Slashdot Mirror


Firefox 37 Released

Today Mozilla began rolling out Firefox version 37.0 to release channel users. This update mostly focuses on behind-the-scenes changes. Security improvements include opportunistic encryption where servers support it and improved protection against site impersonation. They also disabled insecure TLS version fallback and added a security panel within the developer tools. One of the things end users will see is the Heartbeat feedback collection system. It will pop up a small rating widget to a random selection of users every day. After a user rates Firefox, an "engagement" page may open in the background, with links to social media pages and a donation page. Here are the release notes and full changelist.

87 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Opportunisic encryption brings attackers to light by NotInHere · · Score: 1

    Thanks, Mozilla!

  2. They disabled insecure TLS version fallback by yuhong · · Score: 3, Informative

    Older versions of the Certicom TLS stack used in older versions of WebLogic are affected for example (change to JSSE).

    1. Re:They disabled insecure TLS version fallback by yuhong · · Score: 1

      Well, SSLv2 did take a lot of additional code to support, but the same is not true for SSLv3. I think every browser was going to disable SSLv3 soon thanks to POODLE.

  3. Mozilla services by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is it so hard to install on your server stuff like mozilla sync, hello and link share ? Mozilla, you have take back the web now you should help people to take back the services.

  4. MSE Support by rsmith-mac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's still no working support for the Media Source Extensions, and as a result it has incomplete support for YouTube's HTML5 player. Lame.

    1. Re:MSE Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The HTML5 player works almost flawlessly for me. The only issue is that around 19 minutes @ 720p or around 45 minutes @ 480p, the video goes black while annotations, sound, and everything else works. I have to change the video resolution to get it to work again for, until it inevitably goes black again (if the video is even that long).

      Does anyone else experience this, or have other issues?

    2. Re:MSE Support by Fwipp · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not the programming language, "Ruby characters": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R... - annotations for East Asian languages that show how to pronounce a particular word.

    3. Re:MSE Support by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      It may not be on by default, and it may be 'incomplete', but I turned that on in Firefox some time ago and can view HTML5 YT videos in resolutions greater than 720p. It's certainly good enough for now (though I don't know why it's not on by default).

    4. Re:MSE Support by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      I enabled MSE in Firefox in the previous version, and the HTML5 YT videos seemed to work fine except 1080/60p videos, which stuttered a lot. As of v37, that seems to have also been fixed. YMMV, but it's A-OK for me.

    5. Re:MSE Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with the Ruby programming language.

      ruby, rb, rp, and rt are semantic html tags "attached to the main text for indicating the pronunciation or meaning of the corresponding characters. This kind of annotation is widely used in Japanese publications. It is also common in Chinese for books for children, educational publications, and dictionaries."

    6. Re:MSE Support by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      But they are working on support of hippie stuff like client side ruby. Mozilla, the hippie dragon!

      Not only is this just wrong, but where the heck do you get the idea that Ruby is a "hippie" language?

      I mean seriously. WTF?

    7. Re:MSE Support by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      I enabled MSE in Firefox in the previous version, and the HTML5 YT videos seemed to work fine except 1080/60p videos, which stuttered a lot. As of v37, that seems to have also been fixed. YMMV, but it's A-OK for me.

      Doesn't seem to work for me. Sort of.

      The "introductory" video on Achievement Hunter's Let's Play YouTube channel plays using the the HTML5 player, but nothing else seems to work.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    8. Re:MSE Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      no H264

      Your information is out of date. Firefox supports H.264, MP3 and AAC in HTML5 video with the OS supplied codecs (so no H.264 support on Windows XP or some versions of Windows Vista). Firefox even gets the OpenH264 H.264 implementation from Cisco to use with WebRTC.

    9. Re:MSE Support by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Google is notorious into making Google HTML 5, not W3C HTML 5 with sites like www.html5test.com which are Google based.

      IS MSE part of W3C?

    10. Re:MSE Support by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem to work for me. Sort of.

      The "introductory" video on Achievement Hunter's Let's Play YouTube channel plays using the the HTML5 player, but nothing else seems to work.

      Weird. I've been watching HTML5 videos in >720p resolution for some time now. What OS are you using? I'm using it on Windows. You enabled MSE via the about:config page, yes?

    11. Re:MSE Support by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      What OS are you using? I'm using it on Windows.

      Windows 7 64-bit.

