Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Is Removing Tab Groups and Complete Themes From Firefox (venturebeat.com)

An anonymous reader writes: As part of Mozilla's "Go Faster" initiative for Firefox, the company is removing features that aren't used by many and require a lot of technical effort to continually improve. VentureBeat learned that the first two features to get the axe are tab groups and complete themes. Dave Camp, Firefox’s director of engineering, said, "Tab Groups was an experiment to help users deal with large numbers of tabs. Very few people chose to use it, so we are retiring it because the work required to maintain it is disproportionate to its popularity."

15 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. Fuck Mozilla by shiftless · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Tab groups are too much work, but I bet Pocket stays. These people are terminally stupid. Why does the world have to be taken over by retards? These morons did Brendan Eich a huge favor.

    1. Re:Fuck Mozilla by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's funny how back when Chrome and then Firefox introduced rapid, automatic updates to the web-browsing public, I would get modded to oblivion if I expressed my opinion that this is a bad thing and not in users' interests. It means features keep breaking and UIs keep moving around and sometimes useful functionality even gets removed entirely. Moreover, real web sites and apps don't tend to use bleeding edge features anyway, because those features aren't stable and reliable across browsers, so the main benefit claimed for very rapid updates is mostly an illusion. I suspect a lot more people would agree with me today, though.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Fuck Mozilla by KGIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They probably get a kick-back from Pocket. They probably get nothing from maintaining tab groups.

      You can probably guess where I'm going with this and can probably guess why I am going to skip that energy expenditure. Suffice to say, I don't use Mozilla's Firefox but I am a bit fond of Thunderbird.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I cringe at the thought of what they are going to remove next. Based on the complete disconnection from their users lately, I predict they'll remove something that will cause the rest of the users to abandon ship. What could it be? Bookmarks? The URL bar? Scrollbars? The minimize button? The close button? The back button?

    Trust me, it will be something just as ridiculous.

    1. Re:What's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I cringe at the thought of what they are going to remove next.

      Why? If Mozilla removes something it's all wailing and gnashing of teeth, if they add something it's called bloat, if they don't add something it's "where's my feature??" Nothing Mozilla does will appease the Slashdot groupthink.

    2. Re:What's next? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... If Mozilla removes something it's all wailing and gnashing of teeth, if they add something it's called bloat,...

      Because Mozilla is removing useful features and not fixing bug, and adding useless features.

      .
      If Mozilla really wants to remove bloat, start by removing Pocket.

  3. Hmmmmm.. by simp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmm.. Ok, I don't use tab groups and themes so I'm not affected. But what happens when they take away a feature that I use.? Who will speak out for me?
    I still do not understand why it is so hard to have a flexible UI. Some people want a sidebar, a a statusbar, themes, etc... Why is there this unstoppable move to remove features and make everything look like an empty sheet of paper..

    Hopefully mozilla seamonkey will continue the traditional interface. It is the only browser with has large buttons so I don't have to have sniper skills to click on a forward/back stop button on my 4k screen.

  4. Mozilla wins #1 prize! - for "hiding" features by burni2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me explain:

    1.) Grouping Tabs in Opera12
    (Grab Tab, move it over the other Tab you like to put together to a group, Drop Tab)

    = works great easy to use, even my mother could use it (and mourned the downfall of Opera12, so let's just say when my mother could use it, the usability design was great)

    2.) Grouping Tabs in Firefox
    (Press CTRL + Shift +E) Everybody would knew that
    And now you get an overloaded preview of all open Tabs

    I can only say I didn't knew that FF had tab support either.

    And my critisism is:
    Mozilla should really axe this feature because of usability issues and POCKET too(->plugins) many people don't use it either but are pestered with it's existence which is because it's prominently placed!

    And we could also think about Opera12's visual start page with icons and the way Mozilla implemented it.
    (with the idea of making money)

    Data is the gold of the 21st century let's do some alchemy and turn gold into dirt!

  5. Re:How do they know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, I use Tab Groups a lot and I was just thinking this must be my punishment for not sharing firefox telemetry data...

