Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Releases Firefox 50 (softpedia.com)

Mozilla has begun seeding the binary and source packages of the final release of Firefox 50 web browser on all supported platforms, including GNU/Linux and macOS. From a report on Softpedia: We have to admit that we expected to see some major features and improvements, but that hasn't happened. The biggest new feature of the Firefox 50.0 release appears to be emoji for everyone. That's right, the web browser now ships with built-in emoji for GNU/Linux distributions, as well as other operating systems that don't include native emoji fonts by default, such as Windows 8.0 and previous versions. Also new, Firefox 50.0 now shows lock icon strikethrough for web pages that offer insecure password fields. Another interesting change that landed in the Mozilla Firefox 50.0 web browser is the ability to cycle through tabs in recently used order using the Ctrl+Tab keyboard shortcut. Moreover, it's now possible to search for whole words only using the "Find in page" feature. Last but not the least, printing was improved as well by using the Reader Mode, which now uses the accel-(opt/alt)-r keyboard shortcut, the Guarana (gn) locale is now supported, the rendering of dotted and dashed borders with rounded corners (border-radius) has been fixed as well.

127 comments

  1. Sorry to be Negative, but... by ytene · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... if the best we can say about Firefox, the "lean, lightweight browser without the bloat" that brought it into existence, is that version 50 has "emojis for everyone", then I think we've completely lost the plot.

    So sorry, FF developers; you have a great platform [it's my browser of choice] but we're losing our way here...

    1. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Then again, you could always read about all the other things that went into it, if emojis aren't your thing. But don't let me rain on your negativity parade (this is Slashdot, so I'm sure you wouldn't be happy with anything they do to Firefox anyway).

    2. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Competition isn't always good, but at least they haven't written their own GUI toolkit yet.

    3. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry they didnt hold up lesser bug fixes for large scale backend changes that are still being worked on.

    4. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never heard of XUL?

    5. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I agree that's not the feature I'd have led with or even care about, but there were lots of other things mentioned in the summary (nevermind the release notes) that are worthwhile.

    6. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're doing major technical things in project Quantum (AKA Servo).

      But until then, which will be late next year probably, they're choosing simple changes.

    7. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only in the neckbeard-filled land of slashdot could a post about how facilitating communication with today's citizens is "bloat".

      Hate them or love them, emoji is here to stay, and if a browser doesn't support it they're no better than IE with its insulting version of CSS support.

    8. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actual FF 50 Release notes and release tracking page, for anyone who cares to read about what all they're working on right now.

    9. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      That was literally the first thing Mozilla wrote when it came into being as the successor to Netscape. It's called XUL.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Users can now cycle through tabs in recently used order using Ctrl+Tab"

      Another interesting change that landed in the Mozilla Firefox 50.0 web browser is the ability to cycle through tabs in recently used order using the Ctrl+Tab keyboard shortcut. Moreover, it's now possible to search for whole words only using the "Find in page" feature.

      is nice

    11. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by orange_account · · Score: 1

      That's a very fair criticism, but I think they've taking the right approach (not necessarily on gimmicky features) but by generally accepting that to many people the browser might as well be the operating system (see Chromebook for proof of that). It'd be nice if there was a lean-n-light variant in addition to the kitchen sink, but if they only have time to make one of those, I'd say they chose correctly for what people use browsers for these days. Now if only it was free software so some people could make such a trimmed-down variant ;)

    12. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      His point is that emojis are described as "the biggest new feature"

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    13. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he's presuming that Mozilla has nothing better to say about the release because they chose to lead with a line he didn't find compelling. That's idiotic. Only the kinds of people who only read the top item would care about emojis. Any worth their salt who cares about what's in a given release of Firefox would just shrug at what they don't care about and move on to the next point.

    14. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      accusations of 'negativity' are not arguments.

    15. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      There's no reason to use Firefox anymore. What advantage does it possibly have?

      Seamonkey is hardly any fatter and has an email client and web page composer, and a few other goodies (its page source viewer can't be beat), and I use Chrome to read pdf's and play flash vids to avoid Adobe's even worse bloat.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    16. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by MSG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Firefox regularly introduces real, tangible improvements. Bagging the whole thing because this one release (made on their regular schedule) isn't ground-breaking is just a little disingenuous.

    17. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by MSG · · Score: 3, Funny

      What advantage does it possibly have?

      As I replied to another comment: it uses less memory than other browsers, it syncs my bookmarks and other data between desktop and mobile, and I can use ad-blockers and other extensions on the mobile version. Those are significant advantages that make Firefox the best browser, IMO.