      You enabled MSE via the about:config page, yes?

      Yepper. The only thing that wasn't enabled by default was WebM, which I did enable.

      I wondered if maybe AdBlock Plus and/or Ghostery were causing a problem so I disabled both of them (through the Add-on Manager), but Firefox still wouldn't play anything else...

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    12. Re:MSE Support by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1

      OK, so... it seems there was something broken about my Firefox profile. I realized I was able to play videos on my laptop install of Firefox. After renaming the profile directory on my desktop and letting Firefox recreate it, I was able to watch YouTube videos again.

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  5. Desktop release notes by ttyX · · Score: 1
  6. rating widget? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If it allows space for comments, I will be sure and let them know what I think of this terrible idea. Hopefully it will also include a checkbox 'Do not ask me again!'

    I mourn the loss of the classic clean, lightweight Firefox and a rational version numbering system.

  7. Oh, begging ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After a user rates Firefox, an "engagement" page may open in the background, with links to social media pages and a donation page

    So basically Firefox is going to nag and annoy their users.

    Good luck with that.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Oh, begging ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      from the related link in tfs...

      in about:config

      set browser.selfsupport.url to ""

      it does suck, however, that things like this (and the dreadful new search box, the new tab bullshit, etc) are forced on people who then have to figure out how to get rid of the shit or revert to the 'old way', which often means digging into about:config or adding a new third-party extension because they take so much control out of the options UI

      i miss the days when mozilla's goal for firefox was a lean, mean, extendable, browsing machine.

    2. Re:Oh, begging ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > they take so much control out of the options UI

      This is spreading everywhere like a disease, all for the sake that someone can sit at a desk and call themselves a "designer" and make witty descriptions of themselves on Twitter. I truly cannot wait for the tech bubble to burst

    3. Re:Oh, begging ... by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Well, they're funded by Yahoo now, so if they take after the practices of their funding source I'd expect them to annoy and drive away their users.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    4. Re:Oh, begging ... by CaTfiSh · · Score: 1

      I ran to a fork the moment they forced that horrible Australis onto everyone. You just don't force a completely new UI on users with something used as often as a browser. While learning a new layout isn't difficult, muscle memory is a powerful thing.

    5. Re:Oh, begging ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why their market share is going up, because they're giving the little people what they want. Oh, what's that, their market share is going down? Maybe the little people think the new interface is crap too?

    6. Re:Oh, begging ... by reikae · · Score: 1

      I didn't notice any change in my keyboard shortcuts or mouse gestures, thus no muscle memory retraining was needed. Maybe some icons changed shape or something like that, not a big deal for me.

  8. A new Firefox? by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh, is it Firefox Tuesday already?

    1. Re:A new Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, soon PaleMoon will incorporate the good changes while leaving out the stupid nagware crap and leaving the UI consistent.

    2. Re:A new Firefox? by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      What's "soon"?
      Pale Moon is built from the Extended Support branch, and we wont see another ESR branch come down from release until later this year.

    3. Re:A new Firefox? by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      I don't know exactly what "Pale Moon" is but the next ESR will be Firefox 38 in about six weeks.

    4. Re:A new Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      PaleMoon is a fork of Firefox without all the cruft that people started complaining about a couple years back. For starters it still has the good ol' UI from the version 30 days and it doesn't break all of your plugins with every update.

    5. Re:A new Firefox? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      It's a branch of firefox, basically the same thing without all the bullshit. I've been using mainly chromium(chrome branch) for the better part of two years. The chromium branch is the same as chrome minus the tracking components stripped out. For anyone interested you can grab the prebuilt here or grab the uncompiled version from the repository here and build your own.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:A new Firefox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually it's the other way around. Chromium == upstream and Chrome == Chromium + closed source proprietary freedom-disrespecting bits.

    7. Re:A new Firefox? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      For starters it still has the good ol' UI from the version 30 days...

      Australius was added in Firefox 29. Version 28 was the last one with the older interface.

    8. Re:A new Firefox? by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      What's "soon"?
      Pale Moon is built from the Extended Support branch, and we wont see another ESR branch come down from release until later this year.

      And that's a good thing. Many of us don't need or want a new web browser every day.

  9. Disabling Heartbeat - scroll down! by burni2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hi,

    anybody being annoyed to be asked over and over and over again?

