Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Responds To Firefox User Backlash Over Pocket Integration

An anonymous reader writes: Last week, Mozilla updated Firefox to add Pocket integration — software that lets you save web articles to read later. Over the weekend, some Firefox users began to voice their displeasure over the move on public forums like Bugzilla, Google Groups, and Hacker News. The complaints center around Pocket being a proprietary third-party service, which already exists as an add-on, and is not a required component for a browser. Integrating Pocket directly into Firefox means it cannot be removed, only disabled. In response, Mozilla has released a statement saying users like the integration and the integration code is open source.

351 comments

  1. so... by zlives · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ad block and no script baked in next?

    1. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    2. Re:so... by doconnor · · Score: 2

      I believe they removed the Ad Block app because it removed ad from other apps.

      Including ad block in Firefox would only effect Firefox, so it would probably be okay.

    3. Re:so... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      except Firefox for Android being in the Play store

    4. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ad block and no script baked in next?

      I suspect they'll get sued for ad-block... No script is bad for ordinary users.

    5. Re:so... by Xenx · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's not the point. The point is that Google(in theory) will allow an app to block ads that display within itself, but not other apps installed on the device. Thus, an adblocking browser is ok because it only affects the browser itself.

    6. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I believe they apped the App App app because it apped apps from other apps.

      Apped that for you!

      Apps!

    7. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this -1? First thing I read today that made me laugh. Good job.

    8. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because one of the downsides of recurrent trolling about one theme in multiple stories is garnering reflexive downvotes even when you are actually on-topic for once.

      roman_mir would be a good non-AC example of a user who suffers from this sort of karma.

    9. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not the point. The individual user is the person who gets to decide whether they want to see ads on their computer or device, not Google.

    10. Re:so... by Deathlizard · · Score: 2

      Doubtful. They don't pay enough.

      Apparently, the Mozilla foundation is in money trouble. They're baking ads in the new tab page. They switch to Yahoo cause Google won't pay them anymore. They "partner" with Telefonica to add Hello to Firefox, now they're "partners" with Pocket.

      I'm guessing Firefox 39 will add Superfish integration to give me a more personalized web experience and justify it because it's already installed on millions of PC's.

    11. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should have been baked in first.

      Without the stupid default whitelists. (The default whitelist should be the empty set.)

      Then vertical tabs-as-an-option should have come next, in this day and age of widescreen devices.

    12. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The individual user is the person who gets to decide whether they want to see ads on their computer or device, not Google.

      This is why we end up with software/hardware lockdown, because a bunch of fucktard entitlists always see that they can get around the revenue stream of the content providers. How short sighted to you have to be with not seeing a problem in cutting off the livelihood of the content providers that create the content you want?

    13. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wasn't firefox originally created to reduce the bloat of earlier versions?

      this and other moves seem fly right in the face of that...

    14. Re:so... by vilanye · · Score: 1

      Is this a joke?

      I am not entitled to say what can or can not be displayed on a device that I paid for?

      Corporations Über Alles

    15. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not entitled to say what can or can not be displayed on a device that I paid for?

      Perhaps you need to re-read the post because I clearly did not imply that you werent entitled to do that, of course you can but if that content is supported by some revenue stream then your choice is to accept that or to not display that content. Or do you not see a problem in cutting off the livelihood of the content providers that create the content you want? The more people circumvent the revenue streams of content creators the more hellbent on platform lockdown those people become.

      If you don't want ads then don't view ad-supported content, if you don't want to pay for content then restrict yourself to free content instead, content released under "Creative Commons" or public domain for example. Or perhaps you have an alternative revenue method for them?

      Seriously it is ads on a webpage, a dollar for a song, a few bucks for a movie, etc yet some people get so bent out of shape and angry about it. The result (even if you pretend it isnt happening) is that we have more locked-down platforms like iOS, curated app stores like the Play Store, Software-as-a-Service and content delivery mechanisms moving to streaming services rather than download-and-keep.

      Please be aware that I'm not asking you to agree with it, I just want to know that you understand that content creators need revenue even if you think this is not the way it should be done.

    16. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My computer, my choice. Sorry, but as the OWNER, *I* get to decide what is displayed and what isn't.

      No, the entitlement is purely on the side of marketing scumbags who think they should be able to do what they want with equipment that doesn't belong to them.

    17. Re:so... by vilanye · · Score: 1

      If they need revenue there are other ways to go about it without using sleazy tactics.

      Wikipedia exists with zero ads.

      It can be done.

      I block all ads and honestly, there is nothing I will be missing if those sites/services shut down.

      Even if I didn't block them, I wouldn't click on them and if they annoyed me they would go on my blacklist of things never to buy. I have blacklisted all products from companies solely based on their ads annoying me. I don't base my purchasing decisions on ads anyway. I have no moral, ethical or legal obligation to look at ads, click on them or buy anything because of them.

      There is always someone that will do it better. If they can't stay in business without using ads than good riddance. That is the market telling them they aren't wanted or needed.

    18. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and how do you do that on *your* iphone then or in Netflix, Hulu or HBO Go? Oh right you cant, your choice is the content with the ads or nothing at all. Computers are less free now than ever and content channels are becoming more controlled and more exclusive to locked down platforms yet you dinosaurs just continue sticking your heads in the sand as though it isnt happening.

      Sorry, but as the OWNER, *I* get to decide what is displayed and what isn't.

      Sorry but unless you are using a free platform you dont because you arent the owner, just a licensee. Even on free platforms like Android you have the content wrapped in a proprietary non-free blob (like the Netflix app) where your choice is to display what they tell you or display nothing at all. You think this wont happen with web content if authors' revenue streams are cut off? Think again. Whether it is hubris or ignorance that leads to fail to admit this doesnt really matter, by all means feel free to stick your head back in the sand with your "its my choice" nonsense but unless this is addressed the lockdown will continue and soon you wont be offered a choice at all --- aside from content-as-intended or nothing. Even your free platforms will be locked out.

    19. Re:so... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      That's not the point. The point is that Google(in theory) will allow an app to block ads that display within itself, but not other apps installed on the device. Thus, an adblocking browser is ok because it only affects the browser itself.

      Privacy Badger does a good job

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    20. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they need revenue there are other ways to go about it without using sleazy tactics.

      So paying for content and monetizing through advertising are "sleazy tactics" now are they?

      Wikipedia exists with zero ads.

      Wikipedia begs for donations every couple of months, are you going to donate to every website you visit?

      There is always someone that will do it better. If they can't stay in business without using ads than good riddance. That is the market telling them they aren't wanted or needed.

      You are missing the bigger picture, the fact is they are wanted and they can stay in business by forcing those ads or payments through a locked platform (usually a proprietary, closed source application), that is the direction Music (Apple Music, Spotify, XBox Music, Google Play Music, Pandora, etc), Film/Television (Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, HBO Go, etc) and even software (Office 365, Adobe CS Live, etc) are already going. Is it ignorance or do you genuinely not see that computing and content delivery are becoming more locked down that ever? Somehow you think the web is magically safe from this happening.

      Content producers move to locked platforms for delivery to preserve their revenue streams, you would have to be a complete and utter fool to not see this happening particularly at the rapid pace it is changing.

    21. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and how do you do that on *your* iphone then or in Netflix, Hulu or HBO Go?

      I don't use any of those and have no interest in ever doing so.

      Computers are less free now than ever

      You are a fucking idiot. My computer is only as "unfree" as I want it to be. That's the whole point, my computer does what I tell it to do.

      Sorry but unless you are using a free platform you dont because you arent the owner, just a licensee.

      Wrong. I own the copy of my OS and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent me from using it, tweaking it, hacking or whatever I want. License implies an ability to revoke, which is not the case.

      You got any more excuses, marketing scumbag?

    22. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't use any of those and have no interest in ever doing so.

      Good for you! But do you see the move of content distribution to these models or are you going to stick your head in the sand and say that exclusivity to those delivery mechanisms can't happen? You think the web is safe from this?

      My computer is only as "unfree" as I want it to be. That's the whole point, my computer does what I tell it to do.

      Yes Im sure you have inspected all the source code and know exactly what your computer is doing. Look at UEFI, at all the proprietary bootloaders and drivers in phones and tablets for example and that is even before you get to the operating system and the applications on top of it --- the content delivery platforms I am talking about.

      Wrong. I own the copy of my OS and there is nothing anyone can do to prevent me from using it, tweaking it, hacking or whatever I want.

      I am talking about content, you can have a free OS all you want but content is becoming more and more wrapped in proprietary locked containers, can you actually not see that this is happening or are you choosing to ignore it?

      fucking idiot

      marketing scumbag

      I see your response is emotional rather than rational, when I'm warning you of the change that is happening you're just sitting there in denial and then getting angry at me for pointing it out. I can see you're upset but why are you so angry at me?

    23. Re:so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also I forgot to mention --- and based on your response it probably is not be clear to you --- that I am not advocating advertising as a revenue mechanism for content creators since clearly many people do not like advertising. What I am saying is that there needs to be some revenue stream for content creators and since people have been circumventing the existing ones the content creators are choosing more locked down channels for delivery. You do see that don't you?

  2. Oh mozilla by blueshift_1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... telling the users what they like. Well done.

    1. Re:Oh mozilla by Ravaldy · · Score: 1, Troll

      Fact is that those who like it won't complain so you only hear those with a negative opinion about it.

      In my experience most companies do not implement features for fun. They do it because it's feedback they received from a large number of users. The fact that it can be disabled pretty much closes the case in my opinion but I guess some purist fanatics will complain.

    2. Re:Oh mozilla by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fact is that those who like it won't complain

      ... and those that know nothing about it also won't complain either.

      The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink. In the end, you have a program that does everything for everyone, that nobody really can use effectively. IT is a choice of providing 95% of what everyone needs, in a small easy to use package, or having 99.9999% of what everyone MIGHT need in a package that is too bloated to actually be usable.

      How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Oh mozilla by luvirini · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately Mozilla has been doing this for quite a while.

      It used to be that firefox was the most userfriendly and at the same time most extendable browser with fairly good stability and fairly high resource use.

      Now it is a lot less userfriendly, though still as extendable with better stability than before and while the resource use has not really changed the other browsers have started using more and more resources so by relative position it is very good in resource use.

      What makes me gringe with each major update of firefox is how it gets more and more annoying to use, that is you need to tweak, install extensions and disable more and more to get it closer to a usable browser.

    4. Re:Oh mozilla by grimmjeeper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?

      I don't. I always have either Notepad++ or VIM installed on every machine so that I have a useful text editor. I haven't had to stoop to using Notepad/Wordpad for a very long time.

    5. Re:Oh mozilla by Ravaldy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ... and those that know nothing about it also won't complain either

      What they don't know doesn't affect them.

      The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink

      You're assuming that it's what happened here. Dev time is costly, most companies try to avoid wasting it whenever possible. And please don't put software in the same boat as laptop manufacturers.

      what everyone MIGHT need in a package that is too bloated to actually be usable.

      You know we are talking about a browser. Mozilla is far from being a burden for even the oldest computer I have in my office (7+ years old). I believe the google bar offered in almost every install package these days to be a bigger burden to most systems.

      How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?

      Are you suggesting notepad/wordpad should not be included in the OS as it's bloatware? What if I didn't need notepad? What if I always install another text editor, why do I need notepad now? Is it bloatware of convenience?

    6. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In what universe are you people living? I haven't used any piece of software whose UI has been slowed down by "bloat" for at least 15 years.

    7. Re:Oh mozilla by Wootery · · Score: 1

      The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink

      Which gives rise to the software circle of life: when all the existing solutions are too overweight, a new lightweight competitor appears, and gradually bloats, until the cycle begins again. Browsers, Linux desktop environments, programming-languages...

    8. Re:Oh mozilla by sjames · · Score: 1

      In my experience, companies implement whatever the manager (who was kicked in the head too many times as a child) thinks will be good, then insists to the users that they really wanted it.

    9. Re:Oh mozilla by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're just learning from the developers of Gnome, systemd, and slashcode.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    10. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fact is that those who like it won't complain so you only hear those with a negative opinion about it.

      You hear those who are infuriated enough to complain. Plenty others simply move on to another browser without saying a word.

    11. Re:Oh mozilla by ProzacPatient · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why not? It works for Apple.

      On a more serious note I've been a loyal Firefox user for the past 12 years however I'm getting rather upset with the direction it has taken the past couple years, however I don't want to use Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer or Edge (all of which are owned and maintained by large corporations) and since Opera has jumped on the WebKit bandwagon making it a glorified Chrome skin I'm thinking maybe it's time for a new open source browser. The only browser I can think of that isn't tied to some other browser is Konqueror but unfortunately I find KHTML to be somewhat awful and even if it wasn't Konqueror is *nix only.

      tl;dr: Mozilla has become detached from what made early Firefox versions great and it's probably time for them to be replaced.

    12. Re:Oh mozilla by chiefcrash · · Score: 2

      What they don't know doesn't affect them.

