Mozilla's 'Firefox Quantum' Browser Challenges Chrome In Speed (cnet.com)

It challenges ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:04 · Score: 5, Funny

... but until observed it both wins and loses.

Re:It challenges ... by michelcolman · 2017-09-26 23:14 · Score: 1

If I understood correctly, it loads websites in an amount of time that is one Planck unit less than Chrome? That's what "quantum" means, right?
Re:It challenges ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Wrong.
Planck unit is the time required for light to travel in a vacuum a distance of 1 Planck length, which is approximately 5.39 × 10 44 s
However in quantum mechanics a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction.
For example, the photon is the smallest unit of energy of an electromagnetic radiation. That energy being the frequency of the radiation multiplied by Planck's constant, approx. 6.6 × 10-34 m2 kg / s.
Try to keep up, quantum mechanics has been around for a hundred years or so already.
But, yes, in colloquial speech the meaning of "quantum" is the reverse of it's definition in Physics.
Re:It challenges ... by Joce640k · 2017-09-27 01:21 · Score: 2

Clive Sinclair started this naming trend back in the 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
No sig today...
Re:It challenges ... by ArhcAngel · 2017-09-27 01:27 · Score: 1

the photon is the smallest unit of energy of an electromagnetic radiation currently known.
FTFY
Just because we haven't been able to measure anything smaller doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means it's beyond our ability to measure.

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Re:It challenges ... by Geoffrey.landis · 2017-09-27 13:03 · Score: 2

No. The photon is the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation possible, according to the theory of quantum mechanics.
It's not that we can't measure anything smaller. It's that the universe, as we know it, doesn't allow electromagnetic radiation to be transferred in smaller units.
Now, you could hypothesize some better theory might come along and supercede quantum mechanics. But it's hard to see how any theory that's consistent with what we already know would not include Planck's relation.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Re: It challenges ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 13:38 · Score: 0

Yay! Now that Bond title makes sense. Thank you.
Re:It challenges ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:12 · Score: 0

QL doesn't end up well...
Re:It challenges ... by KingBenny · 2017-09-30 16:30 · Score: 1

linquistically quantum would be the smallest possible so a quantum leap is actually not that impressive if you look at it that way. That said, looks like a whole lot of promises to keep, when can i have it ?

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?

So... by Curupira · 2017-09-26 23:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

...THAT'S why Mozilla decided to ditch XUL (and a lot of legacy add-ons that relied on it). And it is a very important goal -- a faster and more stable Firefox was needed for a long time.

But I also hope that we soon get back most of the extensions that Firefox lost in this change. Without its previous top-notch configurability, I'm afraid it can't really compete with Google developers working on Chrome.

Re:So... by AmiMoJo · 2017-09-26 23:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

The problem with allowing the kind of UI altering extensions that Firefox does is that it's an insane security risk and a massive performance issue.
Add-ons run in the global browser context, with access to everything. All tabs, the UI, all the internal browser data... And interact with every random web page you visit, and every random bit of Javascript and broken HTML on them. It should be obvious that letting Javascript interact with Javascript without a proper sandbox and with access to basically everything is a terrible idea, a security nightmare.
It also blocked them from stopping everything running globally and using threads for each tab and various background processes.
The problem they have now is that no enough add-on developers care about Firefox for them to get all the existing add-ons ported. Even if they add API extensions to support some of the lost functionality, they still need the developers to do the work. I can tell you that I'm not going to bother updating my decade old add-on.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:So... by TuringTest · 2017-09-26 23:47 · Score: 0

So... THAT'S why Mozilla decided to ditch XUL (and a lot of legacy add-ons that relied on it)
Yes, jsut like they've been saying for the last three or four years.

Without its previous top-notch configurability, I'm afraid it can't really compete with Google developers working on Chrome.
Why not? They have Rust on their side, which reportedly allows them to make highly parallel data structures with a complexity nearly impossible to make safely in C++ or Go. This gives them an edge.

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Re:So... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-09-26 23:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't see how or why "UI altering extensions" have to "run in the global browser context, with access to everything". One is a feature, the other is a crappy architecture. But the feature hardly *needs* crappy architecture. We've had security kernels in high-level languages for quite some time now.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:24 · Score: 0

I use a scriptblocking extension which has to be able to interact with every "tab" to be able to actually work.
Re:So... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-27 00:26 · Score: 3, Funny

They have Rust on their side, which reportedly allows them to make highly parallel data structures with a complexity nearly impossible to make safely in C++ or Go. This gives them an edge.
+5 funny.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:34 · Score: 0

Why not? They have Rust on their side, which reportedly allows them to make highly parallel data structures with a complexity nearly impossible to make safely in C++ or Go. This gives them an edge.
I've heard that it cures cancer too and that if Microsoft Word had been written in Rust, Clippy wouldn't have been half as annoying.
Re:So... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-27 00:36 · Score: 2

that it's an insane security risk

You’ve said this on multiple occasions without any real-world example of how any was actually affected by this supposed security risk.
Anyway, users have quite a bit of security risk with Chrome extensions too.
https://slashdot.org/story/17/...
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
https://it.slashdot.org/story/...
And many more examples can be found with these supposedly “secure” WebExtensions.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:41 · Score: 0

i would rather give up some of this "perceived" performance boost and supposed improved stability, and have my fucking addons back. without the customization that firefox previously had, it's just another damn chrome clone - and we have a fuckton of those already, we do *not* need another one.
Re:So... by Merk42 · 2017-09-27 00:48 · Score: 2

and yet the changing the "crappy architecture" (XUL -> WebExtensions) is what people bitch about.