    My stance is, if "fucking" developers can't feel the vibe of the users or lack common sense, they should not develop software for common people. ..Rate me - shape me - anyway you want it - as long as I'm alive..

    If Picasso would have also asked the people if they liked his early works, he would have commited suicide and not created something great.

    Disabling Heartbeat

    We understand that any interruption of your time on the internet can be annoying.

            open about:config
            set browser.selfsupport.url to ""
            enjoy the rest of your day!

    1. Re:Disabling Heartbeat - scroll down! by burni2 · · Score: 1

      darn I meant to scroll down on this page
      https://wiki.mozilla.org/Advoc...

    2. Re:Disabling Heartbeat - scroll down! by viperidaenz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Disabling Heartbeat

      We understand that any interruption of your time on the internet can be annoying.

                      open www.google.com/chrome
                      Download and install Chrome.
                      enjoy the rest of your day!

    3. Re:Disabling Heartbeat - scroll down! by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      All of Picasso's works were garbage. Only people with a taste for garbage would like anything he did. Hell, I've cleaned a paintbrush on a piece of cloth and created something better than Picasso. I've seen preschoolers with finger paints do better.

    4. Re:Disabling Heartbeat - scroll down! by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      open www.google.com/chrome
      Download and install Chrome.
      enjoy the rest of your day!

      Burma-Shave.

    5. Re:Disabling Heartbeat - scroll down! by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Ahem, major memory use issues in Chrome...

      The browser will use all of computer's memory. Forcing a shutdown of Chrome eventually, or total dog performance. Tons of people having this issue and clogging up the forums. I'm just telling Chrome users to do a full shutdown once a day, but this is hardly a solution.

      I submitted a story about this but...oh, shiney!

      --
      I come here for the love
    6. Re:Disabling Heartbeat - scroll down! by jma05 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand art very much and I certainly don't understand modern art. I don't have a taste for Picasso. But it cannot be denied that he introduced/developed several novel art forms and was a talented painter.

      > I've cleaned a paintbrush on a piece of cloth and created something better than Picasso. I've seen preschoolers with finger paints do better.

      That's just a cheap shot with no basis. You should at least make an effort to find out why people who venerate him as one of the greatest ever, do so. You and I are just not qualified to judge it. Your critiques are no different from a religious fundamentalist who pooh poohs Science without making an effort to study it beyond high school.

    7. Re:Disabling Heartbeat - scroll down! by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      have to admit that it's completely stupid the way chrome has 10 same-named processes in an emergency with me having zero idea of which ones will kill which tab or the whole browser session.

      This, and the "use all memory" bug are the reasons I don't use Chrome. At least with Firefox I can (1) close non-essential tabs, (2) shut it down, (3) reload it and get reasonable memory usage.

      Using all memory, with nothing but Netflix player running, is supremely uncool of Chrome.

      So, my browser pair is Firefox and Opera...

      --
      I come here for the love
  10. Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a Firefox user, I'm very concerned when I see its market share dropping month after month.

    These stats from US gov't websites show Firefox's market share at 11%.

    Other global stats paint a very similar picture.

    Globally, I suspect that Firefox's share of the market is only about 10%. That's pretty abysmal, especially for a browser that was so popular once. It used to hold well over 30% of the market at one time.

    Chrome for Android alone now has a greater share of the market than Firefox on all platforms does. Even IE 11, by itself, has about as many users as Firefox does in total.

    Why aren't trends like these scaring the living hell out of Mozilla, as an organization?

    Don't they realize that Firefox is the only reason they have any sort of influence over the web? Nobody really cares about any of their other projects, I hate to say.

    Why don't we hear more from Mozilla about this market share issue? The number of Firefox users keeps dropping month after month, probably because so many Firefox users are unhappy about the awful UI changes, and about how its memory usage and performance continues to lag Chrome and even IE. I want to see real results, not just unrealistic benchmarks showing mythical improvements that I don't actually get to experience as I browse the web!

    Nobody will care what Mozilla thinks if the number of Firefox users continues to drop each month. This trend won't continue forever. At some point there will be a negligible number of Firefox users around, and Mozilla will be powerless at that point. Google already has enough power as it is. In that situation, they'd have almost full control over the web. That scares me a lot, and it should scare Mozilla, too!

  11. The Important Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We understand that any interruption of your time on the internet can be annoying.

