Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Tests Improved Privacy Mode For Firefox

An anonymous reader writes: Firefox's privacy mode stops your computer from keeping track of where you've browsed, but it doesn't do anything about external tracking. A new feature just rolled out to the Developer Edition and the Aurora channel now actively tries to block online services from tracking you. "Our hypothesis is that when you open a Private Browsing window in Firefox you're sending a signal that you want more control over your privacy than current private browsing experiences actually provide." The feature uses a blocklist maintained by Disconnect.me to stop you from navigating to sites known to log your personal data.

125 comments

  1. Is it just me... by JMJimmy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    or does this seem like an ass backwards way of "protecting" privacy?

    1. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can't be any more 'backwards' than DNT which was doomed to fail on the starting blocks.

    2. Re:Is it just me... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you want to visit porn websites that have an anal sex category, ass backwards is what you need.

    3. Re:Is it just me... by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Wrong kind of ass - http://image1.masterfile.com/e... but if that's your thing https://emfguy.files.wordpress...

    4. Re:Is it just me... by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

      Or the "privacy mode" that recorded sites you visited with blocked plugins: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... - oh wait, it still does that.

    5. Re:Is it just me... by JMJimmy · · Score: 0

      i just want you guys to know - i have a very, very large penis. don't be jealous.

      Hello my stalker, how are you today? Cowardly as usual I see.

    6. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not? itts basically like adblock except faster

    7. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that large, he used his own as a reference.

    8. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont feed the troll

    9. Re:Is it just me... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      I'd say the problem with FF isn't privacy, which there are several excellent plugins like NoScript that can help with that, its the security which IMHO is still really piss poor.

      Why is security in FF and pretty much every browser based on gecko bad? Its really very simple in FF and the other Gecko browsers everything you do in FF has the same permissions as the user which considering that the #1 attack vector by far is the browser? That's not just a dumb idea, its downright dangerous.The sad part is it should be a pretty easy fix for the devs, Windows has had support for browsers running in Low Rights Mode since Windows Vista. They can't even argue that LRM isn't cross platform as the changes to support LRM in Windows should translate to AppArmor in Linux thus helping improve security on both sides of the aisle, yet despite this Gecko is the only current browser that doesn't support LRM which I would argue makes it probably the most dangerous browser you can run. All the Chromiums, as well as IE and Edge? They all run by default in LRM and anybody who knows anything about security knows that you should always run software with the least permissions required to perform the task.

      Considering how many Firefox exploits we have had of late its just mind boggling why they insist on running the browser with higher permissions than is required.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. And who decides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which exclusive cabal of advertisers decides that their competitors go on the blocklist?

    1. Re:And who decides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point! Adblock Plus reached a deal with Google to let their ads through http://www.businessinsider.com... http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... http://blog.pagefair.com/2015/...

    2. Re:And who decides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can switch off *any* ads in options, even "acceptable ads".

  3. and yet by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    yesterday there was a post about how there is no way in the ui to disable it automatically connecting to every single hyperlink on the page.

    1. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That bug was marked as WONTFIX:

      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=814169

      Looks like the Republicans that rule Mozilla have no respect for their users.

    2. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their rule said he believed homosexuals weren't human and didn't have human rights. That is the kind of hate you are supporting when you use Firefox. They are full on retard CONservative.

    3. Re:and yet by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      I believe it was just moused-over links, but yeah.

    4. Re:and yet by narcc · · Score: 1

      That's because the issue you've described simply doesn't exist. It's a figment of Slashdot's collective imaginations.

      There's also no option to prevent it from attracting tigers, stealing your soul, or taking your sandwich from the breakroom fridge.

    5. Re:and yet by narcc · · Score: 1

      Yet still, your beliefs are wrong. That simply doesn't happen.

    6. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because you listened to Bitzstream who knows nothing about programming or how the web works.

      TL;DR: Never listen to Bitzstream and you'll be fine.

    7. Re:and yet by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      That very well may be true. I'm just going by how the article mentioned above explained the problem.

    8. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "To improve the loading speed, Firefox will open predictive connections to sites when the user hovers their mouse over thumbnails on the New Tab Page or the user starts to search in the Search Bar, or in the search field on the Home or the New Tab Page. In case the user follows through with the action, the page can begin loading faster since some of the work was already started in advance."

    9. Re:and yet by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      The quote above is from Mozilla's support page (https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-making-automatic-connections#w_speculative-pre-connections). So it would appear that it indeed does happen.

      Do you have any deeper explanation for your assertion that this "speculative pre-connection" behavior "simply doesn't happen", narcc? That it truly is a "figment of Slashdot's collective imaginations"? Because it seems to me that you may have reached that point where a shitty, condescending attitude is no longer sufficient to supply weight to your argument.
      So let's hear it.

    10. Re:and yet by narcc · · Score: 1

      Do you have any deeper explanation for your assertion that this "speculative pre-connection" behavior "simply doesn't happen"

      Yes, I do. You would as well, if you took half-a-second to look in to the issue.

      Those speculative connections happen only on a few specific parts of the UI, not on any random webpage. So the "speculative pre-connection" "automatically connecting to every single hyperlink on the page" and you're slightly narrower "just moused-over links" (the implication being that it happens on random web pages) simply doesn't happen.

      You're spreading nonsense. Stop it.

    11. Re:and yet by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "yesterday there was a post about how there is no way in the ui to disable it automatically connecting to every single hyperlink on the page."

      That is about as far from the truth as you can get. The article showed how to very simply disable that behaviour.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    12. Re:and yet by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      And where might I have so easily found this information?