      The government must *love* you...

      --
      Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
    13. Re:Oh mozilla by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps it's time for a community-driven, open--source reboot that will focus on producing a lean, mean, standards-compliant browser without all the politics and bloat, but which is very flexible and user-configurable.

      Maybe we can call it, "Phoenix".

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    14. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is all money. They implement whatever they think will get them the most money (with examples in parentheses). Whether it is directly through cash (like the yahoo search change) increase users (firefox os) or at least preventing their loss (the drm and hello fiasco).

    15. Re:Oh mozilla by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What are you smoking? and where can I get some?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    16. Re:Oh mozilla by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see a word processor that uses forum code (BBCode)
      Page length should be infinite, or quite a good length by default.
      There'd be an optional hypertext feature that works as well as Microsoft QBASIC's help (or raw html).
      Export to epub or html with some easy pretty-printing function (layout, backgrounds) you don't have to care about.

      Really, why should every text program always have WYSIWYG on A4 pages with rulers, 40 default buttons and a hundred menus? It's always either that or a raw text editor (vi, gedit etc. etc.)
      I don't feel like writing anything in Word, Libre Office etc. : they feel like one should be paid to use them.

    17. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're just learning from the developers of Gnome, systemd, and slashcode.

      This. This fucking right here.

    18. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A fork of Firefox would be great but so far all of the forks suck.

      Palemoon and Iceweasel come to mind. Iceweasel has the same mental deficiency as the rest of Debian. Palemoon crashes left and right and still doesn't have a decent sync.

    19. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Palemoon also foolishly hosts their software on Sourceforge so is suspect.

    20. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So you've been stuck in the BIOS configuration screen for fifteen years?

    21. Re:Oh mozilla by Torodung · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just stuck it into "Additional Tools and Features" like "Share this page," "Hello," and "Apps." I took "Forget" off the main toolbar, where it intruded one day, and stuffed it in the hamburger menu, as a feature that I rarely going to use.

      Like everything they're adding, it inconvenienced me for all of three seconds.

      Now, it does raise questions as to whether the Mozilla philosophy is still a "lightweight browser that you can customize with extensions," and including these features by default defeats the feeling that you have a choice of adding potentially unnecessary functionality by extensions. Lightweight does not seem to be the objective any longer.

      For the people for whom this is an ideology, they are very irritated.

    22. Re:Oh mozilla by NoZart · · Score: 1

      Or they do it because they get money for including it from somewhere, user feedback be damned.

    23. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a small, fast, no-features browser, consider dillo :-)

      No need to clear the history - it doesn't keep a history. No need for countermeasures against ads - it doesn't do javascript, and cookies are disabled by default.

    24. Re:Oh mozilla by praxis · · Score: 1

      You might look into using Markdown in your favorite editor. It's portable, being only text, but supports a good set of formatting. It's easy to convert to html, pdf, and other formats.

    25. Re:Oh mozilla by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink. In the end, you have a program that does everything for everyone, that nobody really can use effectively.

      Which is the beauty of the Firefox addon system. The baseline browser as a framework is extensible in an almost unlimited fashion, which should allow them to keep the default web browser lean and focused on browsing the web. If someone wants add chat client or "read it later" functionality, users can choose to install that addon. Mozilla could even show a "suggested addons" page the first time a user runs Firefox that includes stuff like Pocket and the absurd Firefox Hello crap. For that matter, they could even bundle addons for things like Hello, making it easy for users to remove addons they have no interest in.

      But no. Mozilla is filled with people hell-bent on destroying Firefox the web browser and and replacing it with Firefox the Platform. I'm just waiting for them to start decommissioning the addon framework, which they've already started by requiring all addons to be signed by Mozilla, or they won't be loaded. It's sickening.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    26. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (cough)lotusnotes(cough)

    27. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?

      When I happen to be on Windows [like now], Just.About.Everytime

    28. Re:Oh mozilla by X.25 · · Score: 1

      In my experience most companies do not implement features for fun. They do it because it's feedback they received from a large number of users. The fact that it can be disabled pretty much closes the case in my opinion but I guess some purist fanatics will complain.

      And what would that experience be?

      In which company did/do you work, which implemented features because of feedback received from a large number of users?

    29. Re:Oh mozilla by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      :)

      I get what your saying but it's a little different here. The complaints here are more of "purist nature". It stems from the mentality that everything has to remain strip down to its minimal regardless of anything. My answer to that is always: "as long as there's a disable option".

      I would have a different take if the browser was tailored for the tech users but instead it's tailored for everybody which means include the features that are important so the user doesn't have to figure it out.

    30. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tab Candy
      Sync
      Pocket

      Just another dev pet project that no one used when it was an extension because it added no value. So of course they want to force it in! People must be made to use the correct technologies! It couldn't possibly have languished because it was shit no one wanted or needed.

      I kid. More likely they were paid to do this. Sponsored tiles just don't bring in enough cash and no one wants to use fucking yahoo-skinned-bing to do their searches.

    31. Re:Oh mozilla by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Jeez you have no faith in anybody do you. I've never worked for a company that added crap in anything just because. Firefox did this based on the popularity of the product. They replaced their own version of Pocket with this popular adding. No damage done.

    32. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, I remember this guy... he has a superiority story for anything you present, and will argue with a wall when he's bored.

      I, too, install programmer-friendly text editors on all my machines, but sometimes I just need to jot down a quick note without spawning a tab in NP++ that will hang out until who knows when I get around to opening it again. Notepad is there, and I use it all the time, as does everyone else, so stop trying to act like the GPP's point is invalid.

    33. Re:Oh mozilla by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      You make my point. While trying to be pedantic. :-D

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    34. Re:Oh mozilla by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      They do it because it's feedback they received from a large number of users.

      Yeah, and that check that Read It Later, Inc handed over had nothing to do with it.

    35. Re:Oh mozilla by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Don't forget GIMP.

    36. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like Apple. We know what you want so enjoy it!

    37. Re:Oh mozilla by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Most products I've worked on were a closed clientele except for D-Link Canada. The original support site was created from user feedback (I know, I wrote the first version using ASP (Not .NET)). Customers loved it because it was built based on their needs, not ours.

      Backweb is a company I worked for and EVERY SINGLE FEATURE was implemented based on user feedback.

      The fact is that Firefox implemented pocket because it was a popular addon used on Firefox (as stated in their response). Prior to that they had their own version of what pocket is and it was removed. So the outcry is only partially justified. As far as I'm concerned the only mistake they made is not properly announcing it prior to release.

    38. Re:Oh mozilla by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Is there an actual factual piece of information available to back that. I looked and didn't find one.

    39. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's suggesting Word is bloated when a notepad application will do. I've jumped to Chromium due to the Mozilla bloat and the fact that they essentially made it look exactly like Chromium. I think Mozilla as an organization is getting too big to be well managed as a non-profit. Here's hoping they can make some money licensing their OS.

    40. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check Mozilla's SeaMonkey. I started using it after the original Mozilla (having taken over Netscape Navigator code) was broken up into Firefox and Thunderbird, when I realized FF and TB made a very seamed separation between the browser and email clients (and no basic HTML editor such as Composer that I have liked to use for some light stuff).

      I much prefer the seamless integration in SeaMonkey that lets me operate much as I have since the Netscape days on Windows and OS/2, now on Windows, and, primarily, Linux. I still have emails from then going back to 1999 or so. The look/feel/operational mode have stayed much the same with much more gradual evolution that has not been nearly as disruptive for me as with FF and TB. I usually do install FF alongside SM as a necessity in Linux for using some cutting edge features on web servers, but is not my default browser.

      SM's browser component shares a lot of base code with FF, but not all (from what I see in the change logs with updates), and since it seems not able to use all the plug-ins that FF can. It also seems generally more stable, and changes much more gradually with fewer rude shocks than I get from the much more frequent FF updates.

      YMMV

    41. Re:Oh mozilla by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As much evidence as there is of this mass of "user feedback" asking them to integrate a shitty data-mining add-on into the browser core.

    42. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm testing qupzilla. Once it gets a noscript kind of plugin and gets a bit more stability, it'll be great.

    43. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kHTML needs a serious update to the modern era; but it used to be good, and it can be once more!

      And I do see a few issues with this plan though, writing a browser sounds easy but there are a few pitfalls. Based on my own experience its easy to render a default test page, but once you get to something more tricky with alignment between multiple blocks it becomes quite the nightmare to render a nice crisp image. And considering today's heavy use of javascript you'll need a pretty good engine to run that as well...

    44. Re:Oh mozilla by Ravaldy · · Score: 0

      Nobody asked to integrate the feature, they did it based on popularity (which you can see on the add-in site). Not all decisions get passed through the cyclone that is the web users. After all I would expect every product manufacturer to try and make their product more attractive. The key is to be open to feedback which they always appeared to be open to in the past.

    45. Re:Oh mozilla by weilawei · · Score: 1

      The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink.

      You could always convert to TempleOS.

    46. Re:Oh mozilla by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      Why not? It works for Apple.

      On a more serious note I've been a loyal Firefox user for the past 12 years however I'm getting rather upset with the direction it has taken the past couple years, however I don't want to use Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer or Edge (all of which are owned and maintained by large corporations) and since Opera has jumped on the WebKit bandwagon making it a glorified Chrome skin I'm thinking maybe it's time for a new open source browser. The only browser I can think of that isn't tied to some other browser is Konqueror but unfortunately I find KHTML to be somewhat awful and even if it wasn't Konqueror is *nix only.

      tl;dr: Mozilla has become detached from what made early Firefox versions great and it's probably time for them to be replaced.

      Try looking at Seamonkey sometime. Even though it packs several additional features and modes to Firefox, it feels significantly more lightweight to me at least, and the interface is really nice to use (especially when you come from the older Mozilla crowd).

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    47. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And GTK in general.

    48. Re:Oh mozilla by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Informative

      they did it based on popularity

      Bollocks. It's got barely 10% of the users of the #5 app (Noscript), and about 1% of the #1 (ABP). It doesn't show up until the 4th page when sorted by popularity (#64).

    49. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out Pale Moon - it's as close to (real) Firefox as you can get.

    50. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is funny you mentioned that.

      My 3.5 Ghz quad core i5 gets hottest when it is in the BIOS screen on my EVGA Z97 FTW.

      Yes, hotter than when I am playing games or doing anything else.

      It runs at 55C or so in the bios and never runs over 45C at any other time

    51. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Pocket extension had only about a quarter million downloads, which is respectable for a niche addon but is also all the confirmation you need that was never a "large number" of users interested in this functionality. And seriously, nobody has ever integrated third-party features into their stack for any other reason than money, pure and simple.

    52. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is pretty much why I've switched to Pale Moon

    53. Re:Oh mozilla by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it do the same thing that an old fashioned bookmark does? Except for the ad revenue of course.

    54. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give Pale Moon a shot. Fork from Firefox that retains original Firefox ideology.

    55. Re:Oh mozilla by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

      Obviously, sir, you haven't bought a computer in the last fifteen years. "Modern" BIOS are bloatware aka UEFI.

    56. Re:Oh mozilla by antdude · · Score: 1

      Try SeaMonkey that uses the same Firefox's Gecko engine? http://www.seamonkey-project.o...

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    57. Re:Oh mozilla by preflex · · Score: 1

      The only browser I can think of that isn't tied to some other browser is Konqueror but unfortunately I find KHTML to be somewhat awful and even if it wasn't Konqueror is *nix only.

      Konqueror works fine on Windows. The last time I tried it on Mac OS X, it worked fine too, but that was back in 2008 or so.

    58. Re:Oh mozilla by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Firefox was supposed to be NN risen from the ashes and stripped of crap nobody wanted.
      Phoenix, Firebird, Firefox; I am still loyal but, FFS stop adding shit I don't want, carry on stripping out crap and make it an optional extra you can tickbox at install or add through a menu later.
      Ironically, that stupid menu for people who should be using Chrome is bloat to me.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    59. Re:Oh mozilla by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      You've never worked for Mozilla, then.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    60. Re:Oh mozilla by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Hooray, your BIOS is running your processor at the highest speed and power state advertised as normal to make sure that it doesn't flake out. How pathetically primitive. What kind of BIOS is it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    61. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey now, I'm still looking for my any key. WTF is wrong with keyboard manufactures where they remove such useful keys yet leave ones like the backtick. No one likes ticks.

    62. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sending this in for feedback. Maybe it'll help?

      "I see you seem to think that people want applications that they do not use added to their browser without an ability for proper removal. Allow me to clarify what I would like.

      I like how versatile Firefox is. It is a friendly browser that has allowed many people to add and develop for it for the betterment of everyone's browsing experience. I like the few add-ons that I use, and I like that my experience can be translated onto many different types of devices (except Android, but my limited abilities in this field tell me that this may be more difficult).

      I do NOT like having things added that are not necessary without my consent. What the heck is Hello? What the heck is Pocket? Why have they been added when I never requested them? What use will I have of them? Why do you pop up a new window or tab to announce such additions? Why can't warning be given before an update that adds such features occurs so I can avoid this in the first place?