    1. open about:config
    2. set browser.selfsupport.url to ""
    3. enjoy the rest of your day!
  12. They already have a feedback system. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Firefox has had a "Submit Feedback" menu option for some time now.

    We can even view the results: https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/

    As I write this, almost 10,000 people have responded within the past week. 88% of the responses are "Sad" ones! Only 12% are "Happy"!

    I don't know why they need another system to tell them exactly what those stats say very clearly: Firefox users are just not happy with the product!

    Even the most despised national leaders never get a popularity ranking that goddamn bad, even during the worst scandals and the greatest upheaval.

    Something is really, really wrong with Firefox in order for it to be so consistently rated so badly by so many users. This isn't just about the usual unhappy people expressing their displeasure. This is about almost everyone being unhappy with Firefox!

    1. Re:They already have a feedback system. by caferace · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think you understand how feedback systems work. Feedback by it's very nature is typically negative. It's a self-chosen system. Happy people have little incentive to say "This is great!. People with issues do have incentive because they feel a product or service is interfering with their way of doing things.

      Popularity rankings for National leaders are based on random polls. The numbers are not derived from people who self choose to respond, rather from those who are contacted randomly.

      Apples to Oranges.

  13. Rating panel needs one more option by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Either: Don't ask me again.
    Or: A link to download another browser that won't beg for money.

  14. Too late by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2, Informative

    I dumped Firefox when they changed to the hipster bullshit minimalist interface known as Australis. For a while Waterfox and Palemoon were doing a decent job. One day I decided to try Chrome to see how 60fps video looked on Youtube. Talk about night and day. Chrome is so much more responsive and doesn't use as many resources. Grab the usual essential addons (uBlock, Flashblock, etc) and you're good to go. No wonder Firefox has a dwindling user base. Instead of improving whats already there I get a video chat client and a paper airplane button to alert people on social media? Is this like email forwarding of the 90s?

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's like Netscape 1997 all over again, when Netscaster and "push" was going to be the next big thing. Mozilla is going to die the same death because it's the same idiots in charge for the most part.

    2. Re:Too late by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      I think Mozilla needs to rewrite the browser from scratch....

      *ducks*

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Too late by clintre · · Score: 2

      That is actually incorrect. Firefox uses less memory than Chrome and actually has a faster start up time. Chrome treats each tab as a separate resource, which has benefits, but also causes it to be more of a resource hog. The interface on Firefox and Chrome are very similar, so that is an interesting take that you have an issue with that and like Chrome. Chrome most certainly has a lot of benefits as well and I like several of them. However certain addons I like Firebug, do not work the same in Chrome and are more of a headache for me personally. I have tried to switch to Chrome several times over changes I dislike on Firefox, but I have never stayed with it as Chrome still has too many things I don't like. I do still however use it for cloud based apps and a few other things. I also use it to test web apps that I develop, so I am very used to how it works in comparison to other browsers.

    4. Re:Too late by Cola+Junkee · · Score: 1

      Certainly UI is a matter of opinion, and you may argue about responsiveness. But "doesn't use as many resources" has pretty much been proven at this point to be utter BS.

      --

      f u cn rd ths, u r prbbly a lsy spllr.

    5. Re:Too late by sanf780 · · Score: 1

      You forget that Chrome on Windows had this feature of messing Windows internal tics. It made Chrome work faster at the expense of eating battery life on the laptops.

    6. Re:Too late by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      On a normal day Chrome never uses more than a few Gb of memory. Of course I don't have hundreds of tabs open like some people. What is the point of that anyhow? You can only read one thing at a time and can you really know what each tab is?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    7. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With sane choices dwindling, I'm starting to ask myself: Is IE really so bad these days? I don't want to use a browser made by an advertising company. Or one being ruined by a bunch of tards.

    8. Re:Too late by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      I use both, and find Firefox generally has superior performance and memory usage.
      The "hipster bullshit minimalist interface known as Australis" is unfortunate, but Classic Theme Restorer takes care of that.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    9. Re:Too late by Parker+Lewis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just did the opposite: switched to Firefox because Chrome was too resource intensive. And Firefox, at least in Linux, follows the system look and feel. For Youtube, I just disabled Flash (at all), so I have the same HTML5 player.

    10. Re:Too late by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      They are doing that already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    11. Re:Too late by ewibble · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Firefox and Chrome have very similar UIs, Any difference is minor. They have very similar performance from user perspective, and are both much better than IE.

      I choose to use Firefox as my main browser, mainly because Google have enough control of the internet they don't need to own the browser too.

      absolute power corrupts absolutely

      If Google wanted not to be evil (I know that's no longer one of their stated goals), then they wouldn't try to have their sticky fingers in everything.

    12. Re:Too late by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Chrome works best with Google sites, so that's what I will use.

      The problem is, any time you use anything else, Chrome is only better if it's wide open. If you want to lock your browser down a bit, that's possible with Chrome, but it's not quite as secure and configuration is a bit more annoying.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Too late by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      That may be true with a small session, or a minimal number of open tabs. Yet, with a large session|many tabs, FF becomes unresponsive regularly (CPU Spikes) and there's almost nothing you can do to make it release RAM, except for closing the browser. FF's CPU usage also spikes on launch 30-50% on a quad core with a large session, even when only a single tab of a given window is loaded on launch. The CPU usage also spikes whenever you manage tabs (move|close).

      Compared to almost any other Browser FF lags badly in terms of resource management, including IE11, and Blink-based browsers (Chrome, Opera, etc). It also doesn't seem to matter what branch of FF you use, they all are horrible at resource management (FF Nightly 32bit or 64, WaterFox/64bit, FF Dev 32bit (previously Aurora).

      I really doubt the shrinking user-base has much if anything to do with Australis either, it's pretty easy to add back the Status Bar, Addon Bar, or any number of bars that you want.

      Although personally, I wonder why the hell they (Mozilla) don't distribute some of their Devs or money ($120+ Million for FF Development in 2012) to some of the MAJOR Addon authors and help them get on board with Electrolysis (e10s). I imagine FF's user-base will shrink even further before (or if) Mozilla ever sees the light.

    14. Re:Too late by Jahta · · Score: 1

      That may be true with a small session, or a minimal number of open tabs. Yet, with a large session|many tabs, FF becomes unresponsive regularly (CPU Spikes) and there's almost nothing you can do to make it release RAM, except for closing the browser. FF's CPU usage also spikes on launch 30-50% on a quad core with a large session, even when only a single tab of a given window is loaded on launch. The CPU usage also spikes whenever you manage tabs (move|close).

      Compared to almost any other Browser FF lags badly in terms of resource management, including IE11, and Blink-based browsers (Chrome, Opera, etc). It also doesn't seem to matter what branch of FF you use, they all are horrible at resource management (FF Nightly 32bit or 64, WaterFox/64bit, FF Dev 32bit (previously Aurora).

      And yet there are lots of Firefox users, like me, who never experience the issues you describe. Firefox is my main browser. I use it heavily all day, every day, and haven't had memory or CPU problems in years. I suspect that a lot of the reported Firefox resource issues have more to do with the combination of extensions/plugins that people have installed than Firefox itself.

    15. Re:Too late by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      With sane choices dwindling, I'm starting to ask myself: Is IE really so bad these days? I don't want to use a browser made by an advertising company. Or one being ruined by a bunch of tards.

      Spartan is a firefox style rewrite similiar to Firefox from Mozilla a decade ago.

      The roles have reversed in the browsers.

    16. Re:Too late by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Firefox is very outdated.

      Chrome and IE (yes IE) have since 2009 used per process for each tab for security and reliability. So you maybe fine if you have 6 tabs. 30 tabs?? One bad javascript and BAM all the rest of the 29 tabs go with it. One malicious javascript in a tab can sniff the others through an exploit too.

      So yes Chrome is better just from an architecture point of view.

      Firefox is known to have forks in its database stored in your Firefox profile. This means very slow startups too over time. Chrome and IE do not have this issue.

  15. Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How many 10+ year-old bugs in Firefox 36 are fixed in 37? Oh, is that none you say. Yawn!

  16. All your Cookies are belong too U.S. ? by burni2 · · Score: 1

    Just in case you forgot to mention.

  17. At one time, I was all in on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not into Firefox anymore, and from some latest browser stats which some even put Safari ahead of Firefox thanks to mobile. I think Firefox has some tough road ahead. We can all see how this came to be as Firefox choose to mimic Google and come out with rapid releases to somehow bring relevance back to Firefox as a browser that stays current. Unfortunately they kept losing a lot of the polish with every release and bugs kept creeping in and out of every release. Its really not
    a bad browser except for those periods where they (Mozilla) break something important and you end up using another browser out of frustration. A real pity that the real important feature of a browser beyond extensions, or speed or compatibility is stability. I wish Firefox well but the loss of Google ad revenue, the somewhat questionable update path and the now desperate marriage to Yahoo only means more questions then answers as too what will happen to Firefox.

