Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    1. Re:What's scary is by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      obviously none they are willing to share.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:What's scary is by BenFenner · · Score: 3, Informative

      You should give PaleMoon a try. Firefox without all the GUI madness of the last few years.

      Also, I noticed this quote from the Firefox Hello page:
      "Recently, we introduced Firefox Hello, the first global communications system built directly into a browser to help make things easier."

      Have they never heard of Virtual Places? It was a browser with built-in chat rooms for each web page. Every web page you visited put you in a chat with everyone else on that page. There were avatars you moved around on the page, and "gestures" and, whatever. This was 1994 or so...

    3. Re:What's scary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean?

    4. Re:What's scary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wants some of the rectally-administered bath salts they've been taking during design meetings.

    5. Re:What's scary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks nice, but no OSX support.

    6. Re:What's scary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      tried palemoon and had to give it up.

      some extensions do not work and I see no reason for that. some of the adblockers refuse to run. this is NOT good!

      youtube and other flash sites still are broken. has been for months.

      I gave up. its not worth this effort.

      I strongly dislike the current FF UI but palemoon just doesn't 'get it' when it comes to working with existing plugins. if you ask me to run alternate ones, you just DON'T GET IT and I won't spend any more time on using your product.

      pity..

    7. Re:What's scary is by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Looks nice, but no OSX support.

      Praise His Noodliness....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:What's scary is by OhPlz · · Score: 2

      The only issues I've hit is that you can't get at Adblock Plus's settings, which is kind of weird. There's a fork you can install that fixes it. The only other glitch I've seen is that the search bar on Google's Play store disappears. That can be worked around by modifying the user-agent string. Other than that, it works fine. No issues with Youtube, even with plugins to download videos from it.

      This is with the x64 build. I've been using it ever since the CEO firing thing happened.

    9. Re:What's scary is by steelfood · · Score: 3, Informative

      You shouldn't put all the blame on Mozilla. HTML5, the one standard to rule them all, is the real issue here. HTML5 essentially is the specification for an operating system over the web. It's a monstrosity that never should have been born.

      Mozilla still gets the blame for the constant UI changes. But the real demon is HTML5.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    10. Re:What's scary is by steveg · · Score: 1

      Is this a "they couldn't help themselves, it was just too tempting" kind of defense? :)

      I think the constant UI changes are worse, but both are annoying.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    11. Re:What's scary is by caseih · · Score: 1

      I'm using PaleMoon 25 on Linux (64-bit) and am pretty happy with it. Unlike Firefox, on Linux it defaults to highlighting the url and seach box contents when you click on them, which makes middle-click pasting impossible. Fortunately for the URL bar, there's a setting to not highlight it on click (browser.urlbar.clickSelectsAll). For the search box for now I use a add-on to add a clear button to the box. People talk like the highlight then middle click feature of X11 is an outdated feature that's quaint and hardly used. To me that's one of X11's greatest features, next to remoting apps over ssh. I will sorely miss it when everyone converts to Wayland, as it would have to be implemented in the toolkit on wayland, and I don't know of any of the toolkits (GTK, Qt) that are planning to implement it.

      Apparently Firefox 33 or something changed the way certificates are handled, and self-signed certificates may not work as they did before with a warning and allowing a permanent exception. This has bled over into Thunderbird now too and I'm working through an issue where Thunderbird 31.3.0 won't accept my own internal certificates signed by an internal CA anymore (just says cannot connect to server). Hopefully this stuff gets sorted out in Firefox.

    12. Re:What's scary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't count on it.

      On the gripping hand, there's a free public CA in the works....

    13. Re:What's scary is by nazsco · · Score: 1

      you should have read the warning when you selected the 64bit installer. same happens with firefox and chrome.

    14. Re:What's scary is by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      ...Firefox is still my favorite browser..

      You're in a dwindling minority.

      .
      It looks like Firefox started 2014 with a 26.9% market share, and ended 2014 with a 23.6% market share.

      Yup, those Mozilla people must be doing something right.

    15. Re:What's scary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that those are good stats to use. W3Schools isn't exactly the sort of web site that most people will visit.

      Here are the most realistic browser usage stats I've come across. They put Firefox's global usage (both desktop and mobile, across all versions) at around 10% or so as of December 2014.

      Chrome for Android alone has around the same number of users that Firefox has in total.

      Firefox is dying.

    16. Re:What's scary is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because Firefox doesn't have a presence on mobile OSes. It doesn't come bundled on any of them, and OEM agreements prevent that from ever happening. It also CANNOT run on two of those OSes at all (iOS and Windows Mobile) so basically FirefoxOS either has to succeed or there has to be a major shift back towards desktop/laptop OSes, and not ones like ChromeOS which basically are the same thing as the mobile OSes.