      In fact, that raises a good point; additions like these could be OPT-IN. Or better yet, made as a well-developed add-on that people can choose to use! That means I get what I want, and the users that actually do want them can install the add-on for themselves. I would even settle with having the add-ons installed by default, as long as they were ADD-ONS, not integral to the installation.

      Please hear me out; you've done fine in many ways so far, but telling me what I like is silly."

    63. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now remove all apps between #1 and this one, that actually do this particular job. Then remove any that had serious prohibitive qualities (size/speed/requirements). It's entirely possible that they're being honest on that.

    64. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so much. Even Apple has had to kill obnoxious, baked-in features that people just didn't want. And they've got the most powerful Jedi mind trick skills out there.

    65. Re:Oh mozilla by jdk1 · · Score: 1

      Vim is my staple, but Notepad/Wordpad are still occasionally useful for their simplicity and for Unicode rendering.

    66. Re:Oh mozilla by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      It's entirely possible that they're being honest on that.

      No, it's not. For starters, they already had Sync which did pretty much the same thing, sans monetized data mining, without having to integrate a 3rd party service with an intrusive privacy policy into the core browser.

      That privacy policy should qualify as a "serious prohibitive quality" and the fact that you think it doesn't makes me question your honesty on the subject.

      And first the claim was "user feedback" -- the mozilla feedback page shows that's clearly not true (the feedback, last time I looked, was unfavorable at a 9:1 ratio), then it was "popularity", which is still BS - As has been pointed out, it has about ~1% of the popularity just of ABP, which would put it, as a percentage of the whole, at around epsilon.

      Not to mention the fact that several extensions intended to un-fuck the UI have been twice as popular or more, but we don't see them worrying about the popularity there... that position is still "up yours, install an add-on if you don't like our brilliant UX".

      About the only way that hard-coding Pocket into the browser is not mind-numbingly, earth-shattering incompetence is if they got paid to do it. I mean, we're talking the no business near source code, drooling on the keyboard, typing by hitting the keyboard with a squeaky mallet kind of moronic.

    67. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?

      Just like if I want to paste a screenshot to save as a file I'm more likely to use Paint than Photoshop, that doesn't mean Paint is better than Photoshop or that Photoshop is "bloated".

      What are these programs you are struggling to use effectively? It seems to me your problem is your inability to choose the correct tool for the job.

    68. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ALL BIOSes run the processor at 100% in an infinite loop when "idle"; i.e. they do not HLT then wake up just to serve interrupts, like a Linux or Windows kernel does.

      Probably that newfangled EFI/UEFI stuff is different in this respect.

    69. Re:Oh mozilla by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Heh. Next thing you know, they will be integrating an email client, a news client, and a chat client. I wonder why Firefox never had it before?

      Yes. Yes. I just rolled my eyes so far that they fell out of my head. *sigh*

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    70. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lets see...

      they have over the last while debundled pretyy much everything including the fucking status bar
      but they're bundling a 3th party proprietary app that gathers and sells (supposedly anonymised) user data

      you are right I have no faith that decision was made to benefit users, and I very strongly suspect they got paid for it

    71. Re:Oh mozilla by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      Firefox users point out that this isnâ(TM)t very user friendly, and is very unlike Mozilla.

      Actually it's very like Mozilla, at least the Mozilla from the last five years or so. You sit there, you take what we give you, and you LIKE IT, dammit!

    72. Re:Oh mozilla by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Maybe we can call it, "Phoenix".

      Hm. Well the "phoenix" name in computing is already taken by Phoenix Bios. How about "firebird"?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    73. Re:Oh mozilla by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      "One man's bloat is another man's critical feature." That's the point he was trying to make.

      The trend in software is to provide a product to users that prevents them from seeking out alternatives. Yes Firefox is making a dick move here, but no all software does not tend to bloat and in fact most of the "bloat" of the modern browser is the result of implementing a long list of convoluted standards that are part of the web.

    74. Re:Oh mozilla by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      As opposed to "old" BIOSes which still leave a memory hole in case you want to run OS/2, initialise devices in ways not needed since the OS will do it on bootup anyway and yet not provide simple features like the ability to boot from USB stick or support for harddrives larger than 2TB?

      What you calling "bloat" again? And where in the rule book does it state the BIOS needs to fit in under 32kb of memory?
      All modern UEFI BIOSes with all their associated "bloat" still make it to boot significantly faster than many BIOSes from yesteryear.

    75. Re:Oh mozilla by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?

      I use the Mac equivalent, TextEdit, quite often for jotting down quick notes and for quickly opening text files (including rich text and Word docs where I don't really care about the formatting). TextEdit is a very thin wrapper around the NSTextView class, and so is the same sort of not-quite-demo-app as WordPad, which is a thin wrapper around Microsoft's rich text editor control. I have Word, Pages, OpenOffice and LibreOffice installed, but I probably use TextEdit more than all of them combined, because for most simple things it just gets out of the way.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    76. Re:Oh mozilla by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The BIOS almost certainly won't enable any of the software-controlled power management features of your CPU. If it's a pre-EFI BIOS then it's also running in real mode and even if it's EFI it's likely to be running in a polling loop rather than relying on interrupts for user input.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    77. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > (all of which are owned and maintained by large corporations)

      Just out of interest, what do you think Mozilla is nowadays?

      For all intents and purposes, Mozilla is a large corporation, whatever it's official status (which has mostly just become a tax dodge).

      As it looks like a large corporation, acts like a large corporation, receives money like a large corporation, and has the wealth of a large corporation, then we might as well just cut through the bullshit and call it what it is.

    78. Re:Oh mozilla by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      That's news to me. They host their binaries in various locations, and their source code on Github.

    79. Re:Oh mozilla by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      I don't. I always have either Notepad++ or VIM installed on every machine so that I have a useful text editor. I haven't had to stoop to using Notepad/Wordpad for a very long time.

      What if you work in a company or administration that doesn't allow you to install the software you need? In such case, you might well be forced to stoop to using Notepad or Wordpad for lack of a more sensible choice... :-(

    80. Re:Oh mozilla by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The difference between a nice set of knives, specialized for purpose, and a Swiss army knife with everything built in, but not good at any particular task.

      One may may consider a corkscrew a critical feature of a knife. It doesn't make it so.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    81. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit

      The new bios takes much longer to get to the start OS phase than the old bios.

    82. Re:Oh mozilla by tepples · · Score: 1

      ... telling the users what they like. Well done.

      [Mozilla Corp are] just learning from the developers of

      GIMP.

      I'm not entirely following your reasoning. What does GIMP do wrong that Microsoft Excel and Gnumeric don't already do the same way? Are you referring to the dichotomy between layered (XCF) and export (JPG, PNG) formats, where it asks you if you want to "save changes" after having exported an image in case you have made changes that the export format cannot represent? Excel and Gnumeric have the same dichotomy between "workbook" files and CSV files.

    83. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla sounds like the new Microsoft opening multiple tabs upon upgrading to the next browser version and annoying me with dialogue crap.

    84. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pocket is not popular.

      It is nowhere near the top 10 most downloaded addons.

      Nice try shill

    85. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firebird is a name of a popular database. How about something else fire-based, like Firefox perhaps?

      That was actually chain of names (phoenix->firebird->firefox) they went through after rewriting Netscape Navigator into an open source community-driven browser. :-)

    86. Re:Oh mozilla by tepples · · Score: 1

      You could try LyX, the LaTeX word processor where what you see is what you mean.

    87. Re:Oh mozilla by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      They replaced their own version of Pocket with this popular adding. No damage done.

      Getting a payday is the only explanation for this that makes any sense to me. As to "no damage done" -- I would say "little damage done". However, it's yet another little annoyance in the flood of annoyances over the past few years.

      It used to be that I could install Firefox and spend 10 minutes or so installing the extensions that I wanted. Then I was good to go.

      Now I install firefox and have to spend at least a half hour going installing more extensions than ever, half of which are to undo the damage Mozilla has done to the browser, as well as having to go through the about:config to disable all of the various tracking "services" and fix the things that I can't find extensions to fix.

      This is just the next drip of water in the water torture that Firefox has become.

      I could even tolerate all of that if it weren't for the straight-up hostility and disregard for users that Firefox appears to have developed.

      It's just sad to see them go down the drain like this. It's like losing an old friend.

    88. Re:Oh mozilla by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      they did it based on popularity (which you can see on the add-in site).

      The reason that I think they did it for money rather than popularity is because the put it in the core application rather than as an add-on.

    89. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullpussy!

      My computers have never booted so quickly and I'm still using W7 & no SSDs. You should probably fix your broke ass garbage.

    90. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be better if they provided security patches for the ESR versions that are older than one year.

    91. Re:Oh mozilla by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I have a question, actually several:

      If that corkscrew does not impede another function of that knife why wouldn't you include it?
      Is there any harm if the corkscrew still does the same job?
      What happens when your main criteria is that you don't want to carry a knife AND a corkscrew separately?

      Your knives example fails on one critical part which is the limits imposed by your physical example mean that significant trade-offs in performance need to be made. It would make sense if you were talking about running Notepad on an Intel 8086. The point being made was that ... no there are many people (myself included) where one of the first things we install on our systems is something more capable and by extension useful than Notepad. You consider it bloat, I consider much of what other things do on top of displaying raw text a critical feature. The same goes for nano vs vi. VI is not more "bloated", it simply does much more and is by extension much more useful.

      The term "bloat" implies that you're restricting the size of your knives to that of a Swiss army knife and thus making some serious design compromises. You can't argue that is the case with an inclusion of a function of a system that has a UI element that makes API calls, and which doesn't even load any code when the button is hidden. The full extent of this being "bloat" is that it increases the size of the download by a few kilobyte and may consume 1/50,000,000th of your harddisk space.

      As an aside you know I don't think I've ever seen a corkscrew by itself. EVER. I'm sure it exists in some wanky and trendy sense, but for the most part a corkscrew has always been combined with bottle openers or some other utility.

    92. Re:Oh mozilla by allo · · Score: 1

      iceweasel is just firefox without firefox logo and name.

      palemoon seems to go into the right direction, but they lack useful linux source/binary (i.e. to build binaries for a debian repo).

    93. Re:Oh mozilla by allo · · Score: 1

      khtml is now called webkit/blink and the base for all modern browsers except firefox.

    94. Re:Oh mozilla by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      instead it's tailored for everybody which means include the features that are important so the user doesn't have to figure it out.

      "tailored for everybody" is logically identical to "tailored for nobody".

      Perhaps what you're missing is that people aren't objecting to the inclusion of the functionality. They're objecting to the manner in which is was incorporated. If this Pocket stuff had been shipped as an add-on, nobody would be complaining.

    95. Re:Oh mozilla by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?

      Many times every single day. Word blows chunks, and I avoid using it to the greatest extent possible.

    96. Re:Oh mozilla by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      And the beauty of it all is that you have to power to choose which browser you want to use. If enough users say screw FF, then they either sink with their mentality or adjust and revive it's popularity.

    97. Re:Oh mozilla by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      "tailored for everybody" is logically identical to "tailored for nobody".

      I don't know if your quoting someone on this but it makes little to no sense. I guess cars are tailored for nobody, monitors, keyboards... The list goes on.

      Perhaps what you're missing is that people aren't objecting to the inclusion of the functionality. They're objecting to the manner in which is was incorporated. If this Pocket stuff had been shipped as an add-on, nobody would be complaining

      And that's why I talked about purist mentality. I'm not suggesting I agree with their approach but the knee jerk reaction is one of purist nature. Not everybody here or on the forums have commented in a knee jerk reaction but many have and that stands out.

  3. The statement by arielCo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Quoth Mozilla from TFA:

    Pocket has been a popular Firefox add-on for a long time and we’ve seen that users love to save interesting Web content to easily revisit it later, so it was an easy choice to offer Pocket as a service in Firefox and we’ve gotten lots of positive feedback about the integration from users.

    All the code related to this integration within Firefox is open source and Pocket has licensed all the Firefox integration code under the MPLv2 license. On top of that, Pocket asked Mozilla for input on how to improve their policy, based on early comments from Mozillians. After that discussion, Pocket updated their privacy policy in early May to explain more precisely how they handle data. You can read Pocket’s privacy policy here.

    Directly integrating Pocket into the browser was a choice we made to provide this feature to our users in the best way possible. To disable Pocket, you can remove it from your toolbar or menu. If Pocket is removed from the toolbar or menu, then the feature is effectively disabled, though you can still find it again by accessing it in the Customize Panel. You can find detailed instructions here.

    The "removal instructions" are just to drag the button out of sight, but the bug report asking for actual removal, quoth Manish Goregaokar [:manishearth]:

    Pocket is just a bunch of API calls. Firefox UI code is lazy loaded. Put those two together, and yes, Pocket code is effectively "disabled". It will cause no extra baggage until viewed.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    1. Re:The statement by JohnVanVliet · · Score: 1

      BUT there is a TON of pocket garbage in " about:config"
      that is SET to ON and true

      --
      "I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
    2. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are just to drag the button out of sight
      Which is what I figured out all by myself this morning.