  18. Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Have you ever tried to talk sense in a bug report on Bugzilla? Most of the Mozilla crew aren't interested in fixing bugs users want fixed, they're downright hostile. It's all about people's pet projects and inflated egos. Just go to Bugzilla yourself and look at how many of the top vote getting bugs are fixed and how many are over 10 YEARS old. At this point it's become a pissing match between users and Mozilla, with Mozilla thumbing their noses at users and daring them to use another browser if they don't like it. Users are taking them up on that offer.

  19. Re: Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share i by senatorpjt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how much of that is just perception - I have found that when comparing the latest Chrome and Firefox that Firefox has better performance, at least in terms of CPU usage and memory consumption. I was surprised by this because I generally use it with Firebug which drastically impairs the performance, I just didn't realize how bad it was.

  20. Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a Firefox user, I'm very concerned when I see its market share dropping month after month.

    These stats from US gov't websites show Firefox's market share at 11%.

    Other global stats paint a very similar picture.

    Globally, I suspect that Firefox's share of the market is only about 10%. That's pretty abysmal, especially for a browser that was so popular once. It used to hold well over 30% of the market at one time.

    Chrome for Android alone now has a greater share of the market than Firefox on all platforms does. Even IE 11, by itself, has about as many users as Firefox does in total.

    Why aren't trends like these scaring the living hell out of Mozilla, as an organization?

    Because the Firefox devs think their browser should pander to the tablet-interface loving users, with advanced features hidden and the GUI dumbed down - while a large part of their user base specifically wants an "advanced" browser with lots of addons which does NOT look like Chrome. So lots of users are leaving, and the Firefox devs in their ivory tower wonder why nobody likes their "vision" of the perfect browser and why the users do not "get" that the devs KNOW what's best.

  21. w00t!! Demise of insecure fallback by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2

    This is awesome news. Congratulations to Mozilla for taking the lead on this.

  22. Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why aren't trends like these scaring the living hell out of Mozilla, as an organization?

    I think they probably do. At least, that's the reason I've always felt explained the Chromification of Firefox. That dumbing-down and relative takeover of the project direction by "UX designers" and "social media engineers" was allowed because the powers at the top felt that it was the only way they could try and recover some of the userbase lost to Chrome.

    What they don't realize is that Firefox was created to "take back the web" from the stagnating Internet Explorer 6. It was never about replacing IE as some overbearing dominant beast.

    And Firefox succeeded! Development on IE was revitalized by Microsoft, Google released Chrome, and work was renewed on web standards (a whole 'nuther can of worms there, but a separate topic). How did Firefox accomplish this? By being fast, lean, developer-friendly, power-user friendly, absurdly extensible, and with simple and clear design goals.

    If Mozilla had simply stuck to these principles, Firefox user share would still have gone down -- it was a certainty due to the additional options for reasonable browsers, mobile usage, Google bundling Chrome with everything they can get their hands on, etc. However, I think it would have gone down less, and maybe even a lot less if they'd remained the browser they were rather than turning into the little puppy following Chrome around.

    People who left Firefox for Chrome because they liked Chrome's design better would still have left. But with ChromiFox, people who don't like Chrome are leaving too, because if you're stuck with either Chrome or Chrome Light, you may as well go for the real deal. Sure, there are projects like Ice Weasel and LucidFox which attempt to bring some of that back, but they're relatively niche and don't have the visibility or word-of-mouth needed to take off.

    In short: Mozilla abandoned their primary design goals and principles, the same ones that made Firefox great, and the result is user loss, stagnation and, probably, eventual obscurity. As someone who used Firebird, this make me very sad.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
  23. Will try to play video in HTML 5.0 mode now. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    There's also an important change in Firefox 37.0--if you access YouTube, videos are played back with the HTML 5.0 player, eliminate the use of Adobe Flash to play back videos. Hopefully, this means smoother video playback at higher resolutions. Hopefully, this applies to embedded videos from other sources.