      In short, Mozilla have done what they can on mobiles, and haven't had any luck. And nobody wants to support them on the desktop while they catch up to the other browsers, so it's a fight on two fronts they're ill-equipped to fight. As much as Slashdot likes to lambast them for adding some "gee whiz" features to draw some attention, those features aren't the real reason that Firefox is losing users - it's simply because desktop Firefox is taking too long to bring up to speed in spite of Mozilla's efforts.

    17. Re:What's scary is by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Wow, I never thought about middle click pasting on Wayland. It's a feature I don't think about anymore, and I find myself mistakingly trying to use it while under Windows.
      I will thus keep running X11 forever if Wayland can't get its act together about it, or alternatively I will run Wayland with the built-in X11 server on top to manage the entire desktop or if that's possible every window or surface except the panels and video games.

    18. Re:What's scary is by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Here are the stats for a general insurance website, so it should be visited by a good range of users:

        1. Internet Explorer 34.73%
        2. Chrome 28.93%
        3. Safari 24.33%
        4. Firefox 8.90%
        5. Android Browser 1.57%

    19. Re:What's scary is by nctritech · · Score: 1

      http://www.floodgap.com/softwa... and you're welcome. ;)

    20. Re:What's scary is by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      It's a feature I don't think about anymore, and I find myself mistakingly trying to use it while under Windows.

      Then remap the action of your middle mouse button. I've been able to do that with every mouse I've owned in Windows for more than 15 years.

  8. h264 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    holy shit
    i haven't been this enthusiastic for a software update for anything in a long time

    1. Re:h264 support by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

      That isn't new this time around. It was added a few versions back.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    2. Re:h264 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's quite a nice release, overall. For me, the best feature is that CSS filters are now fully supported and enabled by default. Now it's just IE that's holding us back. On the other hand, I hope that it's not long before Mozilla catches up with IE and adds CSS Grid Layout.

    3. Re:h264 support by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Title says "MP4 support on Mac", does that mean Firefox still doesn't support it on Windows and Linux?

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    4. Re:h264 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Firefox has supported it for a long time on Windows and Linux. Firefox also downloads the OpenH264 codec implementation as an extension for use with WebRTC.

  9. And does it have a decent UI? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    I guess it has the same one as the last version, so no.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:And does it have a decent UI? by reikae · · Score: 1

      Vimperator still works, so yeah it does have a decent UI.

    2. Re:And does it have a decent UI? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I am an Emacs person....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:And does it have a decent UI? by reikae · · Score: 1

      Emacs probably includes its own web browser anyway.

    4. Re:And does it have a decent UI? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      It does. But text-mode browsing is a bit tedious these days...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  10. Re:Stop making a once slim browser fat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla has too much money to be able to deliver a good product. You give anyone unlimited budget and they will fuck up because of all the hookers and blow.

  11. Dumped it already by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    First I started with Palemoon because the interface wasn't that abortion they call Australis. But Palemoon seemed to be getting slower so I gave Chrome a try and liked it. Not without a few essential addons like Adblock, Flashblock, and a home button. We're at a crossroads right now like when Netscape 4 came out and IE really improved.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  12. Great. More "things I don't need" in my browse ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... like WebIDE, Marketplace and the new "Tools->Apps" menu item - that I (and 99% of all other Desktop users) will probably *never* use, but can't easily remove from the menu; WebRTC (rooms or otherwise) etc ... Crap, junk and bloat.

    Isn't there a version of Firefox that simply supports, you know, Web Browsing?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  13. Yahoooooo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yahoo search default. Good times.

  14. also changes your default search engine by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

    ...to "Yahoo!". Easy to change back, though. :)

  15. Re:Stop making a once slim browser fat! by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

    Please name a major browser vendor that has less money than Firefox. Mozilla is the only one of the "big four" browser vendors that isn't a huge multi-national corporation.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  16. Re:Great. More "things I don't need" in my browse by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And I'd like to follow up by asking the Firefox developers if they can add something like a "Features" tab under (perhaps) "Tools->Add-ons" to allow users to easily en/disable the various (non web-browsing) Firefox features, like WebIDE, WebRTC, Marketplace, Social, Taskbar Lists, Geo, Beacon, UI Tour, yada, yada, yada... -- so I don't have to scan through "about:config" looking for new things ending in ".enabled" (and the like) to set to "false" with every new Firefox release. Thank you in advance.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  17. They horribly broke sessions by ezakimak · · Score: 1

    I've been updating FF and successfully restoring my previous session for years.
    Now sessions don't even work with a brand new, fresh profile.
    Epic FAIL.