    18. Re: Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that no such accusations were made, as the author of the post conceded that they were in fact being negative.

    19. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak to Seamonkey, but Firefox is still the best browser for addons (yes I know they're slowly killing that asset) and it's the only browse that can handle large quantities of tabs (It sucks at it, but the other browsers are even worse.)

      Personally I would hope they develop sane session management. All the browsers currently just dump all the session info into one file at rates like once every 15 seconds. A far better approach would be to hold the session info in a folder and dump one file per tab. Thus instead of writing all data every 15 seconds, it would only need to write data for the tabs which changed from the last dump. This would both improve performance for us heavy tab users and it would massively reduce SSD ware. Modern browsers can be flushing over 10GB a day to your hard drive, which is bad when you have a SSD.

      I don't understand why browsers and email clients became bundled together. That doesn't make any sense to me.

    20. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd go even further. As I see it Firefox is (nearly) feature-complete. And from what I understand, they've been focussing on improving existing code and features. In my book, that's a good thing and I'd be perfectly happy if that would be all they did (at least until it stops crashing once a month).

    21. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seamomkey is a Mozilla product (well not exactly, but close enough). Most Firefox extensions work there also. That includes ublock.

      I don't understand why browsers and email clients became bundled together. That doesn't make any sense to me.

      Tradition (from when we didn't have lots of RAM...and it beats the hell out of using the gmail/hotmail webpage)... and netscape/seamonkey has been faithful for 20 years, along with the interface, tried and true, and comfortable. Updates bring no unpleasant surprises.

      If you want to save your SSD, turn off caching. That stuff is a carry over from the old 56k days when it made pages loader faster. It's not needed anymore. Neither is the 'prediction' crud or the 'load tabs in the background' option. Turn them all off. They are places where malware can hide.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    22. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      As I replied to another comment: it uses less memory than other browsers

      That's not my experience. One of my users ran Firefox from his shared account, and forgot to close it before going on vacation. It had a single tab open, but eventually gobbled up quite a few gigabytes - a quarter of the server's memory, at which point I got alerted thanks to cgroup soft limits being exceeded.
      Even java allows a -Mxm1024m, but Firefox is boundless in its greed.

      Until the Seamonkey guys threw in the towel and went for the new Mozilla base, it was funny how Seamonkey which retained mail/news/irc was far leaner than Firefox where it all had been ripped out.
      As it is, Firefox could be the encyclopedia definition of bloatware.

    23. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is now all being gutted

    24. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by networkzombie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'll stick to Seamonkey v2.40 with AdBlock Plus and NoScript. Version 50.0 of anything is either 50 years old, or a shit-storm of code.

    25. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by today's citizens you mean those illiterates with the cognitive capacity of a 2 years old then yes, the emoji are the way to communicate.

    26. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a good example of things normal users and feature highlights would tend to miss: New TLS (SSL) cryptographic standards:

      Firefox 47 add Chacha20-Poly1305 (new AEAD symmetric cipher, alternative to AES-GCM)
      Firefox 52 will add X25519 (new ECDHE key exchange, alternative to NIST P-256)

      Both of these are fairly recent advancements (recent in TLS standardization) which replace NIST (NSA) -derived equivalents that are currently more-popular. Yay for connections that are better-protected against state actors!

    27. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      Even worse, the UI still sucks and the memory leaks that burden FF since v1 are still there. FF now looks like Chrome, smells like Chrome, but does not perform like Chrome....might as well use Chrome. FF's problem is the egotistic dev leadership at Mozilla. One can only hope that funding runs out at some point and they either are forced back to reality or just disappear from the digital world.

    28. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      it uses less memory than other browsers

      I can show you Firefox using arbitrarily large amounts of memory with only a single tab open to about:blank. On any version (starting before 3, even), any desktop OS. I can't reproduce that trick in any other browser.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    29. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in the neckbeard-filled land of slashdot could a post about how facilitating communication with today's citizens is "bloat".
      Hate them or love them, emoji is here to stay, and if a browser doesn't support it they're no better than IE with its insulting version of CSS support.

      If by today's citizens you mean those illiterates with the cognitive capacity of a 2 years old then yes, the emoji are the way to communicate.

      And we do not wish to communicate with them. In fact, emoji detection could be the basis for a filter.

    30. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by MSG · · Score: 1

      Yes? I'm all ears.

      I don't see that behavior when I open Firefox on my systems. Unless you define its initial memory set as arbitrary and large, which could be considered technically correct, but in that case, every browser does that trick.