  4. Start with "Normal Mode" by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Our hypothesis is that when you open a Private Browsing window in Firefox you're sending a signal that you want more control over your privacy than current private browsing experiences actually provide."

    I'd say people want more control over their privacy even when they aren't going full-tilt in Private Browser Mode.
    You know what a contributing factor is in loss of privacy? A browser that has web services and features built-in that rely on third-party companies.

    1. Re: Start with "Normal Mode" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly... After months of people complaining they haven't changed at all.

    2. Re: Start with "Normal Mode" by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      To be fair, that's not true at all.

      They've changed a lot. They're worst than before.

    3. Re:Start with "Normal Mode" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like all of them? And like Firefox has had since its inception? I think it's fine to not like specific services, but people make mountains out of these molehills so much that I think they forget that Firefox needs affiliates to survive, not just the hot air from people using the browser who wouldn't even send a donation their way.

    4. Re:Start with "Normal Mode" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like all of them? And like Firefox has had since its inception? I think it's fine to not like specific services, but people make mountains out of these molehills so much that I think they forget that Firefox needs affiliates to survive, not just the hot air from people using the browser who wouldn't even send a donation their way.

      You want people to donate to something that shows them ads? Good luck with that.

    5. Re:Start with "Normal Mode" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So even thus its a step in the right direction you're blaming them as evil?
      Dude, thats pretty wrong even by my standards. Are you working for Google?

      On the other hand, I just fired up Firefox Nightly and it has tracking protection for both private and normal windows. So like, you're a misinformed asshole, I guess.

    6. Re:Start with "Normal Mode" by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Right. Start with things like randomising the list of fonts that you claim is installed (or only advertise the web fonts set on every Firefox install). Don't allow JavaScript to enumerate plugins, unless on trusted sites. Don't allow JavaScript to tell whether a link has been coloured as followed (including when rendering via a canvas!).

      Incorporate the self-destructing cookies plugin by default: cookies are automatically deleted when you leave a page, unless you explicitly opt in to keeping them (the plugin also has a nice undo mode, where the cookies are not actually deleted, they're just not made available to the web site, so you can later decide that you did want to keep them if something on the site stops working). That plugin is the reason that I use Firefox on Android. Make it more of a selling point.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Start with "Normal Mode" by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 2

      I'd love a "keep cookies until" setting that behaves similarly to sessionStorage: every tab gets its own cookie jar which lasts until the tab closes, but the jar can be shared in certain situations (middle-clicking on a link to the same domain, for example). There are a number of policy details to get right to make this non-intrusive, but I believe this is the way to go.

  5. Ain't Gonna Happen by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

    "Our hypothesis is that when you open a Private Browsing window in Firefox you're sending a signal that you want more control over your privacy than current private browsing experiences actually provide."

    Gee, you think? Call MENSA...this guy is a freakin' genius!

    This ain't gonna happen, because advertisers. If Firefox could be made untrackable advertisers would do everything to make the internet unviewable to Firefox users.

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Ain't Gonna Happen by MrL0G1C · · Score: 0

      Surf the web faster, get Chrome.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    2. Re:Ain't Gonna Happen by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      citation required.

    3. Re:Ain't Gonna Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need any goddamn citation. You can test this out for yourself!

      Install the latest stable version of Firefox. Install the latest stable version of Chrome on the same computer. Don't install any addons or extensions, because we want to be sure that they aren't slowing down the browsers at all. Use your hosts file to block common ad hosts instead of an ad blocking extension. Then use Firefox to browse a certain set of websites. Then use Chrome to browse the same set of web sites. Notice that Firefox is noticeably slower than Chrome. Firefox's UI is less responsive than Chrome. Firefox's rendering takes longer. Firefox doesn't scroll as smoothly. Firefox uses more memory. That's how it has been on the many Linux, OS X, and Windows systems that I've done such comparisons on.

      Don't even bother mentioning arewefastyet.com. Those benchmarks are fucking useless when it comes to actual web browsing. In everyday scenarios, Firefox feels slower than Chrome because it generally is slower than Chrome. This is what you will experience when you compare both browsers for yourself.

    4. Re:Ain't Gonna Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Chrome is the herpes of web browsing.

    5. Re:Ain't Gonna Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Spied on faster, get Chrome.

    6. Re:Ain't Gonna Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome with all the crap removed: Comodo Dragon.

    7. Re:Ain't Gonna Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Chrome with all the crap removed: Comodo Dragon.

      The Comodo Secure Browser is supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements. Advertisements may relate to the content of information as part of the Product or queries made through the Product. The Product may include hyperlinks to other websites or content that Comodo may have no control over or are provided by an entity other than Comodo. You agree that Comodo may place such advertising with the Product in exchange for granting you access to use the Product.

      No thanks.

    8. Re:Ain't Gonna Happen by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      If Firefox could be made untrackable advertisers would do everything to make the internet unviewable to Firefox users.

      Google are the advertisers, Chrome is their answer and they push it very successfully to people who do google searches and of course Android phones and tablets are a big success for them - which come with Chrome and google search etc as standard.

      "Surf the web faster, get Chrome." is roughly what you see occasionally if you google for something with a non-chrome browser.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    9. Re:Ain't Gonna Happen by Bengie · · Score: 1

      At work we have some 3rd-party web service for our Customer relationship management system and it uses a lot of scripts and objects. Chrome hesitates a bit, but while some of the objects are loading, I can change tabs. With Firefox, not only does the current tab completely freeze during rendering, but I can't change tabs until it finishes.

