Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Releases Firefox 50 (softpedia.com)

Posted by msmash on from the firefox-club dept.

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.

69 of 127 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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 ;)

    6. 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.
    7. 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!”
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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!”
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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.

    16. 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.
    17. 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. Soooo... more bloat? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "emojis for everyone"

  3. 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.
  4. Yay emojis! by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

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

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

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

    :-P

    Your penis ---> 8==D

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?

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

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

  11. 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 Opyros · · Score: 1

      Also the Foxfire Books.

  12. 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: 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).

    2. 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.
    3. 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."
    4. 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.
  13. 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 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
    4. 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.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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?

    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.
  14. 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

  15. 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
  16. 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.

  17. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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!

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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!

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.