      I'm not the only one. Benchmarks that compare memory use typically note that Firefox uses less. You're the odd man out, making claims counter to everyone else's experience.

    31. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      Open one tab to about:blank. Open a number of other tabs, and browse some heavy sites in those. Close those other tabs, leaving only the one open to about:blank. Check your memory usage.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    32. Re:Sorry to be Negative, but... by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      If you want to save your SSD, turn off caching. That stuff is a carry over from the old 56k days when it made pages loader faster. It's not needed anymore.

      I'm actually curious as to whether caching even still works these days. I've noticed that if I download a large image (at least a couple megs), if I try to "Save As" to my hard drive, the browser will completely re-download the entire image again. Given that my cache is set to 500MB, shouldn't it just save the damn image it's already downloaded? Apparently not.

      Incidentally, PaleMoon is my primary browser, and Firefox is my backup (mostly for HTML5 YouTube). Both browsers have the same cache behavior.

  2. Turn off emoji by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as I can turn off emoji.

  3. Wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of some stupid emojis for everyone, everyone who is an idiot that is, they should have instead directly implemented their vertical tabs feature straight from the experiment page.
    That would have given 50 some actual tangible attention value.

  4. Soooo... more bloat? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "emojis for everyone"

  5. If I never saw an emoji again it would be too soon by HBI · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hate those things. They communicate absolutely zero to me. I ignore all posts that include them.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  6. Yay emojis! by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    Cause I don't see that stupid eggplant often enough already.

    1. Re:Yay emojis! by Nunya666 · · Score: 0

      Cause I don't see that stupid eggplant often enough already.

      Why would anyone want to see an emoji of an eggplant?

    2. Re:Yay emojis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would anyone want to see an emoji of an eggplant?

      Why would anyone want to see an emoji of a happy turd? Or any turd, for that matter.

      It takes all kinds, and apparently some of them have influence over what become official emojis.

    3. Re:Yay emojis! by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      It's better than a sad turd.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    4. Re:Yay emojis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we have to have a sad turd emoji, it should look something like this.

    5. Re:Yay emojis! by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Because (and someone had to explain this to me, but one seen, can never be unseen) it looks like an erect penis.

  7. Re:If I never saw an emoji again it would be too s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Because you suffer from sociopathy and aspergers?

  8. Re:If I never saw an emoji again it would be too s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, because using emoji is childish nonsense!

  9. Re:If I never saw an emoji again it would be too s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    :-P

    Your penis ---> 8==D

  10. Re:Let's hear it for GuaranÃf (gn) support! by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2

    LUDDITE google hasn't given me emojis in Chrome yet, so I can't make a witty reply.

  11. 50 you say? by slashdice · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sorry old timer but it's time to take you out back and put a bullet in your head. Silicon Valley has no use for people over 30. Now let's all write a new browser in javascript and css!

    "You don't go out and kick a mad dog. If you have a mad dog with rabies, you take a gun and shoot him." -- Pat Robertson, TV Evangelist, about Muammar Kadhafy

    --
    Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
  12. Re:If I never saw an emoji again it would be too s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because you suffer from sociopathy and aspergers?

    I'm going to have to agree with the parent post: because they communicate absolutely zero.

    A friend recently sent me an emoji of what looked like a constipated grimace. I found out later it was supposed to be a smile. Go figure.

  13. Improved printing? I'm listening. by jandrese · · Score: 1

    Can Firefox now print a table without cutting off everything that won't fit on a single page?

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  14. Re:If I never saw an emoji again it would be too s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A sociopath uses replacements for the faces he can't make,
    while only a person with asspergers needs emojis to relay what normal people otherwise can with words and proper formulation,
    so you've lost me with your statement
    I'm assuming that an emoji representative of your reply would be one with two cheeks and a cloud coming out between them?

  15. WOW DUDE EMOJIS? by FODCOM · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't Firefox just release more security updates and make the browser more like Pale Moon?

  16. Foxfire by m0gely · · Score: 1

    Non-tech persons call it Foxfire. Why? That and Linsky network gear. What psychological madness is occurring here? I try not to be that kind of nerd, but man it gets me every time I hear that and I wish I knew what their eyes were seeing.

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

      Foxfire (1955) w/ Jane Russell,
      Foxfire Light (1982) w/ Leslie Nielsen and Tippi Hedren
      Firefox (1982) w/ Clint Eastwood
      Firefox (Video Game, 1983) Atari game based on the movie
      Code Name: Foxfire (TV show, 1985) w/ Joanna Cassidy
      Foxfire (TV, 1987) w/ Jessica Tandy, Hume Cronyn, and John Denver,
      Foxfire (1996) w/ Angelina Jolie, and
      Foxfire (2012) w/ a cast of no-names.