  6. just an NSA flag by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    try it and see where your data goes.

    1. Re:just an NSA flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try it and see where your data goes.

      Tinfoil alert.

    2. Re:just an NSA flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tinfoil alert."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

  7. Why gee that's nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the meantime guys, why can't you stop Firefox leaking internal IP addresses? Or other issues, such as exposing identifiable hardware-id's in the gamepad interface?

    The people programming Firefox clearly don't think from a privacy/security-first perspective, when developing.

    1. Re:Why gee that's nice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HOw can we release FASter to make ourselves looK hip a nd trendy!!!!

  8. Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by BringMyShuttle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can dig deep into your about:config settings and fix it there ((sorry - setting so obscure can't remember it! You might find it to turn it off but Grandmama won't)) and you are right!!! Firefox only pays lip service to privacy. And like their tieup with Adobe DRM https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-c..., their advertising page for "partners" http://adexchanger.com/ad-exch..., targeting you for advertising based on your browsing http://www.pcworld.com/article..., and now Disconnect.me, they're doing favors for businesses. Google was paying Firefox $300M a year http://www.webmonkey.com/2011/... before they pulled the plug and Firefox reached a deal with Yahoo, and they switched searches to Yahoo -- not because it was the better search engine, but because Yahoo was giving them cash http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

    Firefox has become a megacorporation. They are not for profit http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb... so that money doesn't to shareholders but it goes SOMEWHERE like executive salaries and just like a megacorporation they care more about cutting deals with other businesses than they do the public because we are not their customers. They are!

    1. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      Google was paying Firefox $300M a year http://www.webmonkey.com/2011/... before they pulled the plug and Firefox reached a deal with Yahoo, and they switched searches to Yahoo -- not because it was the better search engine, but because Yahoo was giving them cash

      Mozilla's existence is completely dependent on other companies, whose existence is completely dependent on tracking and monetizing you. For Mozilla to pretend that they care about "privacy" insults our intelligence (what little we have).

    2. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      about:config

      privacy.trackingprotection set to true

      Something like that

    3. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      about:config

      privacy.trackingprotection set to true

      Something like that

      about:config contains no such setting for "privacy.trackingprotection" or "Something like that"

    4. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let this AC help you. You need to look for this on the config page:

      network.http.speculative-parallel-limit

      and set it to 0.

    5. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by narcc · · Score: 2

      privacy.trackingprotection.enabled

      That took all of two seconds to find by typing "privacy" in about:config.

      As a bonus, you can toggle privacy.donottrackheader.enabled to true for a faster browsing experience.

    6. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mozilla's existence is completely dependent on other companies, whose existence is completely dependent on tracking and monetizing you. For Mozilla to pretend that they care about "privacy" insults our intelligence (what little we have).

      I work at Mozilla, and whilst I'm happy that the company is financially viable, let me assure you that this is not the first priority of the management team!
      Management at Mozilla have demonstrated time and again that they are willing to throw resources at risky projects without any monetization strategy: Firefox OS, WebRTC, BrowserId/Persona, WebGL, asm.js (gaming on the web), WebVR (Virtual Reality on the Web), Daala (Video codec).

      So make no mistake management as well as most of the employees at Mozilla are quite idealistic. Sure pragmatic compromises are made, EME (DRM) was a hard compromise, but without it FF would become as irrelevant (like distros by FSF), and from a purely pragmatic approach EME is a lot safer than crappy plugins like Flash, Silverlight, etc. which is what users would otherwise use.

      On topic I heard really positive things about some of the aggressive tracking protection experiments, like 40% speed up for page load. However, such features (like adblocking) can be controversial because they break compatibility and in countries like the US it can open you up to lawsuits from publishers.

    7. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Megacorporation? What the hell are you talking about? For-profit I'll agree with, at least with an asterisk beside it, but I'm sure glad I don't live in the universe you and the people who modded you +5 insightful live in. Clearly all you people ever wanted was just a working browser, and now that you have other choices, you're going to extremes to rationalize and excuse you ditching Mozilla for their eviler competitors. Just switch and be happy. Mozilla has enough problems without you making shit up to make things sound even worse than they really are. Or better yet, don't. I'd rather you guys keep on helping Mozilla die, because I dream of a world where I only have one real browser engine to support. I don't even care that you're ridiculous negativity will shift to Chrome and Google, as long as my life is easier.

    8. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a few more:
      https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-making-automatic-connections

    9. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $300 million a year in funding = megacorporation

    10. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a long time Mozilla employee - this is not completely incorrect.

      Some things we do, like, erm, pocket, you know, are extremely unpopular within the company but are force-fed by execs (which are in the 500k/y salary range with ensured 30-40% bonus).

    11. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "You can dig deep into your about:config settings and fix it there ((sorry - setting so obscure can't remember it!"

      I have bad news for you, but everything you do that is a one time thing involves " setting so obscure can't remember it". There is this handy tool called documentation, and another tool called Google that lets you quickly and efficiently locate said documentation. Your complaint that you can't remember it off the top of your head is frigging ridiculous. There is a reason why the 'man' command has been a Unix/Linux Staple since (UNIX) time began (circa 1970)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    12. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      Yes. We get it. You are an idiot. There is no reason to go out of your way to keep broadcasting the fact.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    13. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does. There's a preference named "privacy.trackingprotection.enabled".