      They are GOING to add new features. That is the nature of a project like this. To bitch about every new feature is silly. Should they focus on fixing old stuff? Sure. But if that is all they did they would get dusted by the other browsers.

    3. Re:The statement by steelfood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is all good and fine from a technical standpoint. But look at the status bar fiasco. What was their response to that again? Oh, right, it can be brought back via a plugin. So do they want to move features into plugins or integrate plugins into the core code? Which is it, guys?

      It's either blatant hypocrisy or there's some serious cognative dissonance going on inside Mozilla. Yeah, they're probably doing this to make money, but this one move simply invalidates all of their prior excuses for removing features people like and use.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:The statement by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they achieve the same thing by installing the add-on by default and letting you remove it? They went to all that effort to create an add-on framework.

    5. Re:The statement by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pocket has been a popular Firefox add-on for a long time and...

      Let's see if they were right about that. Most popular extensions

      Adblock plus: 20 million users
      Video downloadhelper: 5 million users
      Firebug: 2 million users
      .
      .
      .
      Pocket: 257k users

      It is pretty popular. That puts it on Page 4 of the list.

    6. Re:The statement by arielCo · · Score: 2

      Remind me, what did we lose along with the status bar? AFAIK everything either pops up as needed or was moved to the menu/toolbars.

      I don't think interface changes or "bloat" are what slows down Firefox's adoption. I've used it since 1.x and I'm actually eager to see the search bar merged with the address bar, since I already do all my searches with engine keywords ("az" for Amazon, "/" for Google, "w" for Wikipedia though it's my default engine, etc...).

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    7. Re:The statement by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please no! Just yesterday I told a client, who uses IE, to go to a URL. They tried it and got a Bing search result. First I thought they used the search bar. But no, it turned out they mistyped something in the address bar, and so it decided "that wasn't a valid URL" and it ran a search instead. It would have been better if it said "server not found" or "hey, you can't have spaces in URLs" or "you forgot the colon after https." But since the default behavior is to run a search, it replaced what they typed with "http://bing.com/search?q=...." so they couldn't read it back to me to fix the problem. Ugh.

    8. Re:The statement by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      I'm actually eager to see the search bar merged with the address bar, since I already do all my searches with engine keywords ("az" for Amazon, "/" for Google, "w" for Wikipedia though it's my default engine, etc...).

      You may love it, but for others it is absolutely horrendous! The problem arises when you have an intranet, and wish to go to internal websites.

      Having your address bar hijacked into a search bar so [random bunch of scum] can inspect your activity is only mildly intrusive, but getting error 404 every time you try to access an internal site because [random bunch of scum] cannot find it by DNS lookup is very bad news for users and tech support.

      [random bunch of scum] does not mean NSA or GCHQ - they will obviously get your privates anyway.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    9. Re:The statement by arielCo · · Score: 1

      Pocket has been a popular Firefox add-on for a long time and...

      Let's see if they were right about that. Most popular extensions

      Adblock plus: 20 million users
      Video downloadhelper: 5 million users
      Firebug: 2 million users
      .
      .
      .
      Pocket: 257k users

      It is pretty popular. That puts it on Page 4 of the list.

      To be fair, they didn't say how popular. Maybe they just mean that it has been accepted as opposed to brought out-of-the-blue (it's just above YouTube Unblocker and the Reddit Enhancement Suite), but I get your point - it sounds a bit like marketspeak.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    10. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Adblock plus: 20 million users
      Video downloadhelper: 5 million users
      Firebug: 2 million users

      A slight segue:

      You do an indirect disservice by stopping the list at #3 when #5 is NoScript with 2.1M users -- proof that people who disable javascript are not out-of-touch aberrations. Web devs need to be more cognizant of this fact.

    11. Re:The statement by arielCo · · Score: 1

      The malformed URL would've resulted in an error otherwise, with more or less the same result. That's why I leave out the scheme bit and just give them host/path, or mail them the URL. Non-technical users don't care for URLs (or anything with a precise structure), and figuring out how people fail is part of the art of user support (:

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    12. Re:The statement by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The malformed URL would've resulted in an error otherwise, with more or less the same result.

      Yes, it would have resulted in an error, which is exactly what I needed. It was not "more or less the same result." It was a completely different result that obfuscated the actual problem. When they got the Bing page, I first had to determine if they typed it into the correct box. Then, I had to determine what they typed in and what was wrong with it. But since it erased what I typed, the user couldn't read back to me what they typed.

      There is a compromise: If it gave them the Bing search result, but didn't change what they entered into the URL bar, and/or echoed back what they typed in, then I would not have lost valuable information.

      I had to include the scheme in this case, and I couldn't mail them the URL because it was the URL to get to their mail. :-) Worse yet, it had a port number.

    13. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is a feature that violates Mozilla's own Manifesto.

      This is not a core feature of a browser and as such it needs to be in a plugin. Even worse is that it relies on a proprietary solution that has a different privacy policy than FF. The company is VC funded and the PP states that "all your data are belong to us and also to whomever we sell out to".

      Is that acceptable in an open source browser?

      It is like they forgot what happened to Navigator when it tried to be a kitchen sink browser.

      It is the same reason no one uses Seamonkey.

      Stop trotting out strawmen and just admit you are a Mozilla shill, and a bad one at that.

      New features are fine, when they make sense.

    14. Re:The statement by vilanye · · Score: 1

      Where are my mod points when I need them?

      Every excuse Mozilla gives falls flat in the face of the relatively few Pocket plugin users.

    15. Re:The statement by arielCo · · Score: 1

      You may love it, but for others it is absolutely horrendous! The problem arises when you have an intranet, and wish to go to internal websites.

      Um, I'm behind a proxy and apparently for single-word queries it launches a search ahead of time. Meanwhile:

      • * if the word resolves to a hostname, Firefox asks me "Did you mean to go to 'foo'? [Yes, take me to 'foo'] / [No, thanks].
        • - if I say Yes it sets browser.fixup.domainwhitelist.foo = true and the prompt is suppressed the next time I enter this word.
        • - if I say No the prompt closes and I'm left at the search it already did. Nothing is changed.
      • * if it doesn't resolve, no prompt is shown (though the proxy might still process it since it will try to resolve the name on its own).

        It should wait for my answer before attempting a search. Queries with a whitespace before the/any "/" first result in a search because that can't possibly be a valid URL.

      Time to check Bugzilla.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    16. Re:The statement by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pocket: 257k users

      It is pretty popular. That puts it on Page 4 of the list.

      Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the "popularity" had to do with Pocket being in the stock portfolio of someone at Mozilla - or some other self-serving investment relationship... /cynical

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    17. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Adblock plus: 20 million users
      Video downloadhelper: 5 million users
      Firebug: 2 million users

      A slight segue:

      You do an indirect disservice by stopping the list at #3 when #5 is NoScript with 2.1M users -- proof that people who disable javascript are not out-of-touch aberrations. Web devs need to be more cognizant of this fact.

      There is also a disservice as "Classic Theme Restorer" is on page two with 437,962 users. Therefore, more people are going out of of their way to restore the old look of Firefox than are using the "pocket" service. Don't see any effort to take care of those users who like the old UI either; other than the "fuck off or use an extension."

    18. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the "popularity" had to do with Pocket being in the stock portfolio of someone at Mozilla - or some other self-serving investment relationship... /cynical

      I would be surprised if Pocket is not paying Mozilla for this decision in the same way that the search engines pay Mozilla for inclusion. I can't see any reason for them to pick Pocket's product over any other company's to be a built-in. How about Ghostery or Adblock?

    19. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For better or worse, HTML 5 is tightly coupled with JS.

      The fight is over and the anti-js crowd lost.

    20. Re:The statement by mujadaddy · · Score: 1
      Thanks. I've turned the enabled to false and put garbage in the key & URL fields.

      a TON

      Eh, I counted about 8 items or so.

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    21. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > For better or worse, HTML 5 is tightly coupled with JS.

      That is exactly backwards.

      HTML5 sucked in a lot of formerly javascript functionality. So even when javascript is disabled that stuff still works. That is guaranteed to bring a ton of new security problems with it, but HTML5 does not depend on javascript any more than any previous version of HTML.

    22. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it would have resulted in an error, which is exactly what I needed. It was not "more or less the same result." It was a completely different result that obfuscated the actual problem.

      Absolutely right. This is exactly the same problem we had with DNS hijacking by ISP's and crappy DNS providers.

    23. Re:The statement by strikethree · · Score: 1

      based on early comments from Mozillians

      I think I see the problem here... They see themselves as elevated leaders. No wonder their perspective is skewed.

      I used to almost literally preach the benefits of using Firefox and converted many users and two very large organizations and I felt insulted by the portion of the commented bolded above.

      Their attitude is terrible and will end up killing Firefox off entirely. They are coasting on pure momentum right now and I imagine they will be shocked when they sink. "Why would that happen? We were doing so much wonderful stuff for our people."

      Yeah. Ok. Fuck off Mozilla. You just don't get it.
       

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    24. Re:The statement by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I strongly suspect we have a winner here. Corruption is extremely bad nowadays in all areas. :(

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    25. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may think 257k users is pretty popular, but it's going to be pretty UNpopular with the 20 million users who installed adblock to avoid this kind of crap.

    26. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly they don't give a shit about the manifesto anymore. Any time that's pointed out on the moz-dev distribution list, it's brought up that it's no longer relevant -- and that's assuming the moderator actually approved the message (which is rare; I know about that personally: moz-dev is HIGHLY moderated to squash dissenting opinions).

    27. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is no one mentioning the obvious? ... Mozilla is being paid by Pocket, and that's the only motivation.
      They need the money, and pocket needs the users and data to sell on.

    28. Re:The statement by allo · · Score: 1

      why can't they distribute the addon with firefox? users could disable it and they could update it independently of the core.

    29. Re:The statement by allo · · Score: 1

      a browser is like an operating system. your should not notice it. A good system just works, so you can use the applications / websites. A browser should not bring a videochat client, it should enable you to videochat on websites. And if pocket was an extension, why can't it stay that way?

    30. Re:The statement by allo · · Score: 1

      mod parent up

    31. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do an indirect disservice by stopping the list at #3 when #5 is NoScript with 2.1M users -- proof that people who disable javascript are not out-of-touch aberrations. Web devs need to be more cognizant of this fact.

      No they dont. It is just like ads where users can block them if they dont want to see them, web devs arent interested in targeting a tiny percentage of people who just dislike a particular programming language. Most of those users will enable javascript if they want to see the information and those who are staunchly opposed to the language are irrelevant.

  4. Seamonkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
    1. Re:Seamonkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Firefox (Phoenix) was to save us from Seamonkey bloat and now we have Seamonkey to save us from Firefox bloat?

    2. Re:Seamonkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just installed Seamonkey. First thing that happened? "Seamonkey would like to access your contacts. [Allow] [Deny]"

      WTF! That is certainly worse than Firefox. Simple, my arse.

    3. Re:Seamonkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Firefox was never using the same interface as Seamonkey.

      Seamonkey continued down the path that was largely abandoned when developers decided to try out a lightweight browser instead of the kitchen sink approach that was the original intent of the Mozilla team.

    4. Re:Seamonkey by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ditto. Only its Gecko engine gets updated. However, SM is still at v2.33.1 due to recent build problems. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    5. Re:Seamonkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best browser ever. Also, best email client ever.

  5. Adblock is even more popular by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ship that by default if you dare!

    1. Re:Adblock is even more popular by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      Lol. They'll work themselves out of their own 1% of the market :)

    2. Re:Adblock is even more popular by amaurea · · Score: 2

      It's almost 100 times more popular, in fact.

      The current Mozilla wouldn't dare to do that, but it would not be that different from when they implemented pop-up blocking. That annoyed advertisers, and also had some collateral damage. But it was very much appreciated by users. I think if adblock had been around back when pop-up blocking was invented, it too would have been built into the browser.

    3. Re:Adblock is even more popular by allo · · Score: 1

      it's good, they are not. else every website would have counter measures, resulting in even more weird scripts working around the blocking and tracking you even more.

    4. Re:Adblock is even more popular by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer they shipped uBlock Origin instead, far lighter and works just as well.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  6. Sigh by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obligatory why is all this shit built into Firefox comment here. I don't even want the developer console, on some machines. It's just an annoyance when I accidentally pop it up. Why should I have features that bloat the install if I'm not using them? Make them all extensions. Wasn't that the point of the design? That it's a platform?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. more integration by u19925 · · Score: 1

    Mozilla should also integrate facebook, twitter, gmail, yahoo mail, outlook, pandora, itune..... etc. After all we all users like tight integration, don't we? I am sure this partners can provide minimal client side software under MPLv2.

    Seriously, Mozilla should pull this out immediately. It can maintain a site for recommended extensions but should not directly integrate it.