      Oh, and there's a plant called Foxfire.

    2. Re:Foxfire by Opyros · · Score: 1

      Also the Foxfire Books.

  17. Broken Extensions? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Seems to have broken some of the Extensions I'm using.

    1. Re:Broken Extensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They sound like prime candidates to be converted into WebExtensions, if they're so fragile they broke in this release without anyone noticing in the alpha/beta cycle.

    2. Re:Broken Extensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Electrolysis is being phased in this release so it might be that. Check whether multiprocess is enabled (though if you have extensions not marked as compatible it should be disabled).

    3. Re:Broken Extensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother? If I wanted gimped chrome extensions I'd just use chrome.

    4. Re:Broken Extensions? by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1

      Sadly I think this will be another nail in the coffin. People are saying, oh, that's just Electrolysis, but maybe not, because Mozilla is only releasing that to a few % of users per release, and besides, the developers should all convert their add-ons to WebExtensions, blah blah. Look, I don't know or care what any of that shit is. What I know is I upgraded the browser from 47 to 50, and instead of things getting better, things quit working. Developers who have volunteered many man-hours creating Firefox extensions aren't all going to spend the time to port or rewrite or re-package or whatever the hell the procedure is. It's annoying to me as a user, I imagine it would be even more frustrating as an extension developer.

      Between work and play, I spend 8 or 10 hours a day sitting in front of a computer. Browser choice is therefore a very intimate and personal decision that affects a substantial chunk of my life. If Firefox stops working the way I want it to, I'm going to (reluctantly) find a browser that does.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    5. Re:Broken Extensions? by winphreak · · Score: 1

      In v48, addon signing was REQUIRED, with no about:config workaround like in previous versions.

      I'm still sitting on v47 until I find a way to run unsigned (read: old/unsupported but still working) addons. The authors aren't going to resurrect something they made three years ago just to get it approved. They got some donations already and moved on.

      --
      "I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
    6. Re:Broken Extensions? by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I wish I was allowed to mod you up. You just provided a beautiful description of why I changed to Pale Moon. I got sick and tired of having some idiot pop up every few weeks to jack around with a GUI I was thoroughly familiar with, and break extensions I relied on.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  18. Re:If I never saw an emoji again it would be too s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nah, it would be a black dick being forcibly-inserted into your anus.

  19. Re:If I never saw an emoji again it would be too s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^^ +5 Informative

  20. I'm curious by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Does anybody even use Firefox anymore?

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:I'm curious by pjtp · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're hoping to win back market share with emoji support...

    2. Re:I'm curious by MSG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, because it uses less memory than other browsers, it syncs my bookmarks and other data between desktop and mobile, and I can use ad-blockers and other extensions on the mobile version.

      As far as I know, that's not true of any other browser.

    3. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question: What's the alternative?

      p.s. Don't say Chrome. If you use Chrome, you should turn in your geek card and leave /. immediately. With Chrome, YOU are the product.

    4. Re: I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People don't use Firefox because it is slow and bloated compared to Chrome, and it does an awful job imitating the Chrome UI.

      The changes in Firefox 50 do nothing to address those problems. So those changes will not bring in any new users and may actually drive away some of the remaining users.

    5. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than you can think of.

    6. Re:I'm curious by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      I use it. I like it.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    7. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      download code of version of browser you like, and compile it without the support for bits and protocols you don't like, after removing every URL, ip and replacing all suspicious strings with "bullshit" in the source code? If it compiles, it works, right?

      I used to do the above upto firefox 3.0.16 or something, then i switched over to CENSORED* and ported my fav. extensions to it, and its somewhat usable. Though i wish it didn't have webgl/canvas. But i have other browser that don't have those, so its okay for now.

      *tee hee

    8. Re: I'm curious by narcc · · Score: 1, Troll

      No sweat. Chrome helped them out by being far more bloated and slow that FireFox ever was. Between that and the spying, Google is doing wonders to help FireFox regain its former position.

    9. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Chrome, YOU are the product.

      Same with Firefox. Only products browse the web.

    10. Re: I'm curious by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      People don't use Firefox because it is slow and bloated compared to Chrome, and it does an awful job imitating the Chrome UI.