    14. Re:Firefox only pays lip service to privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already uninstalled. I can't believe I trust google more. What a fuckin shame.

      captcha: angular

  9. Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, panic has started to set in at Mozilla. They're starting to see that Firefox's marketshare has fallen through the floor.

    We're talking about a browser that once had over 30% of the market reduced down to around 9% lately. Firefox for Android has been an abject failure at around 0.15% of the market. There's no presence on iOS. Firefox OS is totally irrelevant.

    Chrome for Android alone has about twice as many users as all versions of Firefox have! iOS Safari has about the same number of users that Firefox does. IE 11 alone has almost as many users, and that's even after IE has suffered a similar freefall from its once lofty heights. Firefox's numbers are even approaching those of Opera Mini!

    Mozilla only has any relevance today because of Firefox. We see very little use of Mozilla's other offerings. Thunderbird saw some use, until Mozilla essentially put it on life support. Firefox OS has been a complete failure. Bugzilla is seen as old and outdated. Servo is embryonic, and unusable. Rust was infected by Ruby hypesters fleeing the sinking Ruby on Rails ship, and took forever to get even a mediocre 1.0 release out.

    Although Mozilla hasn't seemed too willing to acknowledge the massive problem facing Firefox, maybe it's finally starting to sink in. Maybe they've finally realized that when a browser has 30% of the market, then 25%, then 20%, then 15%, then 12%, and now only 9%, something is wrong.

    When it gets to the point that almost nobody is using Firefox, Mozilla will lose what little influence they have left. The only reason that they have any influence today is because of their past success with Firefox, but that was an increasingly long time ago. Will Yahoo keep throwing money at Mozilla when Firefox only has 1% or less of the market? It's doubtful!

    Maybe they're starting to realize the disaster that awaits them, as an organization. I think we're starting to see them panic. Instead of listening to their users, they're throwing shit against the wall in a frenzy, trying to see what sticks. That's what the ads in Firefox have been about. That's what Pocket has been about. That's what Hello has been about. That's what junk like this is about. It's just one knee-jerk reaction after another, as it becomes clearer and clearer that the future of Firefox and Mozilla is looking bleaker and bleaker.

    I wanted to see Mozilla succeed. They used to be a very respected organization, up there with the FSF and the Apache project. Yet they've done so much to drive away so many of Firefox's users. Their smugness has become their undoing, throwing them into the self-destructive spiral we see now. The worst part is that none of this was necessary! If only they had listened to Firefox's users, rather than forcing one shitty thing after another upon these users, then Mozilla wouldn't be in such a bad position today. Firefox would still be seen as an innovative, powerful browser that people want to use, rather than the mockery and the awful Chrome imitation that it has become today. It didn't have to be like this!

    1. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 0

      +1 million informative

    2. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what happens when you use Agile programming methods. They don't see any farther than 30 days out, and if a mid level manager can get a new "feature" bolted on they consider it a win. They are looking at their feet instead of the horizon. They need you to head the design team to give them guidance and a long term success plan.

    3. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by narcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It lost a lot of share to Chrome because,well, Chrome was better. Rather than standing still, FireFox has been improving steadily for years, I'd recommend it over Chrome today.

      Then you have the noisy idiots. That's mostly Slashdot, but the stupidity tends to spread like spilled ink. Privacy hawks bitch and moan over things that often aren't even true, then recommend the worst browser on the market in terms of privacy (see above). Take a look at the prefetch flap-up further down the front page, the reality is so far away from the nonsense that dominates that thread it boarders on the absurd. More commonly, you'll hear about the mysterious memory leak issues (many of which simply didn't exist) from a bygone era. Times have changed, kids, get with it.

      The weirdest of all, naturally, is the bitching and moaning over Australis. So upset these yahoos are over the change that they vow to switch to Chrome. No, I'm not kidding. I'll bet a nickle you'll find one in this thread.

      I've been recommending FF for XP users over Chrome for a while because it was undeniably better on those older machines. I've been recommending it now because it's better everywhere else now as well. (Cue the "no it's not because of minor feature x" comments.) That it's also better for philosophical reasons is a nice bonus.

      Chrome gained market share because people like you and I recommend it over the alternatives. We recommended it because it was, hands-down, the best browser on the market. Times have changed. Rather than bitching and moaning about how it's not perfect, pushing people away from such an incredibly important product, we should instead promote it as the better browser. FF will regain market share the same way it lost it.

      (There are other factors that may help that shift along. Kids have already started to discover that a lot of the games they play simply won't work on Chrome after they dropped NPAPI support. I've already noticed a shift to FF among that demographic in my tiny corner of the world.)

      I switched back to FF about a year ago when they updated the UI. I stayed with it because it performed noticeably better than Chrome. Why wouldn't I recommend it over the privacy nightmare that is Chrome?

    4. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

      Completely agree!! Having worked in a waterfall model where devs and people are free to think and allocate their own time and brain power to implementing a project as a whole; and then switching over to agile scrum, I realise innovation was dead. Developers are now simply dictated to and have no real feedback except on saying how code should work, rather than looking at the bigger picture and from a users perspective. I thought it was just that one company, then I moved on to a new company, a start-up environment which I thought would be innovative and not so money driven, but again using agile scrum - not only is it a subtle micro-management policy of daily stand-ups, but developers are treated like slaves and told micro details on how to implement the next tiny feature request, rather than let the developer use their own mind and free thought. Agile is a great form of control over developers, and sadly most of them are sheep and have fallen for the trap.

    5. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their smugness has become their undoing

      What smugness in particular? What's an example?