    1. Re:more integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      What do you think the *social* options in about:config are about? Guess who "needs" the provided API.

    2. Re:more integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you see the big picture here. Integrating Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, Yahoo, Outlook, Pandora, and the rest of the Best that the Web Has to Offer is only the beginning of how Mozilla can best resonate with the users it serves. Really, Mozilla could just become the operating system and subsume file, i/o, and networking functions into one web-enabled mashup. Then it will be called MozillaD, one memory leak to rule them all.

      Anyone else notice, btw, that the browser whose selling point was Web 2.0 Social integration, and that up until version 3.0 was a fork of Mozilla, namely Flock, died in April, 2011, over four years ago? Nobody wanted it. And that its replacement, Rockmelt, died in 2013, because nobody wanted it either?

  8. Yeah I noticed it too... by Gordo_1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Initially thought it was a new mozilla-run service, but when i clicked through to learn more, it was clear that it was a 3rd-party proprietary service. That's when i removed the 'Pocket' icon from the toolbar: Hamburger --> Customize --> drag it down and out. Kind of annoying that the plugin code bloat remains, but guess that's just something I'll live with for now.

    I've been a big user and supporter of Firefox, even through all the performance problems, mis-steps, yahoo search shenanigans, but this is the first time I feel they blatantly went against their philosophy of an open web. Tsk tsk Mozilla.

    1. Re:Yeah I noticed it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? What about this weird messenger thingy "powered by Telefonica"? Anyway, as long as the stuff can be removed from the UI I don't care. Browser Cache's are so big that it really doesn't matter if you add 128kB more program code to the thing or not.

    2. Re:Yeah I noticed it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing is, browser monetization is failing. They can't make money in other ways, full stop.
      This is the beginning of it, we have seen the same happening here on Slashdot. Maybe we should stop pretending we can have free quality browsers, free quality websites etc. As you have to work to pay your bills, probably these people have too.

      (Posting as AC because I can't get back my account apparently)

    3. Re:Yeah I noticed it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fire fox was a quality browser until they started getting money and thus attracting the type of people who want to work on a browser for money before love. That was teh beginning of the end. Now, mozzilla is just another shitty company trying to wring a few dollars out of its only good product as they slowly strangle it.

    4. Re:Yeah I noticed it too... by allo · · Score: 1

      by the way: why sponsored by telefonica? I though hello uses webrtc in peer to peer mode without any server?

  9. Firefox Has Always Been Bloat by HannethCom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Firefox was supposed to be a no nonsense browser only. It was supposed to be just a browser with all the "bloat" of the suite cut out. The odd thing is right away the first release of Firefox was a bigger download and took up more memory than Seamonkey. (Windows Platform) Firefox had been changed over to the generic UI framework and was on Gecko Runner. I assumed that these were the reason for the bigger size, but when Seamonkey changed over to these, its memory footprint and download size shrunk.

    As it is Seamonkey download is 31MB and Firefox is 38MB. I personally like the old suite and all its options, but I also like that it feels faster.

    --
    Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
  10. Users like it? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

    I dunno, just generally stating that users like it is.. well, it doesn't really mean anything. How many users? How many users don't like it? How many are ambivalent about it? What sort of method did Mozilla use in the first place to even come to this conclusion? Me, I have zero use for Hello and I certainly have no use for Pocket, either, and I would have preferred all such things to be left as addons. I do understand Mozilla's motivation, of course; getting kickback funding for such a large ecosystem definitely looks appealing from the economical standpoint and it is, obviously, true that they can't just continue to run everything on air and good-will. Still, I can't help but feel this was poorly handled.

    1. Re:Users like it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From reading the Mozilla Governance newsgroup, it looks like they did a survey and found that top demands were for (1) a reading list (like in Safari) and (2) a video downloader. Implementing (1) could have been a straightforward bookmark list shared through Mozilla Sync, which is basically what Reading List is on Safari -- a dedicated bookmark /tmp/ zone for bookmarks you don't plan on keeping around and that you can access through any device in the ecosystem via iCloud sync. They could have just made a bookmark list and used Mozilla Sync to handle it, but that was apparently hard and didn't reach devices like e-readers where Mozilla doesn't run. So, they had Pocket do everything for them: a bookmark list, with sync to many devices for which Mozilla has no client, and data mining of your uploaded bookmarks and your e-mail address and the address of any friends with whom you share stuff and your visits to various beaconed web-sites across the net.

      If Mozilla actually cared about their users, they'd roll in a full adblock, noscript, and plugin blocker solution (not just the Polaris tracking protection that's in the Nightly Builds). After all, those are the most downloaded plugins. Then they'd build in a "download video" function. And in doing so they'd seal their fate as they'd have pissed off all the advertisers and all the IP lawyers. So, instead it's easier (and legally much less troublesome) to sell the users to Pocket as a way of implementing a Reading List.

  11. Why Firefox is losing market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is why Firefox is losing market share. At one time, I could add whatever add-ons I felt was necessary to make Firefox look like what I wanted it to, and/or what I needed. However, for some time, Mozilla has been adopting a kitchen sink approach, where Firefox will have everything, and instead of being a lean browser, will be as bloated as IE.

  12. Vote with your feet by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you do not like what the Mozilla Foundation is doing with Firefox, and they don't seem to care what you think - join the millions of us who've already switched to a different browser.

    I was a loyal Firefox user for many years, but somewhere along the way Mozilla lost its focus. The things I used to need Firefox for (DOM Inspector, JavaScript debugging, Ad Block) are readily available with other browsers. So I bid adieu to their political agendas and bloated infrastructure (seriously - how much money do you need to develop a web browser?) and moved on.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of the other browsers are really any better anymore. It's not Firefox that's turning into rubbish, it's browsers in general. Google and Apple decided to bloat up the web, people ate it up, and Mozilla lost market share because they "fell behind". Now Google does what it wants to the web, Mozilla goes "uh huh, because our users left and we don't have the share to say no anymore" and we all blame Mozilla and Firefox because we're too embarrassed to take the blame ourselves and need a convenient scapegoat.

    2. Re:Vote with your feet by omnichad · · Score: 2

      how much money do you need to develop a web browser?) and moved on.

      Less than Jimmy Wales needs to run a wiki, at least.

    3. Re:Vote with your feet by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, what's our options here?

      There's Chrome, which is owned by an advertising company. There's Chromium, which I've never been clear on what it's for. There's Firefox (which we have two stories today about bloat). There's Opera, which is essentially Chrome. Apple abandoned Safari on Windows quite some time ago.

      So, what's left that isn't either a) a marketing/ad platform, or b) full of bloat?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would, but no other browser that I know off has a Tree-style tabs like extension (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/) to have all your browser tabs docked on the side of the browser with hierarchical tree-like organization. I am simply amazed that browser UI's continue with tabs at the top of the interface despite everyone working on widescreen monitors. I typically have 20+ tabs open at any given time, and a regular tabbed UI is just a complete nightmare to deal with.

    5. Re:Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    6. Re:Vote with your feet by firewrought · · Score: 1

      how much money do you need to develop a web browser?) and moved on.

      Less than Jimmy Wales needs to run a wiki, at least.

      Mozilla's budget is at least 10x that of Wikipedia, you just notice the latter more because of their non-profit campaigns each December.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    7. Re:Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tree style tabs is indeed awesome. Chrome used to have vertical tabs with a CLI flag. Then the core devs decided that it was not important for users (sounds familiar?) so they removed it completely. The closest to this is Vivaldi's built-in feature, or Opera's plugin (29 and up). It seems like no one cares about a few (million?) users who would use this -- and never turn back.

    8. Re:Vote with your feet by firewrought · · Score: 1

      Chromium is the open-source twin of Chrome. Don't know what sort of anti-marketing/anti-tracking plugins it provides, but it's potentially an option if you want less bloat. You could also look at Pale Moon and other Firefox-based browsers.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    9. Re:Vote with your feet by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Both take in way more money than they need, is the point.

    10. Re:Vote with your feet by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      Pale Moon is a Firefox fork, and is the closest thing I can find to the old, "good" Firefox. I've used it for almost a year now, and have had zero issues (I'm on Linux mostly, but it has worked flawlessly on my Win machines as well).

    11. Re:Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's time to write your own browser. Of course you don't want to write the whole thing, but you're in charge of integrating various browser libraries/components downloaded from the internet like HTTP user agent, page flow code, JS engine etc.

    12. Re:Vote with your feet by MSG · · Score: 1

      I'm not happy about the addition of the Pocket code, but mostly because it's a proprietary service.

      I suspect that if you actually measured disk, network (download), or memory use for the Pocket code, "bloat" claims are going to look wildly exaggerated.

      Pocket aside, Firefox is still my favorite browser, and one of the least bloated available. Compared to Chrome: smaller download, smaller install, uses considerably less RAM when displaying the same set of tabs, faster startup, faster JavaScript, and I can run my own sync server if I want.

      But by far the most important: extensions on the mobile version! I hate browsing without AdBlock. And since I want to sync bookmarks between my mobile and desktop systems, I use Firefox on both.

    13. Re:Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I made to switch to Chrome like many others, but I recently switched back.

      Do a little checking before you jump on your not-very-controversial soapbox. Chrome's a bloated, slow memory-eating mess now and it's riddled with problems that require you to manually delete it's profile information quite often.

      Firefox now, in comparison, is lightweight and lightning fast.

      Particularly on older computers. (FYI Chrome has issues on core2duo based machines that lead to deadlocks)

    14. Re:Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also Pale Moon -- a browser based on FireFox, forked off before the 'rapid release schedule' craziness.

    15. Re:Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of us who are addon locked into mozilla's API switched to Pale Moon which is a fork of firefox based on ESR releases.

      Much more lightweight (dev basically cuts most of the cruft out), but you may need some messing with the settings to get it to work best for you. Also since they never adopted australis, they had to fork some of the addons on their own to make them work, like ABP.

    16. Re: Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there sure is a shit ton of whiny assholes up in here

      Says the whiny asshole. Welcome, friend.

    17. Re:Vote with your feet by vilanye · · Score: 2

      There isn't a single good browser any more.

      All the FF forks suck in various ways.

      Seamonkey blows and is under control of Mozilla.

      Chrome is nothing but spyware.

      IE sucks as always doesn't run on anything but Windows. Anyone else remember the Linux IE version, now that was bad!

      Maybe the new browser from the old CEO of Opera won't suck but I am not holding my breath.

      Voting with your feet and moving to a different browser is like voting in an election, all there is on the ballot is various levels of evil and incompetence.

    18. Re:Vote with your feet by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Australis in Firefox has creamed Palemoon's extension support (and the whole user agent debacle on Palemoon's side didn't help things, either).

      I'm kind of hoping that Firefox extension authors would react to the whole "signing" BS the way a bunch of big Minecraft modders did to the EULA enforcement change and Microsoft buyout. Otherwise, it looks like neither one will be fit for use for much longer.

    19. Re:Vote with your feet by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Web-browser, advanced e-mail, newsgroup and feed client, IRC chat, and HTML editing made simple—all your Internet needs in one application.

      Not quite sure that passes his criteria "B" - might be smaller than Firefox, size-wise (not that that's a terribly high bar to clear at this point), but that's 5 full applications of "bloat" as a web browser replacement.

    20. Re:Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internet Explorer 5 for Mac OS 9

    21. Re:Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you guys have a strong reality distortion field, don't you? Pale Moon opted to use the old code for pre-Australis Firefox. Then when it because clear it was going downhill, they opted to break addon compatibility, rather than trying another route. And it's STILL Mozilla's fault? Pale Moon could have just recreated the classic skin better than CTR does, and helped fix the UI bugs... but nope, easier to just fork, shove in the old code, and wait for it to break, then blame Mozilla. Gotta love the attitude.

    22. Re:Vote with your feet by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Wow, you guys have a strong reality distortion field, don't you?

      I can see how one might think that, if one was sufficiently lacking in reading comprehension skills.

    23. Re:Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the new browser from the old CEO of Opera won't suck but I am not holding my breath.

      Nope, it sucks too. Possibly much worse than the rest of these.

    24. Re:Vote with your feet by zlogic · · Score: 1

      Uhm, IE 11? :)

    25. Re:Vote with your feet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Wales uses the extra to set up other wikimedia sites. And the extra seems to be saved for some future costs. Mozilla seems to spend what they have.

    26. Re:Vote with your feet by allo · · Score: 1

      chromium is the default "chrome" for linux. and for windows the good alternative, because it does not bring google updater and such crapware.

    27. Re:Vote with your feet by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of lightweight WebKit-based browsers these days. E.g. Xombrero.

  13. Well... by Arkh89 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Let's see if their "Submit Feedback" add-on works... (menu icon -> question mark icon -> Submit Feedback)

    1. Re:Well... by NotInHere · · Score: 2
    2. Re:Well... by ic3m4n1 · · Score: 1

      90% sad 10% happy

      Wow. Sure seems lot of people liking it.