      As far as I'm concerned, an awful job of imitating Chrome's awful UI might be a good thing. That said, I'm using Pale Moon, so I'm on the pre-Australis Firefox UI. I haven't found any browser UI that's anywhere near as good, much less better.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    11. Re:I'm curious by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I switched over to Pale Moon, and I have found that it uses less resources than Firefox. And it's a lot faster on my older machine.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    12. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can thank Mozilla for most of that codebase.

    13. Re:I'm curious by short · · Score: 1

      I have tried to switch to Chromium as Firefox is sometimes slow. But Fedora does not package any Chromium extensions and I found no way how to review + install locally the extensions. Later I was told how to do that but that's just too work. A simple configuration items in Firefox (such as GIF animations) need extensions in Chrome. For Firefox some extensions are packaged in Fedora and other extensions I could easily review from a local .xpi file. Maybe some other distro does package the Chromium extensions?

    14. Re:I'm curious by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      Yes, because it uses less memory than other browsers, it syncs my bookmarks and other data between desktop and mobile, and I can use ad-blockers and other extensions on the mobile version.

      As far as I know, that's not true of any other browser.

      I switched over to Pale Moon, and I have found that it uses less resources than Firefox. And it's a lot faster on my older machine.

      And how well does it work on mobile?

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    15. Re:I'm curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, have you ever downloaded the source and toolchain for Chrome on Mac? I stopped after 26GB.

    16. Re:I'm curious by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't know. I've got an iPhone (got an incredible deal, not my first choice), and can't use it. My buddy with a rooted Android has a version running on his rooted Android phone and absolutely loves it. I'm pretty sure they don't do a special version for mobiles, so he's essentially running a full browser on a very good capable phone.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    17. Re:I'm curious by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      You say that as though you expect me to be surprised. Perhaps you're unaware that Pale Moon is an actual fork from Firefox. It retains everything that made the old Firefox great (and my browser for many years). I switched when Mozilla decided to turn Firefox into Chrome's retarded little brother.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    18. Re:I'm curious by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No one cares about memory use as long as there's no memory leak or lack of garbage collection that ultimately causes the system to chug.
      Most browsers sync bookmarks between devices. Some browsers even sync sessions between devices so on one device I can call up all that tabs that are currently open on another.
      Most non-MS browsers support adblocking extensions, even many Android ones.

      I stayed with them for a while but I finally threw in the towel at version 45. I don't know why I didn't do it much sooner. But hey at least :-) can render as an actual picture now. Whoopdefuckingdo.

    19. Re:I'm curious by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I've been using PaleMoon for about a year and it blows away Firefox by a wide margin. I love it.

      It appears a lot of that is due to how the browser is configured, rather than the vintage of the code or rendering engine. Even really old versions of Firefox are slower and more bloated and the latest releases of PaleMoon, and PaleMoon has none of the frequent pausing issues caused by memory management, which have plagued Firefox since version 2.0 -- way before Australis made its debut.

      I wouldn't be at all surprised if just a few configuration tweaks would fix all the problems with Firefox. Mozilla just has an agenda and wants to keep all the bloat.

    20. Re:I'm curious by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      My oldest computer would be a great test lab for them. It's pretty slow anyway, has only 2G of DDR2 RAM and still runs XP Pro. It runs Firefox 44.0.2 with Classic Theme Restorer. The memory management is absolutely horrible...constant long pauses. Pale Moon is fast and smooth.

      I rarely use this computer anymore, but it still works, so I let it visit the occasional website. I keep the OS patched through that well-known registry hack, so I still get security updates for XP.

      And yes, my security (software and hardware) deals with the hazard of using an older browser/OS. I wouldn't recommend anybody do this with the machine they rely on.

      Cheers!

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  21. What's with the negativity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I swear you people are the most negative, whiny people on the internet. Emojis are pretty standard now. Firefox has not been a slim browser for some time now, and that's okay. These guys do a lot of good work; Firefox is a great browser. Show some support. Say something positive. I'm personally excited, as electrolysis is slowly being phased in which is awesome!

    1. Re:What's with the negativity? by doom · · Score: 2

      Something positive: it sounds like they haven't broken every single extension (yet), and I feel good about switching to PaleMoon if they do.

    2. Re:What's with the negativity? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      When they actually do some good work and start listening to users, when it actually returns to being a good browser, THEN we can talk about support and negativity.

      Until then the entire Mozilla team can type this bad boy into their new emoji powered crapfest U+1F595

  22. Wrong report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla did not add a lock icon strikethrough. That was delayed. Check the official changelog: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/...

  23. 50 years of Firefox by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Amazing. Here is to 50 more years.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  24. Time for a Retro version? by product_bucket · · Score: 1

    No Imojis, no tablet UI menu, no transition animations, no persistent suggestion/help balloons, and (gasp) the hipsterist(TM) thing of all: An about:config that actually permits you to make persistent actionable changes to the way the browser works. We could call this.... Modding, or... personalisation? I know, it's progressive. I'm just thinking outside of the app store for a moment.

    1. Re:Time for a Retro version? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.palemoon.org/

  25. Gaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brendan Eich is rolling in his grave.

  26. Re: If I never saw an emoji again it would be too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i would argue emoji's themselves are bot the problem but their over use and sometime exclusive use. they can express-->expresions

  27. Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If we (and Mozilla) should be focusing on anything at all, it is Firefox's rapidly declining market share.

    Firefox 49 didn't manage to break 5%. That's a big deal. Even if we add in the usage of all other versions of Firefox, including on Android, we're only looking at about 7% in total.

    Firefox is insignificant compared to Chrome. It's well below UC Browser for Android. It's now essentially below iOS Safari 10 alone. Even Opera Mini nearly has more users.

    Firefox 50 will likely have an even smaller share of the market than 49 did. It could very well be the first release to peak at under 4% of the market.

    Unwanted features like emojis, or minor features like a keyboard shortcut to cycle through tabs, won't keep more people from jumping ship to Chrome.

    At what point will we see some real concern from Mozilla? When Firefox hits 3%? Or will it be 2%, or even 1%?

    But it may not even matter at this point. With numbers so low already, there's very little chance of Firefox ever regaining any relevant share of the market again.

    1. Re:Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by narcc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Okay, armchair expert, what would you have Mozilla do?

      That's what I thought.

    2. Re:Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Market share is meaningless. You're saying we should go around proclaiming Linux sucks since Windows has a bigger desktop market share. I disagree with that. Most used is not the same as best unless you're defining best as most used. That is not my definition of best. My definition of best software is a piece of software that most easily lets me complete some task.

      Firefox should focus on improvements and almost completely ignore outside metrics. Keep improving the base and you'll naturally gain more success as your product gets better and better. This is OSS. It doesn't numbers to keep up sales. Well, Mozilla has turned into a massive organization that pukes money left and right. In order to keep that up I guess they need more market share. But in terms of Firefox as a standalone browser, the devs should only focus on improving the product and not adding features just to gain temporary marketing hype. A better-than-emoji feature would be a generic version that allows you to inline any image instead of just their pre-configured set (which will only look the same for other Firefox users of the same Firefox version). Or a better installer that tells you: "Here's our recommend addon pack. Do you want to include these addons?" and the emoji feature could be one of those default addons.

    3. Re:Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by Richard_J_N · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a developer, I have to agree. Though I really don't want Google to dominate[*], and for there to be a good alternative to Chrome (and I keep using Firefox myself on principle), it's very hard to avoid recommending against using Firefox when they just don't try to keep pace with simple features. Two examples:

      * Firefox still doesn't support "input type=date". There's a long thread, arguing about which UI widget would make the best native experience, but for a developer, all I care about is that there should be *some* widget, however imperfect it might be.

      * Firefox on Android doesn't support "mobile-web-app-capable". That's essential for us, because it allows mobile sites to be launched full-screen from a desktop icon, without showing the URL-bar and back/forward controls. For our warehousing application (running on an android hand-held terminal with barcode-scanner), this is critical to prevent user-confusion.

      On the other hand, at least Firefox isn't the terribly obsolete mobile-safari (still no WebRTC!), which will only get fixed if the a developers' lawsuit succeeds in forcing Apple to open up.

      [*] Google have far too much power, and abuse of Chrome could be much more dangerous to the open internet than IE could have been back at the time.

    4. Re:Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make Firefox Great Again. Pandering to the SJWs and macbook pro coffee shop crowd didn't help their market share. Go meet some Real Americans out in Wisconsin or Ohio or Pennsylvania. You know, deplorables with their guns and religion. Turns out they need a browser too. Mozilla needs to hire back Brendan Eich and focus on bing the browser for Middle America. The browser that you can use to read your bible study, check the little league scores, look up your tractor manual, and watch heterosexual porn.

    5. Re:Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Okay, armchair expert, what would you have Mozilla do?

      That's what I thought.

      Easy make it more like Chrome.

      Also take away some features and add spamming facebook social meda apis as well. Nothing says more than I want this than to have less features and facebook notifcations that won't go away!

    6. Re:Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Okay, armchair expert, what would you have Mozilla do?

      Given that I've written a web browser, even if simple (the 90s were simpler times), while sitting in an armchair, I guess I qualify to answer?

      Bring back the features that were ripped out because they were part of the dumbing down for the masses, or the devs didn't understand them. Instead, rip out things that are security/privacy nightmares and that can be served by add-ons for those that absolutely want them, like pocket, reader, social api, geolocation, or whatever else they've added now.

      Then put the effort into two major issues: Compatibility and Stability. Stability also means making the browser lean and frugal enough that it doesn't gobble up gigabytes of memory. It's a horrible piece of bloatware that gets more bloated with each revision, despite all the functionality that has been dropped, like mail, news, irc, gopher, bookmark/settings sync to your own server, a fully functional bookmarks manager and cookie manager, and much more.

      Also, keep at least one version LTS where security and critical stability fixes get backported. I don't want to spend most of a week after each upgrade fixing compatibility issues for users. Business users need the latest features and layout changes like a fish needs a bicycle, but they do need timely security fixes. The most tempting solution is to ban Firefox from my users as unsupportable.

    7. Re:Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between market share of Firefox and market share of Linux. Linux market share has had a gradual increase over time. Firefox had a large market share because they were listening to their users and had proper direction. Firefox is losing market share because of its current management, direction and their "vision". Every major browser has had multi threaded browsers for years, Firefox always had plans but keep putting the project on the back burner and figured their single process model was "good enough". Now they are only just now started to push out official releases with multi threading, though still not production ready, if Firefox detects add-on installation it will disable multi threading because it isn't stable yet for add-ons. Mozilla also kept removing features from Firefox saying they were unneeded that could be implemented as a add-on, I'm all good with that reasoning if they wouldn't be so hypocritical. They constantly add new "features" most of their user base doesn't want, features that should be add-ons. Speaking of add-ons, with Mozillas old release cycle, as a add-on developer you would know to update a add-on for a major release, because that is when API changes would take place, with the current release cycle any update could change the API and break your add-on. Instead of heaving to update your add-on for each major release, you end up having to update your add-on constantly because of them constantly changing the API. They claimed this was to allow them to make changes to the API quicker for better transition to changes being made. But they have since back peddled on that and now they are going to completely gut the add-on API, so while you thought you were putting up with all these API changes for good reason, you weren't, all being gutted now. This also means Mozilla will be starting from scratch as far as features implemented via add-ons. So needless to say, what is happening to Mozilla is their own doing.

    8. Re: Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, a normal American.

    9. Re:Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, keep at least one version LTS where security and critical stability fixes get backported.

      There's this thing called google, you may have heard of. First result if you search for 'Firefox LTS':

      Firefox ESR (Extended Support Release):
      https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/

    10. Re:Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Market share is meaningless.

      Firefox's market share is critical for the survival of Firefox, and also Mozilla.

      Search deals have been a major source of income for Mozilla. Other parties with money to spend will only engage in such deals if Firefox has users.

      The fewer users Firefox has, the less likely that Mozilla will be able to swing another lucrative search deal when the current one ends. Even if they do manage to arrange another deal, having fewer Firefox users will limit their ability to negotiate better terms.

      Firefox won't survive as a purely open source project, without any well-funded organization working on it. Just look at what happened to a project like Thunderbird when Mozilla essentially withdrew its support: it has stagnated.

      And don't forget that Servo will go nowhere if Mozilla no longer has a reliable source of income to direct toward its development, and also Rust's development. That said, neither of those projects have been making much progress, so this isn't even really a concern at this point.

    11. Re:Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by slashdice · · Score: 1

      Firefox uses yahoo for searches so it's no wonder he couldn't find it.

      --
      Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
    12. Re:Focus on Firefox's declining market share. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      You missed the "where security and critical stability fixes get backported".
      The ESR gets no stability fixes, and only the most severe security fixes.

      And the E in ESR means extended, not long-term as in LTS. It's only a year, which is not by any means enough for corporate environments.
      You also only get a three month window to switch, at the start of which the new ESR is bleeding edge, and boy, does it bleed. In reality, you have perhaps a month to switch after the worst bugs have been fixed in the new ESR.
      Every year you have to rush to upgrade, train your staff and modify your internal web apps if needed.

      No, the ESR is not LTS. It's hardly better than nothing.

  28. emoji by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    back in my day we used ascii.

  29. The wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've got emojis, but still no multi-threaded performance?

    Yeah, I think we've lost our priorities here.

    1. Re:The wrong direction by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Sandboxing? Memory control? DHCP-provided WPAD (automated proxy) support? Extended service releases that include stability fixes? Secure password storage, i.e. not just obfuscated?

      No, let's get emojis! And when Vivaldi gets color changing toolbars and tabs, let's copy that too! And what's Chrome and Windows 10 looking like this week? Drool!

  30. Re:If I never saw an emoji again it would be too s by ls671 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ;-)

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  31. Re: If I never saw an emoji again it would be too by ls671 · · Score: 0

    i would argue emoji's themselves are bot the problem but their over use and sometime exclusive use. they can express-->expresions

    My God! It even includes an emoji bot?

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  32. Re:If I never saw an emoji again it would be too s by HBI · · Score: 1

    Oh that's not an emoji. It's intelligible and doesn't require interpretation.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  33. Re:If I never saw an emoji again it would be too s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I but I wasn't sexually mutilated as a child: 8==KD

  34. Better search results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use both Firefox and Chrome or Chromium. For some reason, on all platforms, Googling using Firefox returns different, and far superior, results than Googling using Chrome. I have no idea why, but the differences are dramatic.

  35. CTRL TAB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox finally added ctrl tab eh? Maybe if they get a few more of the features from Opera 9 they'll have a real browser on their hands!

  36. Silly expectations of a standard release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why were they expecting major features and improvements in this release particularly? Firefox releases every six weeks. Just because the number has a 0 on the end doesn't mean there's going to be great leaps forward in that particular six weeks. There are big changes happening - such as the rollout of process separation, called "e10s", but they are coming gradually to make sure people don't end up with somethng really crashy. That's the right way to do it. Shipping new stuff to everyone at once in one big bang so Softpedia can write about the big new changes is _not_ the right way to do it.

  37. Stop moving stuff around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another interesting change that landed in the Mozilla Firefox 50.0 web browser is the ability to cycle through tabs in recently used order using the Ctrl+Tab keyboard shortcut.

    So, how many add-ons will it take to get back to the familiar behaviour THIS time?

  38. Sad about Google abusiveness by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "[*] Google have far too much power..."

    To me, it's very sad that Google seems to be on the way down. Google top management doesn't seem to know how to guide the company away from abusiveness.

  39. closed captioning fix by Jaegs · · Score: 1

    Firefox 50 also displays a closed captioning (CC) button in the HTML5 video player, if the video has an accompanying WebVTT file with "captions" tracks:

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

    This has been missing for quite a while and will help make more videos accessible across all browsers.

  40. Re:Let's hear it for GuaranÃf (gn) support! by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 0

    Guarana is a stimulant. (It contains caffeine.) If you take it before going to bed you are unlikely to sleep well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  41. Re:Let's hear it for GuaranÃf (gn) support! by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

    But... what has actually been added is support for the Guarani locale. The I should have an acute accent over it rather than a dot, but Slashdot doesn't support Unicode.

  42. Re:Let's hear it for GuaranÃf (gn) support! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if Mozilla has removed that proprietary spyware/begware Pocket and Hello shit from Firefox yet.

    It sucks that almost all browsers suck these days. Pale Moon is pretty much the only good, trustworthy option.

  43. The relationship of FF version and cpu load. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On my windows xp 2 ghz laptop, FF eats up 70-90% of the cpu slowing down everything else and causing me to wait after clicking on any other program.

    Thus, the FF version must have a direct relationship to the cpu utilization used. That is version 50 will eat up at a min 50% of the cpu and peak at 2*version # = 100% utilization.

    Need to cut back on this resource hog.

    1. Re:The relationship of FF version and cpu load. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the fix is to somehow get back to the year 2007 or so and use the web of back then.
      Maybe you have left hardware acceleration enabled and it's inefficient and kills you with overhead?
      What about that Windows XP. Sure, it's a better OS than Windows 7, faster and easier to use but what about the malware.
      You likely need to do script blocking (one day I will get to install uMatrix and try it out, set it up etc. Had to start ad blocking a few years ago due to resources and people using youtube for playing music instead of a local music player)
      If you browse from a slow PC or laptop and have a fast desktop, you can use an X server on the slow PC and run the linux version of Firefox on the fast desktop.. although I used to do that on a slow PC because it had 256MB RAM or less.

      Yes if you do remote X browsing that won't be for video and what I think sucks the most in Firefox : you used to have preferences to disable pictures and disable javascript. These were removed, and they also didn't add a preference to turn off html5 video. Why can't we have the option? Also, putting the preferences menu item in "Edit / Preferences" instead of "Tools / Preferences" when you're on linux/unix is an annoyance.