    6. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to use firefox, since it generally does what I want, and somewhat respects privacy. That being said, they could also bring back the auto delete of history after X days. Beyond that, the biggest cause of instability on linux still seems to be Adobe Flash, which should slowly be replaced with HTML5. Recently I switched to micro block (uBlock) for firefox, which I find a nice addition that apparently uses less resources.

    7. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Mozilla gets most of its funding from Google and Google has no desire for Mozilla to succeed.

    8. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This all sounds really good, but anyone who's actually been paying attention to what they've been doing (bug trackers, mailing lists, etc) knows that they've been spending years bringing an ancient codebase up to spec, so they didn't lose more users. That, together that with the breakage such a task incurs, the way they are shut out from putting Firefox on competitor's mobile OSes (not even as a default on Android), the various tricks Google has pulled, general PR nightmares, and a constant negativity train from people on sites like Slashdot, and it didn't matter even if Mozilla played a perfect game all this time. Yes, their own mistakes and failures compound this, but this was doomed to happen the moment the much-better-funded players like Apple, Google, and Microsoft started to make their own browsers. Mozilla simply can't compete against them, especially when their own fandom would often rather stab them in the back than be patient with them through the worst times. People have choice now; it's not just Firefox and Explorer anymore. Not even Opera could keep making their own real browser or keep working on standards and specs, and they have more money and less pressure from the peanut gallery.

    9. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google dumped Mozilla in November 2014.

      Mozilla gets money from Yahoo now, in a 5-year deal.

    10. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...works fine.

    11. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It lost a lot of share to Chrome because,well, Chrome was better. Rather than standing still, FireFox has been improving steadily for years, I'd recommend it over Chrome today.

      First, it's Firefox, no camel-case. If you really used it I'd expect you'd know that. But I'll bet you don't because, like the rest of us, you know that Chrome is far superior to Firefox. It's just faster and more secure, period. If you care about security at all, you recommend Chrome.

      More commonly, you'll hear about the mysterious memory leak issues (many of which simply didn't exist) from a bygone era.

      Bygone era my ass. I do still test things under Firefox, and leaving Firefox open for a day routinely sees its memory usage hit 2GB. 2GB! It's a browser! With a single tab open!

    12. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mozilla gets most of its funding from Yahoo and Yahoo has no desire for anything to succeed.

      Fixed that for you both.

    13. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > But I'll bet you don't because, like the rest of us, you know that Chrome is far superior to Firefox. It's just faster and more secure, period. If you care about security at all, you recommend Chrome.

      [[Citation needed]]. The opposite is true, as Chrome does not care privacy which is one important aspect of security.

    14. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Firefox has gone from a lean, mean, browsing machine to a doughnut-gobbling couch potato who gets winded walking to the refrigerator.

      It's sad to see it slowly becoming more and more bloated, dis-functional. The UI has become more frustrating too. At least the memory-eating function is still working. At ~3.5G of memory used it slows down, refuses to load some images, and generally becomes very clunky and laggy to use.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    15. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Times have changed, kids, get with it.

      Says the captain of the sinking ship. The future is *under* the sea.

      Take a look at the prefetch flap-up further down the front page, the reality is so far away from the nonsense that dominates that thread it boarders on the absurd.

      The reality is that that "feature" is unnecessary and can easily be abused to track people. Maybe that's not a concern for the Facebook generation, but those people are not Mozilla's user base. I know, times have changed. But if Mozilla gives up on protecting my privacy, I'm going to give up on Mozilla.

      Chrome gained market share because people like you and I recommend it over the alternatives.

      Speak for yourself. I recommend Firefox, but more often than not my advice is ignored. It's almost like people suppress a "Yuck! Firefox...". People choose Chrome because choosing Firefox is no longer a no-brainer. Firefox is not better by default anymore. It does too much and protects too little. I cringe at the thought of having to create a fresh Firefox profile and configuring Firefox so that it works well and protects me, its user. I have lost count of the adjustments I had to make over time to undo privacy nightmares by turning off boneheaded features.

      FF will regain market share the same way it lost it.

      No, because that would take unusual levels of insight to spontaneously manifest at Mozilla. Firefox is not a product of marketing. Its success was the result of merit: It was the better browser. Without a focus on making a browser that serves its user and its user only, Firefox is doomed. Not because other browsers do this better - It's doomed because once you've accepted that the web browser is going to betray you anyway, the other options become viable.

    16. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /s/Mozilla/MicroSoft/
      the tech world has a mass die-off syndrome. every other version of windows has been shunned by most, microsoft clinging to 'gaming' to stay alive, apple nearly died then ipods and iphone revived them... when is Facebook's time?

      FTFY.

    17. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think Firefox has been this bad in a long time, and I include the early days when Netscape became Mozilla.

      It was bad design in the first place but I see the "oops sorry" error messages so often the false politeness and informality is more and more insulting every time I see it.

      Firefox manages not only to fail but to fail in very ugly ways. On a bad connection it will fail to complete downloads but without actually indicating that the download has failed (this has only been a flaw for about a decade).

      I used to be able to keep many more tabs open at once before firefox crapped out but not so much anymore. As you said Firefox fails to load images! That is a sad sorry state to be in, typical of the programmer mentality of 0, 1 or infinity, and frankly baffling to users.

      The decline of Firefox seemed inevitable from the day Chrome was released, I'm only surprised how long they are managing to hang in their and the increasingly desperate mistakes they are making. There are plenty of things that bother me about Chrome too but not enough that I'd bother to install Firefox if Chrome is already available.