  6. Re:Killing off "Classic theme restorer" by luvirini · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed. That is the thing that has kept me in firefox despite the utter stupidity of trying harder and harder to make firefox unusable. Classic theme restorer fixes enough to make it mostly usable. Without it firefox is just unusable.

  7. That's not their problem by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    their problem is Google pulled their funding, which rapidly shrunk their development budget. They're having to cut features that folks don't use much. And Firefox hasn't had memory leaks in years. Check your plugins. I'll give you Pocket though. It's a stupid feature that I'm assuming they got paid to include....

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That's not their problem by Ramze · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a heck of a spin on the situation. Google paid to be Firefox's default search engine for 10 years. It released the Chrome browser in 2008 and many wondered why it still paid Firefox to be their default search engine when Chrome had the same or higher market share. (answer was it was still worth it!)

      When Google was just a search engine, they were fine paying Mozilla for Google to be Firefox's default search engine.
      After Google Chrome's market share far exceeded Firefox's, they had their own solid browser platform to push Google as a default search engine. Their strategy changed. They no longer had to pay to get a wide audience, and the best way to get more browsers with Google as default was to push Google Chrome and crush Firefox. I'm sure they would have given something to be Firefox's default, but not as much as Yahoo was offering -- and likely nowhere near the amount they'd been paying prior to the Yahoo offer either.

      Yahoo needed a win to boost their search income, and they got it. It was a large increase for Yahoo, but a small loss for Google... and Google is winning firefox users over to Chrome, and helping remaining firefox users to switch their search back to Google.

      http://computing.dcu.ie/~humph...

      It made perfect sense for Google to shrug off the tiny, declining value of Firefox search engine users as they expected to pick up market share from those leaving Firefox as well as continuing to pick up market share from those scampering off the sinking IE ship.

      Meanwhile, Mozilla is running out of cash and slashing features on Firefox to save on expenses while picking up crap like Pocket to survive. It's truly sad that they're likely getting 90% of their revenue from another dying company (Yahoo) and wasting money on developing phones no one asked for. I fear they may not recover from this death spiral. (over 90% of their revenues from previous years came from Google... and you know that was more money than Yahoo gave them b/c they admit they're slashing expenses and begging for cash).

  8. Creates Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This stupid, rapid development cycle serves to do nothing but introduce instability. It's like a cold war between Firefox and Chrome. Release cycles should be about twice a year, at most once a quarter. Let the features mature slowly, so people can get used to them, but let security updates flow quickly and be installed automatically.

    One of the reasons I'm a FreeBSD and Debian Linux user is because I value stability over feature cruft. I used to love using Konqueror, but since Konqueror is the original KHTML browser and Safari was introduced, Konqueror has added Webkit to render things more like Chrome and Safari, and this has taken valuable resources away from Konqueror, as people are not as interested in it. Konqueror used to be stable and fun to use. No longer. This browser cold war is ridiculous.

  9. Tab to make available offline by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you use more then 5 tabs open something is wrong and you should learn about bookmarks

    I might open ten tabs, close my laptop's lid, board the bus, and read them while riding the bus. I use this as a way to avoid having to pay for mobile broadband on the way to and from work. If I were to use bookmarks instead, all I would get would be "Problem loading page: Server not found". Or is that what Pocket is intended for?

  10. Re:No, I'm really not by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The thing with browsers is that you write to a loose standard.

    No, the thing with today's browsers is that the "standards" are loose. Up until Google and Mozilla started messing everything up and the W3C became almost completely irrelevant, we enjoyed probably a decade or so where writing web-based front-ends was a big advantage over writing native UIs for each major platform precisely because the web front-end was widely portable with relatively little effort and good reliability.

    We're repeating exactly the same mistakes as we did in the IE vs. Netscape embrace-and-extend days, just now with more players and -- perhaps a greater cause for concern -- with most of the leading players having a much stronger bias towards driving the Web in a specific direction that favours their own commercial goals at the expense of other valuable uses for Web technology.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.