  24. Here's how to disable "Heartbeat feedback" by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

    1. Open about:config in the browser

    2. Change browser.selfsupport.url to “”

    3. Go to https://input.mozilla.org/en-U... and tell Mozilla to stop wasting our time with bullshit like the "heartbeat feedback" and gratuitous GUI changes and focus on more important things like fixing the damn bugs.

  25. Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

    You might be right, Firefox does seem to be experiencing a certain level of feature creep and bloat these days. Perhaps Mozilla should think about a new browser, one that is specifically designed to be fast and high-performance, while still adhering to the standards. They could call it Phoenix.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  26. Pull update? by Bengie · · Score: 1

    Did they pull the update? I updated at work just fine, but at home, it now claims I have the newest version with 36.0.4

  27. Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

    LucidFox

    I have no idea where that came from, but it sure rolled off the keyboard easily enough. I'd actually intended to mention the PaleMoon fork of Firefox.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
  28. If only Safari still had RSS... by petsounds · · Score: 1

    I'd dump Firefox in a second if Safari 8.x had RSS feeds. I'm very impressed by Safari 8, but I use RSS for all my news browsing so it's a non-starter as a main browser. I don't want sites "pushing" their updates onto me. Unfortunately Firefox is a piece of junk that not only provides a often-buggy experience on sites, but continues to weigh it down with product features I do not want and never asked for in a browser. Ironically, the current state of Firefox reminds me of Mozilla Navigator, the browser which was the impetus for Firefox being born in the first place. Everything that happened before will happen again. And I'll never touch Chrome, a browser built by a company who considers me and my privacy as their product. So, I remain a grudging user of Firefox and count the days until I can get out of its bug-infested prison.

  29. Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

    Because the Firefox devs think their browser should pander to the tablet-interface loving users, with advanced features hidden and the GUI dumbed down - while a large part of their user base specifically wants an "advanced" browser with lots of addons which does NOT look like Chrome.

    I was rather shocked when I first ran Firefox on Android, I was expecting,well, Firefox, but what I got was some massively dumbed-down piece of junk that was worse than a range of no-name Android-only browsers from vendors I'd never heard of before. I eventually went with one of them, and at one point submitted a bug report. Within a few hours I had a reply, and a fix. It was everything Firefox should be, but isn't.

    I've been a Firefox user since Phoenix 0.3, but none of my mobile devices runs it, and desktop is only hanging on because of all the plugins (of which, admittedly, about half are installed just to undo all the crap they've done to the browser in the last few years).

    Still, at least they're hard at work on Firefox OS, which is what the market has been crying out for.

  30. Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're a moron.

  31. Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    What they don't realize is that Firefox was created to "take back the web" from the stagnating Internet Explorer 6. It was never about replacing IE as some overbearing dominant beast.

    The problem is that it still ended up with an overbearing dominant beast, just a different one - Chrome (or rather WebKit/Blink, but Chrome is the lion's share of that). The good part is that we're still in the stage where stagnation is not a thing yet. The bad part is that it could change literally overnight.

  32. Re: Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share i by nizmogtr · · Score: 1

    I have found quite the opposite. I build both firefox and chrome from source, and firefox's performance always lags behind chrome.

  33. Re: What, seriously by dave420 · · Score: 1

    He quit after he was discovered to have funded an organisation which sought to actively deny basic human rights to some, based purely on a shoddy interpretation of a very old book. Missing that part out kind of distorts your account.

  34. Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Odd I am routing for Spartan not identifying as webkit.

    Reason being is if webmasters only see -webkit they will ignore W3C and Firefox will be toast as websites won't look right.

    It will be 2004 all over again with a new IE 6. IE and Firefox are the ones fighting which is strange and so opposite of 10 years ago.

  35. Re:Why doesn't Moz acknowledge the market share is by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Speaking of this as Firefox was Netscape reborn after a complete rewrite ... Spartan is the Firefox of IE a complete rewrite.

    IE/trident desperately needs this.

    FYI IE was a great browser in the 1990s. Even IE 6 in 2001 had some bugs but was a decent 2000 era compliant and modernbrowser for its time. IE invented CSS, ajax, dynamic html, etc.

    It because very buggy, insecure, extremely outdated, and poorly managed FAST last decade and by 2004 it was a POS compared to Opera and Mozilla (pre Firefox).

    Spartan is still behind at 2012 levels but man it works well and is fast and has a future if MS keeps adding features into its new base.

  36. Auto Update by scumfuker · · Score: 1

    'Never' I can't take it anymore.