    1. Re:They horribly broke sessions by ezakimak · · Score: 2

      Discovered that session support is silently disabled in 35 if com.indexedDB.enabled = false.
      And no, I did not set that to false myself--don't know what addon did it nor when.
      FF provides no logging about the fact either.

    2. Re:They horribly broke sessions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to about:config?filter=dom.indexedDB.enabled and change that back to true in your original profile. Problem solved.

    3. Re:They horribly broke sessions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's an epic fail on their part that someone or something disabled a feature they didn't guess would be disabled, and haven't had the time to ensure was always on when sessions were on while working on all the other shit they have to get done? Geez. Talk about unforgiving. I guess if you or an addon turned off hardware acceleration in about:config, that would be an epic fail on Mozilla's part too for not telling you why things got slower?

    4. Re:They horribly broke sessions by ezakimak · · Score: 1

      The point is that FF 34 didn't depend on this setting while FF 35 *does*--and no warning was issued to explain the sudden loss of functionality.

    5. Re:They horribly broke sessions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you turn off autoupdate you won't have these problems.

  18. I can't remember by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    the last time they put out a release that actually had something that I used.

    1. Re:I can't remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, given your nick, if you use a Mac and peruse Youtube, odds are good that this release's MSE features will be something you use. Likewise the tiled rendering and other performance improvements will probably be "something you use" quite regularly. They've also added a couple of web APIs that websites are using more and more, the CSS Font API and CSS filters.

      Really, the only reason people feel this way is because they don't CARE about what's changed beyond the goofiest or most negatively-received ones. Anything positive generally feels insubstantial by comparison, so you start to paint this bizarre picture that nothing ever improves. It's surprising just how easily it afflicts people who think they're above that sort of mentality, though.

  19. Microsoft PAYS people and orgs. to use Bing! by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    I learned that Microsoft PAYS people to use Bing search! But people only get paid if they do Bing searches directly, not through Yahoo.

    I don't understand how that works. Can someone make a software robot to do searches and visit ads, and then get paid? Why have a job when your computer can make money unaided?

    Microsoft pays Yahoo, Yahoo then paid Mozilla Foundation to sneakily make Bing the default search engine, and not Google search, realizing that most people don't have the technical ability to know why their search results have begun to be less relevant.

    So:

    1) To get people to use its search engine, Microsoft feels that it is necessary to pay. That is an acknowledgement that Microsoft's Bing search is not of sufficient quality to do well without payment.

    2) 31% of Yahoo's revenue comes from Microsoft paying it to use Bing.

    3) That, basically, is an ad campaign to sell other browsers. As mentioned above, Yahoo paid Mozilla Foundation to change the search configuration of Firefox, without notice. I imagine that most people won't know what went wrong or how to re-configure Firefox. When people have problems with Firefox, they may switch to another browser, like Google's Chrome, or Pale Moon's 64-bit version of Firefox.

    4) People may think they are using Yahoo search, but there is no such thing as "Yahoo search". Actually, without being notified, Yahoo customers are using Microsoft Bing search, and their search information is being given to Microsoft.

    5) Microsoft pays Yahoo to use Bing. Yahoo pays Firefox to use Bing. Eventually, when the news about why Bing use is increasing is more widely known, people who don't feel comfortable with that sneaky behavior may switch to Google Chrome. In effect, Microsoft is paying for a powerful ad campaign to get people to switch to another browser.

    6) Those who want to be paid by Microsoft must use Bing directly, not through Yahoo.

    7) The trickiness and dishonesty may cause further collapse of Yahoo. In effect, Yahoo is being paid by Microsoft to decrease the popularity of Yahoo.

    8) In effect, Microsoft is paying Mozilla Foundation to make Firefox less popular.

    9) That may be a way to artificially increase Bing's search traffic, But It's Not Good (BING). To me, that's another example of Microsoft DIE, the Dastardly Insertion of Evil.

    10) And, of course, all of that is bad for Microsoft's already bad reputation because of being adversarial to customers, decreasing the popularity of anything from Microsoft. So, Microsoft is paying to decrease the popularity of Microsoft.

    That is so WEIRD that I feel compelled to joke about it. (WEIRD = When Every Idea Rates Dumb)

    1. Re: Microsoft PAYS people and orgs. to use Bing! by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how that works. Can someone make a software robot to do searches and visit ads, and then get paid? Why have a job when your computer can make money unaided?