      It is about time for Netscape/Mozilla/Seamonkey/Firefox to announce yet another full rewrite and repeat lots more of their past mistakes all over again.

    18. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by jazzis · · Score: 1

      Mod up as True and Informative.

    19. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Firefox does? As of Firefox 40, every web page you browse gets sent back to Google anyway to ensure it isn't "malware" and they have that new thing where if you merely mouse over a link it starts loading that page. If you don't trust Google, you shouldn't be using Firefox either.

      Might as well use Chrome and get a secure browser that sends everything you do to Google than use Firefox and get an insecure browser with no security model that sends everything to Google.

    20. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      . More commonly, you'll hear about the mysterious memory leak issues (many of which simply didn't exist) from a bygone era.

      Wrong

      And really wrong

      The last work posted there by Nicholas Nethercote was December 11, 2014 - hardly a bygone era. He basically stopped posting about every little find around 2012, but kept making improvements to memory analysis tools used to improved Firefox. I'm sure you'll read a few sentences and tell me I'm an idiot so

      November 4, 2014 by Nicholas Nethercote| 23 Comments If you record every heap allocation and re-allocation done by Firefox you find some interesting things. In particular, you find some sub-optimal buffer growth strategies that cause a lot of heap churn.

      You have to stop minimizing the negative impact of bad memory management to be taken seriously by anyone who noticed it for YEARS and was being ignored.

      Back on topic, Firefox now has too much money. Instead of paying people to keep the lights on (fix security and implement new standards) they are now adding features that most people don't want or need. Improved privacy, with a built in blocklist, is finally something that people want.

      we should instead promote it as the better browser. FF will regain market share the same way it lost it.

      Finally, you're really mistaken. Back then, there was a "better browser", because "browsing" was a thing. Now, there are so many different ways of interacting, and each web browser excels in one way or another for a particular pattern. I use FireFox because of the plug-ins, but no one that I would recommend a browser to needs that. I don't see a way for Firefox to come back at this point without something unique and generally popular - and it seems like they are banking on privacy. especially because Google isn't the prime funding source.

      Problem is, they are going to have to make privacy mode as near a default as they can get away with, or it won't be worth switching for most people. And that's unlikely.

    21. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe, those who say that earlier FF was lean and now it is bloated, forget that earlier websites are very different from nowadays. Tons of scripts, images and ads definitely makes a big impact on memory print and performance. It would be interesting to see comparison of most popular sites loaded with old and new FF, but I am afraid old FF wouldn't load new sites at all

    22. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Agile is a programming methodology, not an architect or design methodology. Agile is meant to allow you to better handle feature creep with less pain because you can never fully get rid of feature creep. But if you skip design and jump strait into programming, all features are feature creep and you're going to have a bad time.

    23. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about a browser that once had over 30% of the market reduced down to around 9% lately.

      Right. After years of Netscape and IE fighting it out by innovating with non-standard extensions/implementations we saw the Netscape core adopted by Firefox who made the "standards" play. The problem is of course they used that as their disruptive feature to beat out IE, but being "standards" compliant is supposed to create a level playing field upon which to offer some innovative or disruptive feature. Lightweight Chrome came along with integrated Google features to displace Chrome, Safari has pushed to be standards compliant and default on Mac and iOS and even Windows' built-in MS Edge is going the standards route. Firefox has no innovative features to drive adoption and the cruft and poor resource management (which was an acceptable tradeoff before) has become a problem for them.

      Back then people wanted web standards and developers wanted web standards. Their play with FireFoxOS is that they think they same people and developers want to standardize on web apps for mobile/tablet applications. But that is just nonsense, developers can already get 95% of the cross-platform advantage by wrapping a HTML5 app in a platform-specific container for the different platforms yet they don't do it, demonstrating that FFOS's primary feature is a complete abortion.

    24. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kids have already started to discover that a lot of the games they play simply won't work on Chrome after they dropped NPAPI support.

      Dropping support for non-standard "plugins" is a good thing, it promotes standards compliance. If NPAPI support is required then it just demonstrates the deficiency of web standards which, ironically, Mozilla is also trying to push as a standard mobile platform. You are saying there is a shift to Firefox because of support for non-standard functionality for web applications yet you think FireFoxOS is going to succeed by restricting developers to web standards for mobile applications. This is the sort of idiocy that has driven Mozilla into the ground: latching onto *anything* regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

    25. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the sites were to blame, then modern versions of Chrome, IE, and Safari should suffer from performance problems, too. But that's not what we see. Instead, we see that it's only Firefox that's consistently slow and bloated. Chrome manages to consistently be very fast. Safari is generally fast. Modern versions of IE perform quite well, too. With the Blink/WebKit split, we're talking about three distinct browsers/engines that perform much better than Firefox/Gecko manages to. So I think we need to lay the blame where it rightfully lies: Firefox. When all of the other major browsers can render a given set of web sites quickly, but Firefox is the only one that can't, then the problem is solely with Firefox.

    26. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe, those who say that earlier FF was lean and now it is bloated, forget that earlier websites are very different from nowadays.

      No it is that compared to its competitors, FF is an inefficient mess.

      Tons of scripts, images and ads definitely makes a big impact on memory print and performance.

      All browsers have to deal with that, why does FF do it so poorly compared to others? Considering they are the ones that came up with Javascript, Mozilla should be leading the pack here.

      It would be interesting to see comparison of most popular sites loaded with old and new FF

      Why? Nobody wants to use old Firefox nor is it capable of viewing the latest sites. It was good relative to its competitors, the competition stepped up and now it isn't good relative to its competitors anymore.

