Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 57 Will Hide Search Bar and Use a Uni-Bar Approach, Like Chrome (bleepingcomputer.com)
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.
Chrome.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
... but we polished that sieve to a nice chrome finish.
It should be renamed. How about Firefaux, or maybe Chlone?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Stop removing features and start fixing the bugs and improving performance, Mozilla. You might still have a chance against Google if you kicked out your UX team and just started doing some basic engineering. The browser is not meant to be any playground where UI elements are moved and changed around. Browser should be an application which stays off the way and just shows the web pages efficiently. But of course according to UX people, eg. the search bar is a distracting element which is way too hard for their stupid users to understand so it must be removed. Surprisingly the Pocket, reader mode and other useless buttons are there to stay just in case somebody clicks them by mistake.
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?"
Migrating to Palemoon takes about 90 seconds. There's a tool to copy over your profile and you'll probably wind up switching over to Adblock Latitude. Sometimes you'll have to hunt up an old version of an Addon but it's really not a big deal.
-- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
Firefox is heading toward a single gesture user interface
A raised middle finger.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
Have you ever actually looked at Firefox's privacy policy?!
Anybody who claims that Firefox protects their privacy probably hasn't actually looked at Firefox's privacy policy.
Below are some excerpts from the Firefox privacy policy that is dated July 31, 2017.
Be sure to notice the type of information being collected and possibly even transmitted to third parties (including Google, some "Leanplum" company, a "mobile analytics vendor", and "certain developers"). We see terms like:
Here are the excerpts:
Yep, the autocomplete for searches should be completely separate from the autocomplete for URLs.
Anybody who thinks differently is an idiot.
No sig today...
Going back months, I've made several attempts to get Firefox devs to put together some stats they gathered through telemetry, to tell me how many Firefox users out of the total, are running plugins that will become unusable once FF 57 is released. They will fob you off with every manageresque excuse possible, to avoid giving out this one single stat - in a way which displays clear contempt for the request, and for the general userbase of Firefox. The public need to directly engage through official Firefox communication channels, and make themselves heard, in large numbers - and demand (extremely loudly) proper public engagement and transparency - and for an actual primary voice/influence, on the future direction of Firefox (not just a secondary/tertiary "we'll consider what you say (but ignore you completely)" voice).
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?
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.
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