      Yes, Google (or Bing) for bing rewards bot. You, too, can raise your utility bill while earning a whopping $5 worth of credits per month to apply to your XBox Live account. Don't quit your day job just yet.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  20. Hello, Goodbye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recently, we introduced Firefox Hello, the first global communications system built directly into a browser to help make things easier.

    Sounds great...

    For those of you who want to contact someone directly, you just need to make sure both parties have Firefox Accounts.

    Sounds shit!

  21. Zawinski's Law (sort of) by feufeu · · Score: 1

    “Every program attempts to expand until it includes a marketplace/appstore/.... Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which do.”

    1. Re:Zawinski's Law (sort of) by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      iOS has a store. Android has a store. Unsurprisingly, Firefox OS has a store.

      What they're doing is extending same said store to the desktop, so that you can run the apps from your phone on your PC.

      Quite handy if you're in the minority (myself included) that are blessed with a Firefox OS handset!

  22. Re:Great. More "things I don't need" in my browse by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    Careful what you wish for, next they'll take the "about:config" away.

  23. Re:Great. More "things I don't need" in my browse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The also added a default "don't load tabs until selected" and I'm really wondering why.

  24. Re:Stop making a once slim browser fat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What about us? We aren't huge, and we're the only one not based in the United States."

    -Opera Software

  25. Silverlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Silverlight still uses 100% CPU and software decoding.

  26. Re:Great. More "things I don't need" in my browse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because stupid autoplay videos on Yahoo news. You get to the tab after 15 minutes, and it's been sucking bandwidth for videos that never end.

  27. Firefox jumped the shark by Dwedit · · Score: 1

    Firefox jumped the shark when they finally did away with a functional search bar. Now it's all about the forks, like Palemoon.

    1. Re:Firefox jumped the shark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Care to elaborate on what makes the new search bar so much more complicated?

  28. Native admx controls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    pretty please

  29. Self-signed SSL is badly broken in recent firefox by caseih · · Score: 1

    Hmm I just found out that Firefox over 31 changed the way certificates are handled and now all my internal certs signed by own CA are broken. Can't even get an exception dialog box. Just an error about how it can't load the page. And from the bug reports, it sounds like a lot of devices are broken now too. Arguably I should comply with some 46-page document on CA Cert best practices. What a mess. Why does Firefox and Google keep pushing the idea that self-signed certs are not secure? In any case, with radical changes to core things like the SSL engine, how can any enterprise deal with Firefox?

  30. Mozzila Foundation, you need an intervention by jbssm · · Score: 0

    Seriously guys, nobody gives a damn about these nonsense features. Work on the memory hog that Firefox has become and work on fixing the crescent number of bugs and working on making it light again. Nobody cares about the stuff you keep adding anymore and it's just making the problem even worst.

    1. Re:Mozzila Foundation, you need an intervention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you kidding? Nobody cares about the hard work they're doing to fix the bugs and bring Firefox up to speed, either. Firefox has been steadily improving and catching up, but it's not like any of us notices how much work they're actually doing in that respect. Besides, it's not like the people working on these "useless" features could do the grunt-work to add the fixes that Firefox needs to bring it up to speed. They're simply screwed no matter what they do, because it's taking too long and we're loathe to support them during this time of transition because all we care about is the inevitable badness we've got to put up with along the way. If we the geeks really helped them test their alpha software then perhaps a lot of the bugs they introduce would be solved before release. Sure, some of the more inane UI things might slip through, but at least we could have addons and other solutions at the ready if a few devs won't listen and the rest are too busy to veto a poor implementation of some flashy new change.

  31. Not this shit again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG! Would you switch if they just went to a sane GUI? I mean, why in the hell do you people get bent out of shape over a version number? How is 35 any worse than 4.0.6.25a? People will bitch about anything....

    1. Re:Not this shit again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      35 is worse than 4.0.6.25a, because the latter has gotten 25 bug fix releases on top of the six minor changes since the last break everything release.

      35 is another break everything release with zero bug fixes.

      So, I wonder what they've broken this time. Other than add-ons, that's a given, every release breaks one or more add-ons (Please tell me at least Gtk-native isn't broken this time, the default gradients makes it hard to see which tab is active with my system color scheme).

  32. Re:Stop making a once slim browser fat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, Opera is now just a badge-engineered Chrome. The greatness that was Opera 12 is no more.

    What the world needs is an open-sourced Presto.

  33. They be spammin ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Foxit be spamming ads now mon! No wey I be installin dat bunk!