    27. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't used Firefox in years, in part because it was hogging memory despite protestations that the memory issues were fixed "long ago" even at that time. Although mostly it was because I found the UI locked up more easily than every other browser, and while crashes weren't necessarily more common than the competitors, they were more destructive by affecting more tabs. Plus I found the UI ugly (still do), although I still prefer the separate address bar and search box.

      I saw this to make clear that I have no preconceptions based on how Firefox behaves on my machine, or perhaps even a slight bias toward "I'll believe when I see it" when I hear the memory issues are gone, since I grew used to hearing that they were gone or were the fault of add-ons when I had a vanilla install, while still observing it take all my memory when it had been idling on simple webpages for hours, whilst competing browsers weren't as bad.

      This said, your links don't really prove anything. I guarantee all browsers -- all of them -- have something that can be termed, in at least a loose sense, a memory leak; I can give an even stronger guarantee that they aren't memory-optimal even when they aren't leaking. This is why they have engineers hired to analyse these things.

    28. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome gained market share because people like you and I recommend it over the alternatives

      chrome's marketshare gains on the desktop come nearly entirely from google's spamming chrome install blurbs on their home page and other web properties, and google's buying of malware-like inclusion in software installers... they also do mass media marketing campaigns in numerous countries.

      on handheld and mobile devices, they're the default on the majority of devices. no different than microsoft' internet explorer in windows, or apple safari in ios.

      firefox is the only major browser with no mass produced hardware or software/os to bundle it with as the default for 100s of millions or billions of users, and mozilla is only major browser developer without the ability to dedicate 100s of millions of dollars into marketing and bundleware campaigns.. these are GOOD THINGS. they don't have corporate greed in control of their products. other things ruin their products, similar to that of other open source projects.. bone-headed development and design decisions, ridiculous release cadence, and loss of original vision.

    29. Re:Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My comment was referring to claims that earlier FF was lean and now it is more bloated. I don't believe that it is true - FF got many performance and memory improvements over the years. The problem that it does not keep the pace with other browsers is another question. However even that is not always true, because other browsers not always shine - from my experience results vary a lot with different combinations of OS/RAM/Video drivers/etc

  10. Mozy Did Not Get The Win10 Memo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Privacy is BUST! Long Live the Advertizer Man and His Henchman.

  11. Re:It doesn't do anything hosts can't... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh god! NOOO!

  12. Re:It doesn't do anything hosts can't... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hosts files suck because they don't support wildcards. You have to know the full hostname of the ad servers in advance. It's much better to set up your own local name server from someone like DJB and have it act authoritative for entire ad domains. So when DoubleClick adds another pool83.east-19.srv.doubleclick.net to their server farm, you're already blocking it without having to wait for a Slashdot spammer to release a new host file.

  13. Re: Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both of those places are doing it wrong. Agile scrum should give devs an equal voice- maybe not in the business workflows- but in technology and time/risk tradeoffs.

    If the business is dictating low level technology, they have shitty scrum masters and improper role separation.

    The devs should have the authority to not commit to a particular feature/tech/UX/whatever in a given time period.

  14. Re: Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But I still don't really understand why they should lose market share. After all, they've done all the same hipster shit as all the others like removing menu and tool bars and making parts of the UI hide themselves; surely this being-the-same-as-everyone-else approach should be enough to differentiate themselves in the market?

  15. Mozilla don't care about privacy. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    Mozilla have a privacy tab where you can't actually set the important privacy options like:

    [Bug 959893] WebRTC Internal IP Address Leakage :: 'RESOLVED WONTFIX '

    Bug 814169 - introduce preference for controlling speculative pre-connections :: 'RESOLVED WONTFIX'

    Dozens more things not mentioned on the new god-awful looking privacy tab.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  16. Re: Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare by eulernet · · Score: 1

    You are wrong, and this is because Scrum is not agile !

    If you use only Scrum, you cannot succeed because Scrum is for managers, not for developers.
    For developers, you can use Extreme Programming, DevOps or Kanban, but please do not force developers to use Scrum, it's absolutely useless for them.

    The devs should have the authority to not commit to a particular feature/tech/UX/whatever in a given time period.

    When do the devs have some power in a company ?
    The problem is that the business guys want more and more features, so they try to cram as much possible tasks as possible.
    As a dev, you don't have time to polish your code, since you have to always remind the big picture, I mean the "vision" from the business guy.

  17. This wont work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole function of the internet is communication. We have been given up a bit at a time of our privacy ever since we started using the internet. Not sure why we harp on some privacy losses but ignore some that really are legitimate problems? Facebook and all the social sites, Google, Microsoft, Apple all have developed ways to harvest information about us to help applications such as Cortana, Siri, search engines, etc. Our personal data is so far into the internet that we better focus on protecting what's already out there. Rather then keeping what very little is left in. The cows are already out of the fence, down the road, and into the slaughter house. Now is not the time to just build a better fence.

  18. title bar too big by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Firebox did have such big top bars I would use it

  19. typo by arit · · Score: 1

    blocklist -> blacklist

  20. Re: Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, you've misunderstood the relationship between Agile and Scrum. Scrum is a subset (one possible implementation) of Agile software development, nothing else.

    > When do the devs have some power in a company ?

    In agile software development. This is one of the fundamental, core concepts of agile. Granted, few companies succeed (or even want) to do this, which means you've probably not worked in an agile (or scrum) environment. The common implementation so prevalent in the industry is purely a cost-saving measure, and has removed several of the most important concepts.