    3. Re:Well... by NotInHere · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Well... by vilanye · · Score: 2

      91% unhappy?

      They might as well pipe those to /dev/null.

      It has the same effect.

    5. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PLEASE offer a different installer that does not have Pocket integrated into the browser. Thank you!!! (I _really_ want to have a free browser (as in free from corporate and government influence). signed, a faithful Firefox/Phoenix/Netscape user since 1997

      The happy votes don't seem very happy. I'm not sure how reliable these numbers are.

    6. Re:Well... by jbernardo · · Score: 1

      And what if it works? They had the same rejection when they pushed the australis aberration, and didn't care at all. Just look at the stupidified, cumbersome interface Firefox is saddled with.

    7. Re:Well... by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      If submitting feedback makes you feel better, go for it. But it's very clear that Mozilla cares not for your feedback.

  14. How many? by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mozilla has released a statement saying users like the integration

    What, they asked like 5 users if they liked it?

    I'm betting more people do not care/do not want it than those who do.

    If I want to save a web page, I'll use a damned bookmark.

    Instead of putting this shit in the browser for the small fraction of people who care, how about we leave it as an add-on and those people who want it can add it themselves.

    Why must Mozilla keep filling up Firefox with shit that most people have no interest in? Stop wasting my fucking memory with crapware I don't need.

    Who the hell is in charge at Mozilla these days? I bunch of guys from marketing?

    I hope someone is going to fork it and throw this crap out so we can have a simple web browser, not some swiss-army knife with crap in it we don't care about.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:How many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is the who's who of who is in charge.

      https://blog.mozilla.org/press/media-library/bios/

      The Mozilla retard dream team.
      I think they'll need some mail.

    2. Re:How many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "bunch of guys from marketing?"

      Yes, literally. CEO was previously Chief Marketing Officer.

    3. Re:How many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think those are serious questions that deserves serious answers, unfortunately it's one I'll likely be modded down for, but it's simply my opinion. It's not an intention to offend anyone. That being said...

      Why do they keep adding bloatware to a browser that was founded on the notion of removing the bloatware from a browser? That's hard to even type, let alone think about. Why do they hire people like Brendan Eich as a CEO only to have him ousted a few months later? Yes, he did invent Javascript, thanks very much for that. He also contributed financially to the hopeful success of Proposition 8 in California, which (drumroll) sought to define legally marriage as being between a man and a women...so there's that. They were PARTNERS WITH GOOGLE for fuck's sake, that's some sort of miracle considering they're making a competing product...sorry, that _was_ some sort of miracle because now they're partners with Yahoo. When you think successful Internet companies, surely Yahoo is the first that comes to mind. Who's in charge? Who cares at this rate? They're clearly not well.

      The answer, in general, to the obvious question...why...they can. Plain and simple. If Google wanted to stomp Firefox out of existence, today, all they'd have to do is release a simultaneous Windows (and possibly other popular platforms) build of Chromium that automatically updates. I use Chromium in Linux now for the following reasons:

      1) The extensions are very good (uBlock Origin, which is open source and HTTPS Everywhere)
      2) Chromium is completely open-source and carries with it no trademark nonsense that makes it more difficult to distribute (Debian's repositories have it). That means it can be completely audited, modified by the community...forked if necessary, etc.
      3) It handles Javascript, without extensions, exactly the way you should handle it; whitelisting. That shit is turned off unless I say otherwise, period, no more crapware and obnoxious ads. If I want to see ads (i.e. to support a site)? It's so easy to add an exception that it's silly to do it any other way.

      If Chromium were available for Windows in the same easy fashion that Firefox is currently available for installation, people who love Chrome might give it a try...people who love open source software would give it a try, because the source is fully available and can be community-audited. Mozilla knows that in the latter case, users of open-source software, Chrome just doesn't cut it because Chrome is Google and Google is evil as fuck. They might as well be anyway, though they're no more or less complicit in the NSA and other surveillance programs than, say, Microsoft (that's been established by the Guardian's many leaked documents). If Chromium were available for Windows, possibly for Android as well...from a community-trusted source, with automatic updates... It could be done in a day I'm sure. Mozilla does whatever the hell they want because they know that the majority of people using an open source browser have no other -choice- but to use Firefox because they kind of have the market cornered...not conquered, but cornered. I'd happily remove Firefox forever if Chromium were available with auto updates for Windows, preferably from a community trusted source rather than SoureFo..ah, never mind, that'll DEFINITELY get modded down. Hi DICE. Bastards.

  15. Clearly by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    Mozilla is in the pocket of Big Pocket.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  16. Keeps getting worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First the video chat garbage and now this?! I think it's finally time for me to throw in the towel on Firefox. Any suggestions for a good alternative browser?

    1. Re:Keeps getting worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope more users for qupzilla. Still needs some work, but more users will help boost the development.

  17. Yet Firefox continues to lose marketshare... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... Mozilla has released a statement saying users like the integration...

    Maybe Mozilla should stop telling users what they want, and start giving users what they want.

    1. Re:Yet Firefox continues to lose marketshare... by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      I would like a handjob from a 1977-era Farah Fawcett, please.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:Yet Firefox continues to lose marketshare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as long as you're wishing... not sure why you are stopping at a handjob...

    3. Re:Yet Firefox continues to lose marketshare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like a handjob from a 1977-era Farah Fawcett, please.

      *POOF* You are getting a handjob from a 1977-era Farah Fawcett.

      You are three years old, just like you were in 1997.

      You are both exceedingly uncomfortable with this.

      *END POOF* Now BACK ON TOPIC. Seriously, no more handjob jokes. Those aren't the kind of "extensions" were talking about here...

    4. Re:Yet Firefox continues to lose marketshare... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making sense is not part of the Mozilla Foundation's mandate.

      Though strangely enough, I'm guessing it'd become one pretty fucking quick if people stopped funding them.

  18. Hello! by Tester · · Score: 1

    There is a precedent with the "Hello" webrtc calling functionality, which also relies on a proprietary service. I wish Mozilla had invested in writing a decent WebRTC server, it's really something that is missing from the WebRTC ecosystem. Currently we only have MCUs (where all the media goes throught the server) and hosted services, but no good P2P WebRTC service.

  19. This looks like another tracker. by BitPit1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pocket should not be built in to Firefox as it is yet another third party that gets to capture your browser usage. Good old bookmarks have the same function without involving some unknown third party. I do not want the Pocket feature taking up resources on my computer! Leave it as an addon for folks that can't figure out how to use bookmarks.

  20. The short version by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >> Users: Quit adding unnecessary crap. Stick to the original mission of "leanest browser available."
    >> Mozilla: F*** you. Here's some bloatware chasing down some rarely used media extensions.
    >> Users: Quit adding unnecessary crap. Stick to the original mission of "leanest browser available."
    >> Mozilla: F*** you. Here's a Mozilla "operating system."
    >> Users: Quit adding unnecessary crap. Stick to the original mission of "leanest browser available."
    >> Mozilla: F*** you. Here are some built-in ads.
    >> Users: Quit adding unnecessary crap. Stick to the original mission of "leanest browser available."
    >> Mozilla: F*** you. Here is some built-in crapware from Pocket.
    >> Users: No, f*** you. We already switched ourselves and everyone we know still running Firefox to Chrome.

    1. Re:The short version by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      PaleMoon offers a fork of Firefox without all the recent non-sense. I use it with all the extensions I collected from my days of using Firefox and it does a much better job of living up to Firefox's original goals than Firefox has in the last few years.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:The short version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      same for me, I am using the 64-bit version on windows 7 and never had a crash,
      add-ons installed: adblock latitude, element hiding helper, click to play per-element, ghostery, noscript 2.6.9.22, stylish, useragent overrider.
      For a heck using a chrome useragent...

    3. Re:The short version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pale Moon has its own share of nonsense, but you'll never hear an honest opinion from its stalwart users. They complained that Firefox was breaking addons, switched to Pale Moon, and it broke all the addons on them anyway. Mozilla's fault! They re-stitched in the old UI code, which is starting to have issues on modern OSes, and won't be compatible with the per-process tabs model. Mozilla's fault! You guys need to step out of your bubble already.

    4. Re:The short version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confusing "me and a handful of people I know" with "Mozilla users".

      It's an easy mistake to make. Interestingly, it's exactly the same mistake some people on this page are accusing Mozilla of making. With due respect to you, I honestly think Mozilla likely knows more about what more of their users want than you do.

    5. Re:The short version by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They re-stitched in the old UI code, which is starting to have issues on modern OSes, and won't be compatible with the per-process tabs model.

      Hopefully by the time that becomes a default there will be another fork which fixes these problems, or a skin which fixes the UI problems, as well as a readily available 64-bit build. But I'm not having plugin UI problems that I know of.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:The short version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already switched ourselves and everyone we know still running Firefox to Chrome.

      Why Chrome? I don't see how a browser built by an advertising company which delivers ads based on intensive user surveillance will have the user's best interests at heart.

  21. if really open source, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someone can build and provide a stripped down version. right?

  22. MNG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Stuart Parmenter removes MNG support from Firefox to save 40 kb of download bandwidth, but now we get bundled third-party apps that most Firefox users do not use just because? I don't buy it. Somebody at Mozilla got paid. It's time to dump Firefox for Chromium.

  23. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, political affiliation has EVERYTHING to do with a web browser. Must be those damned socialists and their damned feelings. How dare someone have empathy for humans?! anyway, what were we talking about? Oh right Firefox! THANKS OBAMA.

  24. This pocket app is so popular on firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how come I have literally never heard of it?

  25. Sucks if you WANT pocket, too! by itsme1234 · · Score: 3, Informative

    (UN)Suprisingly it also sucks if you WANT pocket and you were registered with them and you have an account and all.
    How? They said FF extension won't be supported anymore because Pocket is already in Firefox. Well, the "integrated" version just sends you to Pocket web page when you want to see what you want to read! It is nothing more, just a bookmark (it even shows under Bookmarks button).

    While the extension would show your reading list directly, you could dismiss pages without going to pocket web page and so on. MUCH BETTER!

  26. I'm not sure I get this by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Ctrl-S save the page? Or is this something that saves the linked pages also?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:I'm not sure I get this by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference is, it gets saved in the cloud, and your data can be sold to third parties.

    2. Re:I'm not sure I get this by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      I can see the lawsuits now....

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:I'm not sure I get this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, the Ctrl-s feature will be removed on next version since it bothers the experience team.

    4. Re:I'm not sure I get this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox could also have been diddling with our Sync data all this time and we don't know it. But why not throw a tantrum over hypotheticals? It's fun!

  27. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by bondsbw · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And here it is, the reality of popular open source software. People bitch just as much about it as they do proprietary software.

    "You can change the source, you have the power!" Yeah, not so much... nobody is really going to do anything except complain. (Well, except that one guy who is now going to make it his life work to fork it into something he calls Freefox that gets used by around 53 people... but those 53 people are very happy about it.)

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  28. alternatives should be considered. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    Its not part of the general discussion of the firefox backlash, but for those of us neckbeards that dont care for chrome or safari, Qupzilla provides a workable fork of Mozilla firefox with a functional adblock and a much, much slimmer disk footprint on the system.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:alternatives should be considered. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      How's its extension support? That's what killed Palemoon for me.

    2. Re:alternatives should be considered. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was pretty excited about this for a bit, but it's actually a QtWebKit browser - which is not really native for me (not running KDE) and is certainly not a fork of Mozilla.

      I suppose I'll eventually just use Midori all the time.

    3. Re:alternatives should be considered. by allo · · Score: 1

      palemoon supports firefoxextensions

    4. Re:alternatives should be considered. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Only ones that aren't tied to Australis. uBlock and Firebug, e.g., aren't supported.

    5. Re:alternatives should be considered. by allo · · Score: 1

      why no ublock?

    6. Re:alternatives should be considered. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Apparently, the On/Off widget requires Australis.

    7. Re:alternatives should be considered. by allo · · Score: 1

      Oh great. I guess palemoon/ublock will fix this some time ...

    8. Re:alternatives should be considered. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      They're not concerned with it. The guys doing the extension forks have repeatedly said they're going to focus on Adblock Latitude, so they don't need uBlock.

  29. The degradation of Firefox continues by The+Faywood+Assassin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Using Firefox has become like that relationship that used to be perfect and then out of nowhere your partner starts cheating on you and each time swears its going to be the last time.

    And you keep falling for it.

    --

    "I'm a humble person really,

    I'm actually much greater than I think I am"

    1. Re:The degradation of Firefox continues by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 0

      Are we sure Dice hasn't acquired the Mozilla Foundation?

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:The degradation of Firefox continues by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      For me, installing every new Firefox release starts with a web search for the new Firefox "features" to disable - sigh. (Social, Hello, Pocket, telemetry, health reporting, beacon, etc...)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:The degradation of Firefox continues by sasparillascott · · Score: 0

      You (and The Faywood Assassin) nailed it. Dice, no shit.... Pocket is a 3rd party data mining/monetizing application where what you read is the product they store and sell and Mozilla obviously took the 30 pieces of silver to put this in...when are they integrating Facebook use monitoring and AOL? At some point, something better than Firefox, is going to popup and the remaining user base will leave en masse....just like what happened to Netscape (almost a total replay of adding 3rd party crapware in and people abandoning the browser).

  30. What a waste by Khyber · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not like bookmarks or Save Page functionality hasn't existed for more than a decade.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  31. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by gnupun · · Score: 1

    People bitch just as much about it as they do proprietary software.

    But open source is supposed to be about what the users want. Firefox lately seems to be more about how many more millions Mozilla can make off their users and they care little about users (since they pay $0).

    So Firefox is less of a free sort of software, rather it is has become a commercial product with revenues from ads and other commercial deals with for-profit companies.

    "You can change the source, you have the power!" Yeah, not so much...

    What good is open source if users can't/won't change 2 or 3 lines of code?

  32. If mozilla cares about userbase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They would do an ask slashdot about how they've been treating the browser lately.

  33. "save web articles to read later" by edxwelch · · Score: 2

    Isn't that called bookmarks?

  34. In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fuck off, we will do any sort of dumb shit that we want and you will like it!

  35. Bloat Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Chome = Spyware
    Firefox = Bloat

    I'd rather deal with bloat than spyware.

  36. Hmm, this smells like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Smells like the same argument as systemd...

  37. h264 by Henriok · · Score: 2

    Hey Mozilla! Why don't you write some open source code that links to other useful proprietary stuff that folks like, like the h264 capabilities that comes installed on most of the plattforms you are deploying on?

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
    1. Re:h264 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Mozilla! Why don't you write some open source code that links to other useful proprietary stuff that folks like, like the h264 capabilities that comes installed on most of the plattforms you are deploying on?

      1) Nobody's paying them to do that.
      2) Video playback is such a simple UI that even the UXtards responsible for removing the Status Bar and creating Australis can't fuck it up.
      3) That leaves the DRM department and the people who brought advertising to the new tab page.

      I guess what I'm saying is that we should be careful what you wish for; we just might get it.

      It's past time for someone to fork Mozilla. Palemoon and Waterfox FTW.

    2. Re:h264 by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I was going to say the same thing. No mod points tho....

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  38. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by bigfinger76 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "You can change the source, you have the power!" Yeah, not so much... nobody is really going to do anything except complain. (Well, except that one guy who is now going to make it his life work to fork it into something he calls Freefox that gets used by around 53 people... but those 53 people are very happy about it.)

    Firefox has been forked already. More than 53 people are very happy about it.
    Pale Moon

  39. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But open source is supposed to be about what the users want

    Since when? Seems to me open source is primarily about what the developers want, and if the 'user' happens to have developer skills he can make it what he wants. Which open source projects are the ones that do what the users (vs developers) want?

  40. I use Pocket by Allicorn · · Score: 1

    I use Firefox and have been using Pocket (from a bookmarklet) for ages. So I guess that makes me one of the FF users that likes Pocket. However even I don't think it's in the slightest bit appropriate to integrate the service into the browser.

    As it happens, I have my FF UI so heavily customized (menus and status bars forever, man) that I don't see any visible trace of Pocket and didn't know it had been added in this way until this article popped up.

    --
    OMG!!! Ponies!!!
    1. Re:I use Pocket by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The one good thing that came out of this whole debacle was that someone on r/linux posted about Wallabag.

      I love self-hosted knockoffs. :)

    2. Re:I use Pocket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As it happens, I have my FF UI so heavily customized (menus and status bars forever, man)

      I take it your car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's how you like it?

  41. Mozzila strategy in a nutshel by jbssm · · Score: 1

    Keep adding some features coming from some pet projects of the most vocal developers that a great part of the user base doesn't care... while products that gets bloated, slower and buggy at every interaction. Somehow this doesn't seem like a good business strategy.

    Personal experience: Changed to Chrome about 3 months ago... since I learned to live with the definitively less advanced tab management, everything has been better. Much faster and less buggy.

  42. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by OhPlz · · Score: 2

    Apparently it does, look what happened to their former CEO Eich.

  43. How to disable pocket for the lazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1.about: config
    2. Find browser.pocket.enabled preference and change its value to ‘false’.
    3. To remove Reader view, change reader.parse-on-load.enabled preference value to ‘false‘.
    4. Restart the browser to see the changes.

    -S

  44. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by bondsbw · · Score: 1

    Ok, fine, some number* of people are very happy about it.

    * some number that is insignificantly different from 53

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  45. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

    But open source is supposed to be about what the users want

    Since when? Seems to me open source is primarily about what the developers want, and if the 'user' happens to have developer skills he can make it what he wants. Which open source projects are the ones that do what the users (vs developers) want?

    Open source is more centric on the developers, yes. They are not strictly obligated to listen to their users. However, if you make something that people depend on everyday for their use, the product itself becomes rather personal to them. Observe: if I were to loan you my Netflix account, and let you use it however you liked, you would become rather annoyed with me if I took it away from you after several months of use. It's human nature; you form attachments to things you interact frequently with. If Mozilla explicitly was developed solely for their developers use, I think they should have explicitly said so. Navigate to their home page, and what do you see? "When it’s personal, choose Firefox." Right there, big bold letters. Turning around and then telling their users that they aren't entitled to anything does not send good messages, it makes them look deceitful.

    Mozilla hasn't done anything technically wrong, but they've done an exceptionally poor job of communicating what their user's position in their eye was. Or perhaps their policies changed over time. Who knows, but it's one reason why I prefer to rely on Seamonkey instead as a web-browser.

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
  46. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

    "You can change the source, you have the power!" Yeah, not so much... nobody is really going to do anything except complain. (Well, except that one guy who is now going to make it his life work to fork it into something he calls Freefox that gets used by around 53 people... but those 53 people are very happy about it.)

    Firefox has been forked already. More than 53 people are very happy about it. Pale Moon

    Seamonkey is a pretty decent cousin. It's what Firefox itself was forked from!

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
  47. Other voices. by westlake · · Score: 1

    some Firefox users began to voice their displeasure over the move on public forums like Bugzilla, Google Groups, and Hacker News

    These forums may be technically "open to the public," but that doesn't make them visible, accessible or inviting to anyone but the geek.

    Which is one of the principal reasons why the geek gets sandbagged every time the infinitely greater mass of users move in a direction he doesn't want or expect them to go.

    Integrated DRM media play in or through the browser will serve as an example.

    His defenses there have crumbled.

  48. Re: Fuck you Mozilla by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    With all the new crust being thrown into Firefox, Seamonkey may soon be the lighter alternative.

    I prefer Seamonkey and almost always use it, with noscript, on the desktop, because I still believe in the ideal of a symmetrical web. The software I use to view HTML is also capable of producing it . If I encounter content I want to save locally, I click 'edit' and trim out the ads and junk and save it. When I want to organize information I sometimes stick it in tables on an html file and even sometimes scp it to the html directory on my Freeshell account so I can view it anywhere. (it's my non-cloud)

    Anybody who can read html content should be capable of easily composing it. That's the old Web Suite philosophy.

  49. From the Management by sehlat · · Score: 1

    Of course we'll bundle Pocket with the new release of the browser! Our customers expect no less of us. We have never sought to become a monopoly. Our products are simply so good that no one feels the need to compete with us.

      --Where do you want your Browser today?

      CEO Nwabudike Morgan

  50. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by westlake · · Score: 1

    Since when? Seems to me open source is primarily about what the developers want

    Open Source projects on the scale of Firefox and LibreOffice are all about what their patrons are wiling to pay for ---

    and patrons of the arts on the grand scale, the state, the church, the merchant prince, have always had a targeted audience of "users" whose needs and expectations must be met.

    The artist, architect or engineer, who put his own desires first soon finds himself off the payroll.

  51. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by bws111 · · Score: 1

    So what you are saying is that once someone does something you like (and gets nothing in return from you), they are somehow obligated (technically, legally, morally, whatever) to continue doing that for you (for free) forever? How entitled can you get?

  52. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by bws111 · · Score: 1

    So how many of the people complaining about this actually pay Mozilla anything? And what makes you think the people who actually are paying don't want these changes?

  53. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

    The fork is there. Others took the initiative, despite your assertions to the contrary.

  54. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    What was your opinion of Brendan Eich getting sacked due to his political affiliation/donation record?

  55. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    dammit, saw your post, right after I hit 'submit' :( blerg.

  56. Add-on: good. Service: bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd love it if Firefox integrated the Pocket add-on. The existence Firefox Pocket add-on is the primary reason I use Firefox!

    The problem is what they integrated is the far inferior Pocket Firefox "service", and they announced that the add-on is no longer supported.

    Features of the add-on, that were dropped from the service:

    • An icon in the URL area shows if a page is currently in the Pocket reading list.
    • Clicking the Pocket icon in the URL area instantly adds it to the reading list.
    • You can remove a page from the reading list by clicking the same icon. (The icon is a toggle.)
    • Clicking the Pocket icon in the toolbar displays a pop-up list of pages saved. (Compare to the service, where all can do is open the Pocket site.)
    • You can go to any of the reading list pages directly from the list; you don't have to go to the Pocket site.
    • You can remove pages from the reading list directly from the pop-up list; you don't have to go to the Pocket site.
    • Pocket is integrated into the context menu. Right-click on a link to add it to Pocket.
    • and when you do so, it displays a icon next to the link to show that it was added.

    It's almost like the point of the service is to drive traffic to the Pocket site's page.

    What's the point of Firefox integration if it is no better than a barely functional service? Integration from the browser vender should enable the function to be used transparently.

  57. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by weilawei · · Score: 1

    Why do I care how many other people use it right now? Browsers come and go. It's maintained at present, and it works well.

    Posted from my Pale Moon.

  58. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

    So what you are saying is that once someone does something you like (and gets nothing in return from you), they are somehow obligated (technically, legally, morally, whatever) to continue doing that for you (for free) forever? How entitled can you get?

    It's about expectations. If Mozilla never expected to accommodate their users, they should never have written their statements to make it sound like they will. It turns out that saying one thing and doing the opposite tends to draw people's ire.

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
  59. I saved this article with pocket by aarongadberry · · Score: 1

    That way I can read it later when I have time.

  60. Re:Bloat Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Care to provide evidence of that?

  61. By default by robmv · · Score: 1

    I have no problems with Mozilla integrating 3rd party services when that client code is open source. Hey! a browser is already a client for millions of closed source services via HTTP. What I don't like is Mozilla putting buttons for those services by default on my toolbar, that is adware like behavior

  62. I do not know anything about this pocket app,.... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    However my stance on the issues with firefox changed very little

    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
    http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    TLDR: The stability (under the 64bit waterfox build) is pretty much where I want it, it doesn't crash.
    However,...the performance is atrocious compared to chrome, I don't know what kind of machine to throw at this browser but there needs to be a better way.

    I've tried with / without the noscript, with / without adblock and flashblock - nope still no good.
    It's sad.
    Stop adding bloat, start trimming and tidying and optomising code.

    My personal, non software developer, layman opinion is almost every web site, almost every application, almost every game and almost every operating system - almost all software in existence really should have **national optomisation week** where NO FEATURES ARE ADDED, NO UI'S CHANGED and for 1 week a year they simply try to speed up their old code.
    Seriously.... developers are still behaving like it's 1995 -> 2008 or so, when everything endlessly doubled in performance. Hint: PC performance increase have slowed. Start coding cleaner.
    1 week a year, think about it devs, please.

  63. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by gnupun · · Score: 1

    So how many of the people complaining about this actually pay Mozilla anything?

    But why should the complainers pay anything? The open source deal implies, the developer gets paid little to nothing for his work and the users get free software. Isn't that why these products become popular in the first place ($0 price tag)? The developers can't pull a bait-and-switch afterwards saying they're tired of providing free software and want to add changes to the software that make them money but are harmful to the users.

  64. Cheat Code Master List by nowsharing · · Score: 1

    Firefox is still the greatest browser, and if new features bother you too much, it's always dead easy to disable them. You only have to do it once per install. about:config Disable Firefox Hello loop.enabled = false Disable Pocket browser.pocket.enabled = flase Disable One-Click Search Bar (revert to old search) browser.search.showOneOffButtons = false Enable Firefox Tracking Protection (Disconnect) privacy.trackingprotection.enabled = true

  65. Remove bloat add-on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there one?

    Moz put some crap chatty-thing on my toolbar without asking which I had to remove, why can't I have wither a no-bloat add-on or an about:config no-bloat setting (=false in my case)
     

  66. Re:Cheat Code Master List - oops, formatting... by nowsharing · · Score: 2


    about:config

    Disable Firefox Hello

    loop.enabled = false

    Disable Pocket

    browser.pocket.enabled = flase

    Disable One-Click Search Bar (revert to old search)

    browser.search.showOneOffButtons = false

    Enable Firefox Tracking Protection (like Disconnect)

    privacy.trackingprotection.enabled = true

    Bonus: replace Adblock with the Open-Source and superior uBlock: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

  67. What users like this? by markdavis · · Score: 2

    >"Mozilla has released a statement saying users like the integration"

    I don't know any such users. In fact, most people I know agree that Mozilla needs to stop this trend of adding things to Firefox; it goes completely contrary to the Firefox mission (or what I thought it used to be, anyway)- to be small, open, cross-platform, and fast.