  34. Fucks up my porn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that FF is better than the other browsers except for one obviously glaring problem: choppy flash video. It is a real problem and no fault of my own so don't throw it back at me. Google will show many complaint threads. This is annoying as shit when I'm trying to crank out a quick one to internet porn. Don't you look at me with haughty derision either! You know, I know, and everyone else knows the Internet was made for porn.

    1. Re:Fucks up my porn! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I agree that FF is better than the other browsers except for one obviously glaring problem: choppy flash video. It is a real problem and no fault of my own so don't throw it back at me.

      I only have this problem with non-fullscreen video on Linux. On Win7, everything is fine.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  35. all about the bandwidth baby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed with other AC, it's to stop autoplay, but more importantly, to conserve bandwidth on mobile devices. You forget that FF has done a Win8 and decided even your desktop browser should function like a mobile one.

  36. Re:Stop making a once slim browser fat! by RebelWebmaster · · Score: 1

    You do realize that Mozilla is vastly smaller than every other major browser vendor except for maybe Opera (which as someone else said, is just rebadged chromium anyway these days)?

  37. Shines like a polished turd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox is also a smaller download, a smaller install, starts faster, runs JavaScript faster, allows plugins on the mobile version, and allows users to run their own sync server, compared with Chrome.

    Mozilla's work is really shining these days. Firefox is a better browser by every metric I can think of.

    You can polish a turd...

    You might want to think a little harder.

  38. MORE SHIT??? by ne0n · · Score: 1

    You haven't used it. I know this because the latest FF is actually quite good. I switched from Chrome to Firefox on Lollipop and there's no going back unless Chrome gives me custom search engines (Yandex, Baidu, DDG at a minimum) and better privacy options like rejecting third-party cookies. And performance is roughly the same. Desktop-wise Chromium is slightly better but the extensions are worse, like Youtube downloaders and things that Google hates.

    --
    $ :(){ :|:& };:
  39. Image mouseover is borked by stimpleton · · Score: 1

    Hover or mouseover is broken in 35. Something very haywire.

    --

    In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
  40. Re:Stop making a once slim browser fat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> Mozilla has too much money to be able to deliver a good product.
    > Please name a major browser vendor that has less money than Firefox.

    Every major browser vendor with a good product has less money than Firefox.

    > Mozilla is the only one of the "big four" browser vendors that isn't a huge multi-national corporation.

    By "big four", are you referring to "Surveillance state, Walled garden, Memory eater and Infection spreader"?

    And how is that relevant to the claim that "Mozilla has too much money to be able to deliver a good product."?

  41. Re:Great. More "things I don't need" in my browse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is actually a good thing. This way the tabs do not eat CPU until they are viewed for the first time. Of course, the alternative for this might be that the animated-gif/javascript/flash crap would be stopped from running when the page is not visible. But that might break eg. Youtube music player.

  42. Comment by pandronic · · Score: 1

    Go Firefox! Good job as always.

  43. Re:Stop making a once slim browser fat! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    And yet Mozilla receive north of $100 Million a year in income - just how large a budget do you need to write a web browser full time?

  44. You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I might start using Opera.

  45. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People still use this pile-of-shit browser?

  46. Cool fact by rubley · · Score: 1

    When Firefox runs out of memory now, it will login to Newegg for you and order more.

  47. More Importantly... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    considering that Google is by far the largest contributor to Mozilla, it would actually be in the best interests NOT to compete with Google.

    Though upon reading the wiki, it seems they are now getting the Money from Yahoo, of which MS takes a 12% cut as it actually goes though Bing, so it may not be in the best interests to compete with anyone really! :)

  48. Memory woes, but Extensions flow! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Well I don't use Firefox anymore other than as another alternate browser for weird instances... However I remember two things both good and bad:

    1) Memory management in Firefox was terrible (at least in the last version I used).
    2) Some Firefox extensions were very useful for certain things... Like Firebug and debugging JavaScript.

  49. Re:Self-signed SSL is badly broken in recent firef by caseih · · Score: 1

    I also should comply with RFCs too as my cert appears to violate part of one RFC. Problem was I'm not an SSL expert so I didn't know where to look. In any case, the devs have been fairly responsive on bugzilla to this issue and I've received a lot of help, which really impressed me. I've also suggested that in the future, the failure modes of SSL verification, particularly in Thunderbird, should pop up more descriptive messages than simply "unknown error occurred." Ideally a utility to check certificates against the now stricter and more correct criteria would be ideal.

  50. Re:Stop making a once slim browser fat! by RebelWebmaster · · Score: 1

    It's been answered before. A lot more than you think assuming you want to be able to hire competitively.