  21. Re: Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox has imitated Chrome from the UI and UX perspectives, but it has not imitated Chrome from a performance perspective. So while Firefox may look and feel like Chrome, it's still much slower. Users know that if they're going to use Firefox and still get a Chrome-like look and feel, but not Chrome's fast performance and low resource usage, they might as well just ditch Firefox and use Chrome directly. When one's choice is between shit, shittier, and absolute shit, one will most likely choose shit, rather than shittier and absolute shit.

  22. Why local DNS sucks... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Redirect security flaws (hosts fix those), excess electrical power, cpu, & ram usage, more moving parts for breakdown & far more complex rules tables than simple single file hosts entries.

    * Hosts files don't have those issues, & actually compliment remote DNS servers by fixing those redirect issues AND lightening their request loads (which DNS admins ought to love, considering how much DNS goes down, which IS quite a LOT)...

    APK

    P.S.=> Keep on "adding on 'MOAR'", being illogical & stupid - that's your business, lol... apk

  23. It doesn't do anything hosts can't... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & it's not for Firefox only but ANY browser: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community, using a tool you already have (hosts)!

    * :)

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"...

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  24. So as outsiders: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What can we do to put the screws to your 500k/yr deadweight and get thinks back to what the peons and plebians desire?

  25. It doesn't do anything hosts can't... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & it's not for Firefox only but ANY browser: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community, using a tool you already have (hosts)!

    * :)

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"...

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  26. It doesn't do anything hosts can't... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & it's not for Firefox only but ANY browser: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community, using a tool you already have (hosts)!

    * :)

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"...

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  27. It doesn't do anything hosts can't... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & it's not for Firefox only but ANY browser: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community, using a tool you already have (hosts)!

    * :)

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"...

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  28. It doesn't do anything hosts can't... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & it's not for Firefox only but ANY browser: APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining its data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community, using a tool you already have (hosts)!

    * :)

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    ---

    "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"...

    APK

    P.S.=> By "yours truly" - "The Lord of Hosts" so-to-speak:

    PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

    "The image this title brings to mind is of a mighty military commander, one who can at a mere word summon rank upon rank of protective power" from https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... & THAT WORD = hosts!

    (Accept NO substitutes!)

    ...apk

  29. about:config keeps me using Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use both Chrome and Firefox consecutively all the time. FF gets my personal use (news, forums, reddit, etc), and Chrome gets the business only use (some google apps and logins to work-related social media)... and of course both are used for development/testing locally.

    Sure it's annoying when FF adds in features like Hello and so on, but I've never NOT been able to find a way to disable those things in about:config if they aren't available in the standard preferences. I've used about:config to tailor my Firefox browsers to my specific connection, memory, cpu and privacy requirements many times over the last decade of use. I'm always grateful to have it, and it's pretty well documented. In fact there are sites dedicated to keeping up with new settings for privacy and performance. http://thesimplecomputer.info/tscs-firefox-tweak-guide for example.

    I know that Chrome has about:about, but it doesn't go quite as deep as Firefox's about:config in terms of being able to really change privacy and performance to suit your needs or use case.

    What would be nice is an addon that keeps you see the documentation for items in about config, or even better yet, roll that into a GUI for making privacy and performance adjustments that is updated when FF is updated.

  30. Mozilla should care a LOT more about privacy by nbsr · · Score: 1

    Performance, portability, openness aside (there are many contenders here today), the main reason I use Firefox is because guys at Mozilla Foundation *seem* to care about my privacy *a bit* more than others. Or rather, they haven't designed Firefox from ground up to suck as much information about me as they can get away with.

    Unfortunately, even though the potential is clearly here, Firefox does very little to actively protect my privacy. All the killer privacy features are pushed out to extensions. In 2015 there is no excuse for not shipping Adblock as a built-in component. I would really love to see filters being maintained and distributed within Mozilla - if nothing else, that would be a great way to engage the community.

    Another extension which is "a must" for me, and badly suffers from integration issues, is Multifox. It lets me open several windows, each presenting a different identity to web servers. I believe it was designed to allow multiple simultaneous logins to services like Gmail but it has a nice side effect of being the most effective way of blocking trackers. They can get all the information about Youtube videos "I" watch, or what online banking "I" use, but they cannot easily connect these patches of information into a single consistent picture of "me". I bet such function will never make its way into Chrome or Safari, yet Mozilla chose to ignore the potential killer feature again.

    So, why many of such essential privacy features are still not part of Firefox? I used to think it was because of Google founding but times have changed and Mozilla still does very little on that front (no, DNT really doesn't count).

  31. Note quite... by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    Our hypothesis is that when you open a Private Browsing window in Firefox you're sending a signal that you want more control over your privacy than current private browsing experiences actually provide."

    I can't speak for everybody, but I use it when I want to surf porn, but don't want to have to log out of everything before, and clear my cache after. They might as well just call it "Pornsurfin' mode" To really one-up their feature-set, they could change the default search to Bing.

  32. Re: Desperation due to FF's collapsing marketshare by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    I'm a. Old fuddee dudie. Even though I have Chrome and other browsers, I always return to Firefox. With it I am more confident of my browsing privacy than with any other browser. Eventually, when your deepest secrets are on the web, will you say "I didn't know Chrome did that or the other browser leaked my info. Sure Ff is a little slower, but I believe my browsing history belongs to me and me one. Bye bye Chrome, Chromium and all the leaky rest.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada