Slashdot Mirror


Firefox 40 Arrives With Windows 10 Support, Expanded Malware Protection

An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla today launched Firefox 40 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Notable additions to the browser include official Windows 10 support, added protection against unwanted software downloads, and new navigational gestures on Android. Firefox 40 for the desktop is available for download now on Firefox.com, and all existing users should be able to upgrade to it automatically. As always, the Android version is trickling out slowly on Google Play. Changelogs are here: desktop and Android.

113 comments

  1. Still not as good as Google Chrome... by jcfandino · · Score: 5, Funny

    because Chrome version is 44. This is 10% better.

    1. Re:Still not as good as Google Chrome... by MagickalMyst · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes but Chrome still sucks.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    2. Re:Still not as good as Google Chrome... by aaron4801 · · Score: 4, Funny

      But 40x better than Edge.

    3. Re:Still not as good as Google Chrome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      lack of plugs / add ons killing it.

    4. Re:Still not as good as Google Chrome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just going to out myself first by saying I far prefer IE11 to Chrome. That said, Chrome is, exactly as you say, 40x better than Edge.

      MS made a light, not-actually-snappy browser that can't do anything beyond light browsing (ie: Facebook and YouTube focused) and restricts the UI so badly that it breaks drag-and-drop functionality in the Favorites list. The options are a worthless list of pretend-controls that don't actually give you any real control over the settings (ex: sure I can turn off Flash, but HTML5 video ads still continue to auto-play and annoy me). And I've found a number of sites where it just won't save my cookies, so after I login I can't stay logged in.

      So back to IE11 I go, with Chrome still as my primary backup for the sites that IE breaks.

    5. Re:Still not as good as Google Chrome... by antdude · · Score: 1

      SeaMonkey still rules even though a few Gecko versions behind. :/

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

    Great! Time for nitpickers to pick some nits and threaten once again to change to a fork or Chrome. Here, I'll get things started: no devedition theme in the non-devedition anymore. Cry us some rivers, guys!

    1. Re:Oh boy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome = garbage
      Chromium = garbage
      Chromodo = garbage
      Dillo = garbage
      Dragon = garbage
      Edge = garbage
      Firefox = garbage
      IceCat = garbage
      IceDragon = garbage
      Internet Explorer = garbage
      Iron = garbage
      Links = mediocre
      Lunascape = garbage
      Midori = garbage
      Opera = good
      Opera Next = mediocre
      QupZilla = garbage
      Safari = garbage
      Sleipnir = garbage
      Vivaldi = garbage
      Waterfox = garbage

    2. Re:Oh boy. by sd4f · · Score: 1

      I would change Opera to 'least worst'.

    3. Re: Oh boy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K-Meleon=great

    4. Re:Oh boy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seamonkey = superb it's firefox, with 1998 browser bullshit instead of 201X browser bullshit. a nice compromise i'd say.

  3. alternative browsers, Opera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After using windows 10 edge i felt that without ad blocker was useless in this ad ridden web, so which are the options?, a slow and bloated firefox, or the alphabet privacy nightmare and memory hog Chrome.

    I installed the latest Opera and was surprised, is fast, based in chromium so is very compatible and has the gestures and usual goodies of every opera install, it is even a universal app in windows 10, so it looks great too.

    For me Opera is my alternative browser for years to come

    1. Re:alternative browsers, Opera? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 0

      +1 for Opera

    2. Re:alternative browsers, Opera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear Opera has extensions now. Do they have a "give me back Opera 12" extension?

    3. Re:alternative browsers, Opera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Former Opera cofounder created Vivaldi, it is supposed to be like old Opera but with Blink engine.

    4. Re:alternative browsers, Opera? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You can even install Chrome extensions with Opera. (I am a fan.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:alternative browsers, Opera? by sd4f · · Score: 1

      I use opera, as it's my least hated browser. When I ditched FF due to Australis, the newest version of Opera was missing quite a few features. Still annoyed at the bookmarks handling, it's not good at all, can't export them to a file (for easy backups). Also, a few right click commands were missing, however I can't remember what they were now, I think it was opening a link in a new tab, but looks like it's there now.

    6. Re:alternative browsers, Opera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about ? Opera is not a universal app, just a normal desktop one. It doesn't even have "metro" mode and doesn't support touch gestures (available as extensions for Firefox and chrome), just mouse, which makes her the worst browser for Windows tablets.

    7. Re:alternative browsers, Opera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad I wasn't the only person who came to this conclusion also. Should also be noted that the mobile version works apparently seamlessly - unlike Firefox Mobile which appears (I've done no actually metric testing) slower, less reliable (page load failures).

    8. Re:alternative browsers, Opera? by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 1

      I installed the latest Opera and was surprised

      So was everyone who used the pre-chromed Opera.

      I'm still on Opera 12. Nothing can replace it just yet.

    9. Re:alternative browsers, Opera? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'm still saddened by the discontinuation of the Opera 12.xx line of browsers, but eventually came to the conclusion that Opera is the actually the best of the Chromium-based browsers that I found. Though nowadays I do most of my browsing in Pale Moon.

  4. What new shit do they add to the toolbar this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what new shit is added to the toolbar this time? I swear, default Firefox is starting to look like Internet Explorer with a million shitty stupid third party toolbars installed. I can't wait to see what new third-party shitware is bundled with the new Firefox!

  5. After 40 variants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OMG, When Firefox one came out we used to to view webpages. 40 major revisions plus numerous increments we can still view the same webpagf but with a much larger footprint. Have we really gained anything worth while over 40 major revisions.

    1. Re:After 40 variants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Any other questions?

    2. Re:After 40 variants... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, and it's easy to prove by running a community rebuild like Iceweasel, which renders 99.99% of websites which work with conventional Firefox just fine, but has like 1/10th of the resource footprint.

    3. Re:After 40 variants... by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      A community build of Iceweasel is based off of Firefox 1?

    4. Re:After 40 variants... by tgv · · Score: 1

      Sounds interesting. What's the difference between Firefox and Iceweasel? I can't seem to find any technical description, just talk about trademarks.

  6. Let's do it! by dotancohen · · Score: 0

    No, not fuck.

    According to the screenshots at TFA (iKnow, iKnow) upon install Firefox instructs the user to make Firefox the default browser. The button for opening the System Settings is not marked "Make Firefox Your Default Browser" but rather "Let's Do It!" which I suppose assumes that the user read the rest of the page. Did this get absolutely no testing at all?

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    1. Re:Let's do it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you nuts? The heading above the button says "Make Firefox your default in three easy steps", but you need the button itself, right below that heading, to say the exact same thing?!!? This is your complaint? You expect every button in an application to have text on the button itself fully describing what it does? Jesus.

    2. Re:Let's do it! by dotancohen · · Score: 0

      You expect every button in an application to have text on the button itself fully describing what it does?

      Yes. Most people only read what is on the button itself, if even that. Expecting them to have read the entire page to know what it is that they will be doing (it's not even mentioned in the page title) is too much.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    3. Re:Let's do it! by Dahan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You expect every button in an application to have text on the button itself fully describing what it does?

      Yes. Most people only read what is on the button itself, if even that. Expecting them to have read the entire page to know what it is that they will be doing (it's not even mentioned in the page title) is too much.

      No, I think it's just you... you must have a huge problem when using any GUI interface these days--"OK or Cancel? OK to what?? Cancel what??? I have no idea what it's talking about!"

    4. Re:Let's do it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about the always stunning "OK to quit" buttons that have "OK" and "QUIT" as options? What does that do? Can I cancel it if I clicked the wrong button?

    5. Re:Let's do it! by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      No, I think it's just you... you must have a huge problem when using any GUI interface these days--"OK or Cancel? OK to what?? Cancel what??? I have no idea what it's talking about!"

      This is modded insightful??? For any non-degenerate case, the buttons OK and Cancel will be placed on a dialog that provides the context of what they are about, so their meaning can still be inferred from the whole interface they are connected with. If you are really interested in the scientific basis of how all this works, search for any literature in the intersections of "semantics" and "human-computer interaction" - there's much more to it than the average developer knows about.

      BTW, in most cases the recommended text for buttons in dialogs is to summarize the effect they will have if pressed (like "Save" or "Delete all files" or "Stop the autodestruction sequence"), not merely "OK".

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
  7. All URLs are going to Google by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    So as part of the safe browsing it looks like all of the URLs you are going to and anything you download is being sent over to Google. I wonder what they are going to do with them?

    1. Re:All URLs are going to Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not seeing that. I just ran a network trace and did not see that. From the url bar or clicking on random links or from shortcuts.

      Where are you seeing that?

    2. Re:All URLs are going to Google by new_01 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's how to disable it. Not sure yet how this is implemented. https://support.mozilla.org/en...

    3. Re:All URLs are going to Google by new_01 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apparently version 3 of the API downloads the hashed list to the client side rather than sending URL's to mother Google: https://developers.google.com/... So I think I'm going to leave it enabled on my machines. This is reasonable and actually a fairly decent service if that's true.

    4. Re:All URLs are going to Google by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

      No, only URLS that return executable downloads.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    5. Re:All URLs are going to Google by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Debian just looked into this, while considering how to appropriately hack FF into Iceweasel. The URLs are hashed, and a partial hash is sent to Google. Google then sends back a list of dangerous URLs (if any) which match that partial hash.

      One can quibble about how long the partial hash should be (too short, and you waste time and bandwidth downloading lists of false positives all the time; too long, and Google may be able to start inferring which sites you're visiting by looking for patterns), but overall, it seems like an excellent compromise between the contrasting needs of security and privacy. Debian ultimately decided to keep the feature, and keep it enabled by default, which says a lot to me. But, of course, you can disable it in either FF or Iceweasel, if you're unhappy with it.

    6. Re:All URLs are going to Google by raz0 · · Score: 2

      Even in Firefox 39 (possibly earlier), Google gets to set a permanent cookie if you have malware/"web forgery" detection enabled (which is the default). Even with an addon like 'Self-Destructing Cookies' you still can't get rid of the Google cookie. You can even try for yourself in Settings > Privacy > Show Cookies on a fresh install of Firefox. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

    7. Re:All URLs are going to Google by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      This would be why God gave us text editors. Until they started putting stuff like cookies.txt in sqlite files, that is... WTF??

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  8. Re:What new shit do they add to the toolbar this t by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    Just installed it and I'm quite surprised, it looks just like Firefox 39 (and 38, and 37, and... whatever version where they intro'd that stupid Chrome-clone theme with curved tabs and whatnot). So whatever pointless shit they've added this time, it's not visible in the UI.

    (Having said that, I'm running Classic Theme Restorer and a bunch of other addons to undo all the crap they've stuck in there, so maybe it's shielding me from whatever they've screwed up this time).

  9. Also some improvements for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "New: Improved scrolling, graphics, and video playback performance with off main thread compositing (GNU/Linux only)."

    1. Re:Also some improvements for Linux by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      After the upgrade, youtube is running a html5 player instead of the Flash 11.2 one. I wonder if it's related to that.

      If anyone knows how to tweak or disable the HUGE "warning" that youtube is running in full screen, I would like to know. Huge ass bold fonts get old real quick. On the plus side it seems able to play CPU-decoded 720p video in an overloaded browser, and the player's volume button is reliable.

  10. Good by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I did the upgrade to 10 (finally!), and now Firefox doesn't come back from sleep properly anymore. It gets weird visual glitches that look like refresh issues, and none of the tab gadgets are visible (or clickable). I pretty much have to kill it and restart it every time I wake my PC. Hopefully the "supported" version won't do that.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I can tell, "Windows 10 support" means "themed to look like Windows 10" and nothing else. Maybe there are some tablet features in there I missed (because LOL Win-tablet) but I haven't noticed anything other than a theme change. It still doesn't properly handle the new Windows 10 API for allowing different DPI settings on different displays.

    2. Re:Good by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Did you install the latest patch this weekend?

      Sleep issues are not Mozilla related and a bug with RTM. I know patches get bashed here but for a bleeding edge beta Windows 10 it should be required as it will take a few months for it to bake.

      Sleep issues and video should be addressed in the latest rollup patch that came out yesterday.

    3. Re:Good by Mousit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even worse, "themed to look like Windows 10" means it actively ignores the Win10 system colors settings. FF39 had darker window borders because that's what I set my accent color to. I figured out how to override that stupid fucking "all titlebars must be white" shit that Win10 enforced too, so I could have properly dark-themed titlebars. So my whole Win10 system is dark-themed as I prefer. FF39 handled that just fine and matched the system theme settings.

      FF 40 ignores all of it. It enforces the white window on its own, regardless of system settings. Even worse, there is no color change between a window that is active and one that is inactive, so unless I have overlapping windows I keep losing track of whether I have the Firefox window active or not. It's literally just a flat white AT ALL TIMES.

      Who in the fuck thought ignoring system colors as the default theme was EVER a good idea?

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

      Even worse, "themed to look like Windows 10" means it actively ignores the Win10 system colors settings. FF39 had darker window borders because that's what I set my accent color to. I figured out how to override that stupid fucking "all titlebars must be white" shit that Win10 enforced too, so I could have properly dark-themed titlebars. So my whole Win10 system is dark-themed as I prefer. FF39 handled that just fine and matched the system theme settings.

      FF 40 ignores all of it. It enforces the white window on its own, regardless of system settings. Even worse, there is no color change between a window that is active and one that is inactive, so unless I have overlapping windows I keep losing track of whether I have the Firefox window active or not. It's literally just a flat white AT ALL TIMES.

      Who in the fuck thought ignoring system colors as the default theme was EVER a good idea?

      The Tab Mix Plus extension in FF 40 on Windows 10 will allow you to fix this and does a lot more.

    5. Re:Good by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      At home, I'm a relatively "fat, dumb, and happy" user. I install updates when the application in question says there's one available, but I don't sit down at my desk after a long hard day a work and troll the support websites for all of the various applications on my computer looking to see if there are new versions/patches available.

      Which is a long way of saying, "probably not". Mozilla hasn't advised me of a new update since I did the Win10 upgrade a couple of weeks ago. So unless it does it automatically, no I don't have "the latest patch" from whenever.

    6. Re:Good by Khyber · · Score: 1

      And what if we don't want a fucking plugin to fix what shouldn't have been broken in the first place?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:Good by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I meant Windows patches. Windows 10 RTM had bugs like you described

    8. Re:Good by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      I meant Windows patches. ...

      Oh. I have Windows patches set to download and install automatically. So if there was one, I should have it. Again, I don't have time to play sysadmin and pick and chose when to install patches (and certainly not to recover from a breach on an unpatched machine). I'll go check just to be sure when I get home, but I damn well hope the auto-patcher is working.

  11. Thoughtful tweaks by dstyle5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We’ve made thoughtful tweaks to the interface to give Firefox a streamlined feel. You’ll also notice bigger, bolder design elements as well as more space for viewing the Web.

    Translation: We tried to hide more buttons and functionality from users with Firefox 40, but in the end people complained about the lack of a field to enter addresses into and the removal of the back button. Users, tsk, tsk... Rest assured that in the future we will continue to add more useful buttons and features like Pocket and voice chat.

    Regards,
    The Firefox "UX" Team

    In all seriousness the "new look" for Windows 10 doesn't look all that different from FF 38 that I've been using for months in the Tech Preview. I can't wait to try and find what other menus, options and functionality they have "designed" out of FF 40.

    1. Re:Thoughtful tweaks by dstyle5 · · Score: 1

      If wanting a user interface that doesn't try to hide those pesky buttons and menus from you makes me self-entitled, then yes I am. I'm all for changes to user interfaces that actually help users, but hiding and removing buttons and menus from a desktop browser isn't helping anyone who actually uses Firefox daily, which I do.

    2. Re:Thoughtful tweaks by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Translation: We tried to hide more buttons and functionality from users with Firefox 40

      Monday, the geek will post about wanting a no-frills browser that "just works."

      Tuesday, he'll post about wanting more menus, options and functionality. Which most users won't have a clue how to configure and won't want to deal with.

      ------

      For those unaware of Pocket:

      Save web pages for later with Pocket for Firefox

    3. Re:Thoughtful tweaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      you know, it fucking drives me nuts that each browser hides the refresh button somewhere different sometimes with an un-intuitive icon. Yes, I'm aware I can press F5 to refresh, and yes I'm aware that F5 doesn't actually always reload the page.

      UI/UX designers have simply gone off the reservation. Hiding basic features we know and expect, to what, streamline the ads? This makes no sense. And now I have to click through 4 menus to get to my addons? Chrome is the worst now, they've stripped out all the settings and you have to know to use chrome://whateversettingyouneedtofix to actually get at them.

      Lync 2013. It's 2015, this app is branded part of office 2013. The chat window is one big ugly white box with no title bar. So what? you say? So, now I have to click around trying to find the magic pixel that will allow me to drag the window, as only the title bar is click draggable, but there is nothing separating that from the chat window.

      windows 10 removes everything and instead wants you to search by name for everything? what the fuck is this Dos?

      I've avoided FF for some time now, but chrome is such a shit show I have to bounce back and forth. Regular browsing = FF. Streaming video = chrome. Adblock plus on FF, adblock PRO on chrome because with these new ad bombs, adblock plus goes insane and uses up all of your cpu, if you leave the blocked counter going and stream something from veetle, you'll see what I mean. It will usually get to about 7500 blocked ads in maybe 2 minutes, then the cpu starts lagging out, and if you check the processes, one of the chrome.exe processes is literally going insane. Adblock pro doesn't do this.

      Maybe I'm crazy but in 2015 I don't expect to have to use a combination of 4 different browsers to get shit done. And I certainly should not have to re-learn how to computer just to use an updated web browser.

      15 steps back people, we need to move forward not backwards

    4. Re:Thoughtful tweaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You make it sound unreasonable, but let's take a closer look.

      Monday, the geek will post about wanting a no-frills browser that "just works."

      I don't hear "geeks" asking for a browser that "just works." I hear them ask for browser makers to step messing around with the UI and to step adding more and more bloat.

      No-frills, a web browser. Not a VoIP-Client, Media-Player, 3D-Engine hybrid or email client. It should display websites.

      On that note, websites should stop trying to be applications. They suck at it and websites that don't degrade gracefully without JavaScript need to die. Of course, this is just my personal opinion.

      Tuesday, he'll post about wanting more menus, options and functionality. Which most users won't have a clue how to configure and won't want to deal with.

      It should show websites. In just the way I want. Let me customize my buttons and menus. Let me put the things I need the most where I can get to them easily. Don't try to be smart and do it for me, you'll get it wrong. Configurability is good.

      Save web pages for later with Pocket for Firefox

      Cloud bullshit. Does it in any way ensure that the stored websites are not accessible to other people, i.e. client-side encryption? I doubt it. This might be mildly useful if it conveniently stored the pages to a file.

      If I want to save a webpage, I'll use the MAFF/MHT extension.

    5. Re:Thoughtful tweaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, not wanting them to do things you dislike is being entitled. Expecting them to do things you dislike, and then moaning about it even they don't, is just sad. But I don't expect the extreme cynicism about Firefox around here to die down just because I say so, not for this to be a popular opinion.

    6. Re: Thoughtful tweaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try uBlock origin.

    7. Re:Thoughtful tweaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, your "parody" is frightfully realistic, and is pretty much the philosophy of some software projects - including, lamentably, some other open source projects. (Gnome, I'm looking in your direction...) Sadly this seems to be a trend overall, because apparently the "correct" way to conduct UX improvement is to lobotomize the software.

      Even the "malware protection" in this new release is problematic - it prevents running add-ons that are "unsigned" and makes it tough to override it, and will make it tougher in the future. This first cropped up, AFAIK, in Firefox Developer Edition. I don't know if the full implementation has hit the main code branch yet, but it makes it rather difficult to override the browser's mandate, and I think they're only going to make it tougher and tougher. This is both dictatorial in a more general sense (sorry, some people may want a computer nanny, but I don't), and in a more practical sense causes a lot of problems, including giving Mozilla what amounts to nearly life-and-death control over add-on makers and locks out highly useful add-ons such as Privacy Badger from the EFF.

      Never mind that I somehow doubt that Mozilla has the resources to conduct a serious code audit on the thousands of add-ons available for download anyway.

    8. Re:Thoughtful tweaks by Mousit · · Score: 2

      The "new look" actively ignores the Win10 system colors settings. FF39 had darker window borders because that's what I set my accent color to in my Theme. I figured out how to override that stupid fucking "all titlebars must be white" shit that Win10 enforced too, so I could have properly dark titlebars. So my whole Win10 system is dark-themed as I prefer. FF39 handled that just fine and matched the system theme settings like any other application.

      FF40 ignores all of it. It enforces the white window border/header on its own, regardless of system color settings. Even worse, there is no color change between a window that is active and one that is inactive, so unless I have overlapping windows I keep losing track of whether I have the Firefox window actively selected or not. It's literally just a flat white AT ALL TIMES.

      So apparently what they "designed" out with this iteration is any semblance of respecting or obeying the system theme settings.

    9. Re:Thoughtful tweaks by secretagentmoof · · Score: 1

      Not seeing the version number of extensions unless you specifically click "More Info" is the most obvious one thus far.

    10. Re:Thoughtful tweaks by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Those of us who actually perform *work* with our browsers beg to differ.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:Thoughtful tweaks by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      I want to read web pages too, but ever since Google Maps and other maps that work the same way, people want or need programs that run in the browser not just documents.

  12. community dissent was oppressed. by nimbius · · Score: 0

    I see we've continued the grand project of turning Firefox into a moneytrain. among the issues the community ardently voiced opposition to:
    suggested tiles: we will be monitoring your browsing habits and suggesting products and services for you to buy, because adblock was getting a little too good.
    conversations: a feature no one wanted or needed, conversations competes with skype, google chat, facebook, and about a dozen other voip apps to turn your browser into realmedia player.
    extension signing warning: no one cared about this except Mozilla. it means in the future they can quietly refuse to sign ad-block and script-block plugins and the average user can enjoy one more hurdle to a normal internet experience.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:community dissent was oppressed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because you and a few voters on Slashdot dislike it, nobody wanted it or needed it. Here we go again with the mentalities of children, hiding behind numbers trying to pretend our opinions are more informed and educated just because we're negative about everything.

    2. Re:community dissent was oppressed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go home Brendan. You got fired for being a giant cock. You should learn something from it.

  13. Incoherent headling by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Firefox 40 Arrives With Windows 10 Support, Expanded Malware Protection"

    That seems like a contradiction, given what I've read about Windows 10.

    1. Re:Incoherent headling by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It is a bit bloated and you have to install it from DVD now. It is called LinuxMint so the name has changed but once you get it installed there will be a handy quick launch icon for you to use. Now if we could just get the repos to carry the new version of Opera... Fortunately the latest beta versions install the PPA all nice and easy for you.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Incoherent headling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After 10 years, autoslagging Microsoft gets a little dull. All this post was additional distance I had to scroll over.

      You're on Slashdot, you know very well there are alternatives to Windows, you are not obligated to use it.

  14. Let me check... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yep. There are still 3,215 bugs over 5 years old that aren't fixed and 40 bugs with over 50 votes that aren't fixed, but "hey guys, we're new and improved with a look more closely resembling the browser that's kicking our ass." Also, every release more and more people turn off automatic updating because they get sick of having some new "feature" sprung on them that reduces their privacy or makes Firefox less usable.

    1. Re:Let me check... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've found bugs in Firefox that date back to not only before it was called Firefox but before Firefox even existed.

      My personal favorite is this bug which is over 15 years old now. The practical effect is that if your screen resolution ever changes, Firefox breaks and you have to restart it. (Basically tooltips start appearing over the wrong areas and anything that's supposed to not go off the screen uses the wrong screen values.)

      A practical example of why that might happen is projecting, say, a web app in a meeting. Doing that means you have to restart Firefox after hooking up the projector and then again when done. Another example is docking a laptop. 15 years with absolutely no progress.

    2. Re:Let me check... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might have fixed the 5-year-old bug where "print selection" meant "print almost-blank pages up to the selection, then print the selection." I still have to check whether this bug is fixed on all platforms. So far, good job, Mozilla!

    3. Re:Let me check... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They seem to have fixed it. First off, I selected your comment and hit Print, and discovered that you can't print selection using the Print toolbar button. Instead you MUST press Ctrl-P to bring up the Print dialog and ONLY THERE can you print selection.

      Then, when I did, it printed a single page that contained just your comment. Except for the top half of the first line, that was missing. But the rest was there.

    4. Re:Let me check... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its open source. You can contribute towards fixing the bug instead of complaining about it.

    5. Re:Let me check... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally realistic request.

    6. Re:Let me check... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "I've found bugs in Firefox that date back to not only before it was called Firefox but before Firefox even existed.

      My personal favorite is this bug [mozilla.org] which is over 15 years old now. The practical effect is that if your screen resolution ever changes, Firefox breaks and you have to restart it."

      In what, Linux? I don't have that happening in Windows with dual or triple monitors when I load up a game that isn't native-resolution. I haven't had that happen even in Windows XP.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  15. East to block most malware by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't allow any downloading from any link that is flagged as an "AD" on google.

    99% of the time I have to clean someone's computer it's because, "I searched for XXX and installed it from the first link from a google search."

    Google sponsored links from a search needs to have dark red borders around them with "WARNING DO NOT CLICK ON THIS"

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  16. Important Improvements for Linux Users by PineHall · · Score: 1

    "Improved scrolling, graphics, and video playback performance with off main thread compositing (GNU/Linux only)," the release notes say.

    Via Softmedia

  17. Does it allow muting specific tabs yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the one gotta-have feature I've really been looking forward to lately.

  18. Ads on the new tab page on by default by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had my morning coffee up to take a sip and almost did a spit-take when I saw the ad on my new tab page. "Non-obtrusive" my ass, it takes up a spot reserved for my top sites!

  19. Re:What new shit do they add to the toolbar this t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    True. Classic Theme Restorer + Classic Toolbar Buttons and Firefox looks as it should look...

  20. improved security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just when you thought you were safe from tracking by using Duck Duck Go, the new FireFox anti-malware system reports every page you visit to Google to be vetted by them for 'safe' download. Gee, I hope Google can be trusted not to "personalise" our internet experience.

  21. Re:"Expanded Malware Protection"? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox has BECOME malware. Could some friendly soul please list all shitty "features" that are enabled by default that track me when I install Firefox? I have lost count.

    Yes, unchecking a box is so very difficult, I can see how that might confound you.

    If some kind of update overrides your configuration, my advice is stop using Windows because that is a Windows problem.

  22. There are sponsored tabs from Yahoo now by DaDaDaaaaa · · Score: 1

    They load by default and I don't know how to disable them. Another undesirable "feature" creeping in. Why am I not surprised that with every new update, I find myself thinking what they will have screwed up this time?

    1. Re:There are sponsored tabs from Yahoo now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you mean in the new tab window? You can disable that entirely using the cog in the upper right hand corner.

      Oh, wait, you meant you didn't want to share every single page you visit with both Google and Yahoo? Well, Firefox would like you to GO FUCK YOURSELF because that you CAN'T change.

  23. Hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New: Hello allows adding a link to conversations to provide context on what the conversation will be about.

    http://venturebeat.com/2015/08/11/firefox-40-arrives-with-windows-10-support-expanded-malware-protection-and-new-android-navigation-gestures/

    Can anyone describe what these conversations are? Before this new "Hello" feature there was no context for any conversation, but now there is?

  24. Firefox for life by riis138 · · Score: 1

    Still using Firefox, still prefer it over Google's spyware that has become a nasty resource hog. Just my two cents!

    --
    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -Carl Sagan
    1. Re:Firefox for life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox: try Pale Moon
      Chrome: try Chromium or Opera

      And don't forget to install uBlock Origin on all of them and the rest of your goodies.

    2. Re:Firefox for life by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      That stuff can be disabled, though, even when enabled in my opinion Chrome is still more secure due to the fact that the sandbox's value outweighs it. I do agree that the behaviour you mention should be at the most opt-in rather than on by default.

  25. Running malware on Linux .. by nickweller · · Score: 1

    "The first of these changes .. consists of extending the monitoring of malicious file downloads to the Mac and Linux versions of Firefox."

    How do you get to execute malware under Linux from a Firefox download?

    1. Re:Running malware on Linux .. by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Think worm-like, not virus-like. Things which hijack the already-running browser process, either directly through something like javascript or plugins, or through code hidden in malformed data that takes advantage of library bugs to smash the stack and hijack control (although this latter approach has been made much more difficult of late).

  26. I stopped getting FF notices by NightWanderer · · Score: 1
    I mostly like FF design and functionality. But I am sick to death of the rapid point releases. Every few weeks, one more update, one more version number, one more download and install. Tried just going to reminder status, until that was hounding me to distraction too. I finally turned it all off. I still remember to check for updates, but I do it on my schedule, and only once per month or so.

    I realize Mozilla can be bothered to do their own final quality checking until someone else finds it in the field, but I don't want to be part of the experiment. People say the XP model is better for everyone, but all it says to me is you want to be more like Microsoft. Welcome to Planet Beta Test

  27. Windows 10 by chefren · · Score: 1

    Expanded Malware Protection? Windows 10 Support? Does not compute - unless it means it doesn't run on Windows 10 now?

  28. Re:"Expanded Malware Protection"? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But on next version the checkbox is removed by UX team and it requires yet another plugin to keep FF usable.

  29. Re:"Expanded Malware Protection"? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shitty Firefox UI changes and bloatware wrapped in a Firefox security update are Windows problems? Is this Brendan Eich?

  30. Firefox 1.0 by winphreak · · Score: 2

    I also remember when Firefox was toted as the light and speedy version of Mozilla.

    I remember when I could run Firefox on a USB stick with less than 100MB memory usage! And 200MB with the flash plugin!

    They've always had customization, addons, extensions, and everything else. As time went on however, in handling all those APIs, it slows down. Then, some of the addon authors slow it down even more. Maybe it's because they use Javascript for everything?

    I know this is a totally vague question, but it went from slim to bloated fast.

    --
    "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
    1. Re:Firefox 1.0 by ThePhilips · · Score: 1

      I know this is a totally vague question, but it went from slim to bloated fast.

      It rarely if ever has anything to do with the extensions or plug-ins. (From my perspective anyway.)

      On one side, they rewrite more of the browser functionality in the JavaScript.

      On the other side, they throw more and more memory to speed up the JavaScript executions, since it has become the bottleneck, since they decided to write more stuff in the JavaScript.

      As for the plug-ins and extensions, the whole concept of Fx (compared to the original Mozilla) was "let's outsource as much as possible functionality to extensions" with the effect that some functionality - with the issues it brings - were simply removed from browser into the extensions. Had they kept the functionality in the browser, they could have integrated it deeper and better. Today, blaming the extensions writers is simply unfair and short-sighted: they fill the functional gaps which Fx intentionally choose to introduce by removing the functionality from the browser. (E.g. Mozilla had a built-in AdBlock - Fx doesn't. And one of the reasons I stayed with the Mozilla for the whole time was the ad blocking.)

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    2. Re:Firefox 1.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ever-expanding memory usage in all browsers is primarily due to the growth in CSS3 and Javascript libraries being used all over the web and growth of html5. The web is a lot more dynamic now than it was even 3 to 5 years ago. For example, some of the animations that were done using either flash or image hacks along with javascript are now done using pure CSS3 (usually with 1 or 2 lines of code).

      But thanks also to the Firefox dev team, most of the CSS animations are offloaded onto the GPU.

      Another massive memory hog is AdBlock (due to the way it works), but Firefox 41 will introduce a fix to significantly lower this for each webpage you visit.

    3. Re:Firefox 1.0 by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      In Firefox 1's days the web was still made for Internet Explorer 5 and dial up users, so it was a lot faster and more reliable than today.

      But it's been only a few years that Firefox can e.g. open huge pictures or many of them without crashing.

  31. Remember the big jump to Firefox 4? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    It took Firefox forever to get to 4. Now we are at 40. How soon until 400?

  32. Firefox still woefully insecure by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 2

    Firefox is still far more insecure than Chrome due to lack of a sandbox feature and multiprocess. Instead of spending so much time on pocket they needed to get the sandbox done. They should have had the sandbox in 3 years and are only dragging their feet on it being forced to keep up with Chrome on this matter.Still a very insecure browser. Total negligence. Whats ironic is they would mainly need to plugin into infrastructure that was already implemented for Chrome on Linux, as it was Chrome that pushed implementation of a process sandbox on Linux.

    1. Re:Firefox still woefully insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's impossible to be more insecure than Chrome because Chrome is compromised by design.

    2. Re:Firefox still woefully insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Sandboxie and Comodo Internet Security users can accomplish a much greater degree of isolation from the rest of system by simply isolating their browser of choice in a sandbox. With that being said, I agree that Mozilla is without excuse for failing to prioritise such a valuable feature.

  33. It's the FF40! by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    Sounds good enough to me! Hope it comes in red.

  34. Re:"Expanded Malware Protection"? Really? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Linux user here, eagerly awaiting the breaking of the UI, extensions, and suchlike by this update, having experienced this numerous times with Firefox the last couple of years.

    Editing configs? Pffffft--I don't know how many times I've had to unzip extensions or themes, edit the files inside, and then zip them up again so they'd keep working.

    These are not Windows issues, they're issues affecting users and developers on all platforms, caused by Mozilla's years-long policy of bait-and-switch.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.