Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 57 Will Hide Search Bar and Use a Uni-Bar Approach, Like Chrome (bleepingcomputer.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the hide-and-seek dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bleeping Computer: Mozilla will drop an iconic section of its UI -- the search bar -- and will use one singular input bar atop the browser, similar to the approach of most Chromium browsers. This change will go live in Firefox 57, scheduled for release on November 14, and will be part of Photon -- the codename used to describe Firefox's new user interface (UI) -- also scheduled for a public release in v57. Mozilla engineers aren't removing the search bar altogether, but Firefox will hide this UI element by default. Users can still re-enable it by going to "Preferences -> Search -> Search Bar" and choosing the second option. The current Firefox search bar is redundant since most of its features can be performed by the URL address bar.

9 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. End of Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unless Firefox 57 does something better than Chrome why use Firefox?

    1. Re:End of Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is it with Mozilla ?
      They keep pissing around with Firefox, removing and changing stuff people use and like about the browser, whilst continually wasting resources adding "features" nobody wants (Pocket, Hello etc).
      And all the time this is going on Firefox market share keeps falling, yet those in charge at Mozilla fail to see the correlation.

      It's almost as if Mozilla hold meetings where they ask "How can we alienate our userbase even more with the next release?"

    2. Re:End of Firefox by coastwalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they think I am going to use a search field which might take me to a random website instead of searching for a URL or IP address they can Fcuk off. Morons. They can also give me back 8 add-ons that they are about to disable. Maybe I should give Chrome a whirl seeing as it is supposed to render so much faster and I won't have any special reason to use Firefox any longer? What is it with cretinous designers who introduce new stuff (good) whilst removing all the good stuff that I already use (bad)?

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    3. Re:End of Firefox by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Transcript of the last brainstorming meeting at Firefox HQ:

      "Hey you guys, have you noticed how everyone's stopped using Firefox and started using Chrome?

      Maybe if we make our browser exactly the same as Chrome some people might use it?

      What's that? You think that would provide even less of an incentive to use Firefox?

      Ha! Good one! Carry on everyone!"

      Running Firefox into the ground. What a fucking shame.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  2. No, it isn't by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The current Firefox search bar is redundant since most of its features can be performed by the URL address bar.

    No, it's not redundant. The search bar/URL address bar split permits some level of privacy as what's entered on the URL bar isn't sent to a search engine, and what's placed in the search bar is, in real time.

    That's a significant difference, significant enough that it absolutely should be removed from the Slashdot summary, because the summary re-enforces the idea that getting rid of it is OK because "they're the same" when they're not.

    Mozilla just has to fuck up tabs now and I'll switch to Chrome. I cannot believe the level of contempt these idiots have for their own users - if you're trying to compete with another browser, you don't build a clone of it, especially when that means ditching every feature that makes your browser better, because the only time you can compete when building clones of rival products is on price, and Chrome is already free.

    In practice, making Firefox a clone of Chrome is giving users of Firefox the middle finger, not extending an invite to those who prefer Chrome already.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  3. Re:If firefox is just a chrome clone by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's still two reasons: NoScript and the history side panel.

    I'm sure they'll get rid of them soon.

    --
    No sig today...
  4. It's all about autocomplete by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep, the autocomplete for searches should be completely separate from the autocomplete for URLs.

    Anybody who thinks differently is an idiot.

    --
    No sig today...
  5. Not viable for corporate use by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The corporate LAN I have at work has an internal DNS where every internal site is a single word like 'hr' or 'training' or 'whatever.' The URL keywords feature has to be turned off so that when I type 'hr' to get to the HR page, it doesn't search for 'hr' on the open internet or try to go to 'www.hr.com.' Didn't think this one through, did they?

  6. Re:Fuck Pale Moon after the AdNauseam debacle. by rholtzjr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is not that they blocked it, they just advised that you must specifically enable it in about:config to use a different blocking level. I have to agree, extension should be used to provide additional protection of the user of the browser. It should not be used as an attack tool just because you feel that blocking ads are not enough. What you are supporting is that if a website uses an ad server, I will punish you for using it. That is not right. Blocking ads is enough so that you do not see it. Generating false click trail data to flag the web site as an "ad click abuser" to the ad provider is wrong.

    And remember that there may be legal repercussions for retaliation type attacks. Do you want to see a one of the last decent browser out there disappear in a legal battle? International law already has this pretty much defined. The International Court of Justice supports the response of cyberattacks if they follow four elements of a lawful counter-measure. These elements include a counter-attack being directed towards those who performed the original cyber act, asking those in the wrong to discontinue the attack, a counter-attack being in proportion with the original act, and the counter-attack being reversible.

    With that in mind, what is the attack that the website has done to you that warrants a counter-attack? Presenting something you do not wish to see? DON'T GO THERE or use an ad blocker. You are punishing the wrong person in your counter attack. You may be held liable in the future.

    Me, I use an ad blocker, if the site does not function properly with it enabled, I blacklist the site as not useable. It just means I have to look a little harder to find the information I want. When and if they outlaw ad blockers, THEN I will join you in your outrage.