    So please remove it. And then remove Hello. In fact, remove the developer stuff too (which 99.999% of users never use). Please use Addons/Extensions for these things. And while you are at it- LISTEN TO YOUR USER BASE who want full control over the UI options (Should I mention tabs-on-bottom? Or status panel? Or traditional file menus?). Stop trying to be Chrome!!!

  68. They had a long good but it looks like it is over by mike2006 · · Score: 1

    I almost get the feeling they are intentionally trying to destroy FF. It is not just that they added pocket there have been a number of ridiculous UI tweaks, bugs and performance issues that is forcing me off Firefox. With this update I figured it was just another idiotic customization to undo whatever they changed. But now it hangs on some webpages (pretty consistently) on both my phone and PC. So now I am at the point where it is unusable too many times a day and effecting my productivity. I'm done.

  69. kickbacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were paid a kickback by pocket to include it. Nothing else makes sense. A poster above listed pocket downloads at 275k. That's worldwide. Not even statistically significant imho.

  70. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Eich wasn't terminated because of his political affiliation. He was terminated because he's a bigot.

  71. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure. More than half the population of the US is bigoted.

    Ever look in the mirror?

  72. Search Box Idiocy by snilloc · · Score: 1

    As somebody who has used FF since Phoenix, the most annoying functionality break in recent FF builds is the search box. You can no longer pick your search engine before typing, defeating the benefit of any predictive auto-complete.

    1. Re:Search Box Idiocy by mike2006 · · Score: 2

      I did not like the change in search functionality. This is how I got it back.

      about:config

      Set browser.search.showOneOffButtons to false

  73. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, but my bigotry doesn't extend beyond individuals. I don't condemn entire groups of people like Brendan Eich does.

  74. Pocket is nice stuff by thewolfkin · · Score: 1

    I like Pocket. I use Pocket. It's a nifty way to have a bunch of articles categorized so when people say stupid things like black people loot and white people band together. I can pull together the many articles showing people looking and rioting over pumpkins so regularly it's expected. When someone wants to talk about how scary the rise of false rape allegations is I can pull together the numerous articles I've saved on that subject to explain to them why they're wrong. I think Pocket is great. I use pocket to keep design links that I'll find useful. Videos of people spending hours just creating graphics for games that I find compelling and educational. I keep links to brushes and background and resources for various projects. Pocket is in my opinion pretty awesome even though I use it not as intended most of the time. I still don't want it integrated into my browser.

    --
    Just another second banana
  75. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by exomondo · · Score: 1

    But open source is supposed to be about what the users want.

    Only because of the idea that the users have the ability to change the code to do what they want, but the reality is they don't want to do that.

    Firefox lately seems to be more about how many more millions Mozilla can make off their users and they care little about users (since they pay $0).

    What's wrong with that?

    So Firefox is less of a free sort of software, rather it is has become a commercial product with revenues from ads and other commercial deals with for-profit companies.

    I don't think you understand the definition of "free software", it has nothing to do with making revenue or monetary value or for-profit companies.

    What good is open source if users can't/won't change 2 or 3 lines of code?

    Not much, which is probably why few people care about open source - developers sure - but not users.

  76. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by exomondo · · Score: 1

    The open source deal implies, the developer gets paid little to nothing for his work and the users get free software.

    No, it doesn't imply that at all.

    Isn't that why these products become popular in the first place ($0 price tag)?

    No, IE also has a $0 price tag.

    The developers can't pull a bait-and-switch afterwards saying they're tired of providing free software and want to add changes to the software that make them money but are harmful to the users.

    But that's not what they're doing because they still are providing free software.

  77. Re: Fuck you Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's entitled to choose a different web browser, you got a problem with that?

  78. Don't forget that this is ESR release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Mozilla crapped on the 38.x ESR release in two ways:
    - Adobe's DRM crap was integrated right from the start
    - 38.0.5 integrated Pocket

    Since support for 31 ESR will run out soon, there are really not many choices here. Either make a custom build or move to another browser. Or perhaps there is a third way: use Tor browser (without Tor), they seem to be good at removing crap from the Firefox.

    Luckily there are some emerging alternatives:
    http://fifth-browser.sourceforge.net/
    http://otter-browser.org/

  79. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    But open source is supposed to be about what the users want.

    No. Open source allows users to extend a project to turn it into what they want. It has NEVER been about what users want. These are ultimately still projects by developers with their own needs and agendas. If you find a nice developer and ask nicely they *may* add the features you want, but there's zero guarantee that an open source project is managed any differently from a closed source project.

    What good is open source if users can't/won't change 2 or 3 lines of code?

    You mean like the users who changed lines of code to make WaterFox, PaleMoon, SeaMonkey, IceWeasel, IceCat, Wyzo, or other similar projects in various states of development?

  80. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Open source, like proprietary software, is supposed to be about what the contributors want. In the proprietary COTS model, it's easy to identify the contributors: they're the ones handing over money in exchange for the product. In the bespoke model - proprietary or open - it's usually the person paying the developers salary. In the mass-market open source model, it's much harder (and may be a mixture of volunteer devs / doc writers / bug reporters and so on, as well as some people funding the project). For Mozilla, most of the work is done by people who are paid, but their salaries come from from an income stream (money from the default search provider and so on) that makes it quite difficult to see who the contributors are. Technically, they're probably the users, since that's essentially how Moz Corp gets its money, but via a lot of layers of indirection.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  81. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Mozilla derives its income from things like search placement, which are paid proportionally to the number of users, so effectively anyone who uses Firefox and doesn't change the default search engine is a paying customer.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  82. How is Pocket different from bookmarks / File-Save by rduke15 · · Score: 1

    I don't understand the point of this Pocket stuff (or Wallabag, which someone mentioned as similar). Would someone please explain what use it has?

    For Pocket, I read "If it's in Pocket, it's on your phone, tablet or computer. You don't even need an Internet connection."

    OK, but how is that different from Ctrl-S (Save page)?

    For Wallabag, apparently you still need an Internet connection: "when you open your wallabag, you can comfortably read your articles. [...] you can install it on your web server or you can create a free account at Framabag.

    So how is that different from just bookmarking the page?

  83. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

    And here it is, the reality of popular open source software. People bitch just as much about it as they do proprietary software.

    "You can change the source, you have the power!" Yeah, not so much... nobody is really going to do anything except complain. (Well, except that one guy who is now going to make it his life work to fork it into something he calls Freefox that gets used by around 53 people... but those 53 people are very happy about it.)

    pale moon is already forked from Firefox/Mozilla

    https://www.palemoon.org/

    and has more than 53 users.

    --
    Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  84. Next up by crohan · · Score: 1

    systemd/Firefox integration.

    1. Re:Next up by allo · · Score: 1

      systemd as init for boot-to-gecko, including the renderengine.

  85. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Condemn what? You're still "condemning" polygamists, single people, related folks, etc. Laws by definition condemn certain things, that's their purpose.

  86. If I was the Mozilla CEO... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off, I'd fire most of the useless people (except devs)...
    * Designers will all be fired - replace that will design suggestions from the community, and use voting to pick out the best that users WANT;
    * HR - all fired, and instead use the senior dev and the ceo as people who hire;
    * Accounts - leave only 1 person to deal with the non-profit paperwork, and paperwork / contracts associated with external funding from Yahoo / Google / Microsoft;
    * Marketing - all fired - get the open source community to once-again evangelise Firefox like the good-old-days;

    Secondly, improve the core browser...
    * Assign ALL devs working full speed on implementing electrolysis (multi-process Firefox) as the number-one priority;

    After that..
    * Remove all the bloated features not used by 99% of normal people (Pocket / Hello / dev tools / share / sync / etc) - all downloadable as extensions;
    * Hire all the ad-block team in-house and integrate ad-block in the browser with the 'acceptable ads policy' so as not to annoy my primary source of funding (Yahoo)... and then get companies to COMPLY with MY demands on acceptable ads and get them to pay Firefox to add themselves to the 'acceptable ads list';
    (this will have all the retarded ad / beacon companies running around in havoc, just like when Mozilla wanted to implement 'no 3rd party cookies').

    As time went on...
    Implement a voting system, and get the community to vote on the biggest priority issues and features that they wanted - perhaps even have the voting on the homepage of Firefox.

    Perhaps also, if Firefox OS was taking too much toll on the devs, and little or no income as a result of it, then I'd dump the entire project.

  87. Re: Fuck you Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The it's is that google stopped doing cash on them. They need money. And rather than their oh so expectant users paying for a product they use, they should go to a different browser? Man, open source is ducked. I hope you enjoy your corporate sponsored spyware browsers!

  88. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla is a not-for-profit foundation.

  89. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Palemoon is considerably more shit than Firefox.

  90. Firefox is done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I use Seamonkey! :-)

  91. This Firefox user doesn't want it. KISS! [eom] by Helldesk+Hound · · Score: 1

    Well, speaking personally, this Firefox user doesn't want it.
    Keep it simple. Keep it small. Keep it from Embrace/Extend/Extinguish!

  92. What puts the "job" in a handjob? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Something I've always wondered about a handjob: Why is it called a hand "job" when sex acts for hire are illegal in the jurisdictions where most of Slashdot's audience reside?

    1. Re:What puts the "job" in a handjob? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I've done plenty of (non-hand) jobs without compensation.

  93. NAT by tepples · · Score: 1

    How do you plan to do P2P WebRTC when both parties are behind network address translation (NAT)?

  94. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by exomondo · · Score: 1

    Mozilla is a not-for-profit foundation.

    Right, so the money they do make gets poured back into development to create better products.

  95. Re:Cheat Code Master List - oops, formatting... by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

    uBlock

    Would you care to highlight some of the features of uBlock, especially vis-a-vis uMatrix?

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  96. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where did I say anything like that? Hint: I didn't and now you're trying to put words into my mouth because your argument was crushed to ashes.

    No, I am not condemning any of those people. They can do whatever they like, doesn't affect my life in the slightest.

  97. Firefox, the small browser with extensions by allo · · Score: 1

    Why aren't they packing the stuff, which annoys the user, in like 40 extensions (pocket, sync, apps integration, personas, australis theme, js console, mobile developer tools, hello, ...) and preinstall them?
    - They still have many users, who use the default
    - The annoyed users disable the addons
    - They can benchmark the small firefox to show how fast it is instead of the current monster in the next benchmarks.

  98. Re:Bloat Spyware by allo · · Score: 1

    chromium: Lean and not spyware.

    BUT not very extenable compared to firefox

  99. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by allo · · Score: 1

    This was the official statement.
    But kicking someone because of his private personal opinions (even when they are mean) is something no company should do. It's not like he was "let's integrate anti-gay propaganda into the firefox startpage".

  100. Re:How is Pocket different from bookmarks / File-S by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    how is that different from Ctrl-S (Save page)?

    Pocket saves your pages in the cloud so that more data about you can be mined.

  101. Re:Cheat Code Master List - oops, formatting... by nowsharing · · Score: 1

    "The main difference between uBlock and uMatrix is that uBlock uses pattern-based filtering while uMatrix matrix-based filtering which gives you more control over the filtering process....In comparison to NoScript, it is offering finer controls when it comes to content types to block. While NoScript does support custom site exclusions, it is not as easy to setup, and as far as RequestPolicy is concerned, it is more of a allow or deny type of program with little granularity.

    The extension works like a firewall basically that gives you control over what is loaded when you connect to web pages in the browser.'

    I haven't used uMatrix, but found that info at: http://www.ghacks.net/2015/05/...

  102. Bookmark toolbar by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Any article I want to read later I drag to the bookmark toolbar. Done! Can even stuff a folder with multiple links in there. With sync enabled I can access it on any one of my systems. Not sure what the need is for yet another tool? Is it because people do not know how to bookmark pages? Or is it that by default all the helpful UI controls are hidden and turned off? The Mozillas should work on getting a handle of the still excessive memory leaks in FF. That would do everyone more good than some 3rd party proprietary service.

  103. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Eich was fired because he sucked as a CEO. The board made a mistake to promote him to that position and he did plenty of objectionable and outright dumb stuff even before dropping his comment.

  104. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by allo · · Score: 1

    His sucking was to oppose EME, to speak the truth.

  105. Die in a fire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please be aware that I'm not asking you to agree with it, I just want to know that you understand that content creators need revenue even if you think this is not the way it should be done.

    I take great pleasure in starving your type of the revenue you "need." I hope you literally starve to death in a ditch, so that your idiot ideas and worthless shit web sites/browsers will disappear into oblivion, never to re-emerge.

    Free clue: We DO NOT need you.

    Die slowly in a fire.