They just want a browser to do everything under the sun, including perfectly work with any and all extensions that can do whatever they want to the browser, yet without any performance or security issues....
Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:50 · Score: 0

Would those security problems still exist if extensions were written in Rust instead of JS? I'm thinking they might not.
Re:So... by xenobyte · 2017-09-27 00:51 · Score: 0

You may or may not have received your newsletter. You will not know until you check your mail and then newsletter may or may not be marked read.

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Re:So... by AmiMoJo · 2017-09-27 00:55 · Score: 1

Attacks on popular add-ons: https://arstechnica.co.uk/info...
Paper discussing the problem: https://www.exploit-db.com/doc...

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:58 · Score: 0

Users don't give a damn about the underlying architecture. They just want the extensions they've been using for years to keep working. If these extensions stop working, then it should be considered a flaw in the browser, even if it was a flaw introduced intentionally by the browser vendor.
Re: So... by Junta · 2017-09-27 01:01 · Score: 1

I assume this is a troll, but biting for the sake of anyone who might remotely take this seriously...
The issues pointed out are running code deliberately trying to do things people didn't expect, which is a problem because the software has no *idea* whether you really want to do what the software developer is doing. Finer grained permissions do a lot, but things like burning up too much cpu usage is really hard to do. The privacy issues can be addressed through more robust permission structure, but again that has nothing to do with the language in use.
When people advocate for Rust for security reasons, it's compared to C/C++. C/C++ requires the developer to keep track of what memory addresses are or are not fair game and correctly indicate that to functions and/or avoid creating functions that are purely sentinel based (e.g. strcpy). Rust is more like languages like Javascript where the memory addresses that are fair game are baked into the variable.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re: So... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-27 01:07 · Score: 1

Poe’s Law?
Re:So... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-27 01:08 · Score: 1

So essentially plugins that also exist as WebExtensions and had the same issues. That was the best you had?
Re:So... by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 01:13 · Score: 1

WebExtensions and had the same issues.
No. The WebExtensions framework is built to avoid this problem. Read the article. To quote from it: "The new set of browser extension APIs that make up WebExtensions, which are available in Firefox today, are inherently more secure than traditional add-ons, and are not vulnerable to the particular attack outlined in the presentation at Black Hat Asia."
Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:18 · Score: 0

It's strange how over at HN or reddit or SO, Rust is treated with a lot of respect, but here at /. Rust is treated like it's the devil. If you're positive about Rust at HN or reddit or SO your comment will get upvoted, but if you say something positive about Rust here at /. your comment will be modded down to -1! It's so strange how these communities, which are often more similar than different, react so differently to Rust.
Re:So... by Hentes · 2017-09-27 01:30 · Score: 1

Scripts/ads slow a browser down a lot more than extensions.
Re:So... by Spazmania · 2017-09-27 01:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem with allowing the kind of UI altering extensions that Firefox does is that it's an insane security risk and a massive performance issue.
The only reason I still use Firefox is the UI altering extensions that make it look and work like Firefox did the better part of two decades ago. I despise the modern UI and have no use for a version of firefox that requires it.

--
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 14:21 · Score: 0

" I can tell you that I'm not going to bother updating my decade old add-on."
I won't use your add-on anyway. Never heard of it.
Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 14:42 · Score: 0

Maybe it's because the /. crowd are smart enough not to fall for the hype.
Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 15:17 · Score: 0

I found that comment about Rust to be neutral and accurate.
Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 16:43 · Score: 0

So basically mozilla is dropping all the plugin-provided features i actually need to become another chrome clone? Sure I like a fast browser as well, but I prefer a slow browser that does what I need above speed. If my plugins stop working, i'm switching to chrome.
Re: So... by Per+Wigren · 2017-09-27 18:29 · Score: 1

That's because those still reading Slashdot have gotten old, conservative and grumpy. The Slashdot community used to love throwing out bath water full of babies to fix underlying architectural problems. Like if you complained about a kernel or X11 update breaking your Nvidia driver you were just a whiny baby who were just too stupid to appreciate the value of some reduced spinlocking in some thing that never affected you. We were proud of cleaning up shit for the long term even when it caused short term pain. Nowadays, it's just the opposite.

--
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Re:So... by serviscope_minor · 2017-09-27 19:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why is that +5 funny?
The entire design of Rust is bent towards the idea that the compiler helps you a great deal with writing concurrent datastructures, because you aren't smart enough to do it unaided. If you think writing fine-grained concurrency of complex structures is easy, then please step very far away from threads and never touch them.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:47 · Score: 0

and yet the changing the "crappy architecture" (XUL -> WebExtensions) is what people bitch about.

No, breaking extensions with every update is what people are bitching about - and have been for years.
Rather than ensuring that WebExtensions would be able to replace XUL, they decided to break everything, because f*ck users, that's why (as anyone who has had a bug closed with WONTFIX WEDONTCARE knows).
WebExtensions seem to be designed specifically to ensure that Firefox extensions cannot be better than Chrome extensions, and with extensions being the last advantage Firefox still had over Chrome, they are now reaching the stage where the differences are so small that the browser "war" will be decided not on features but on who has the biggest advertising budget.
Re: So... by DrXym · 2017-09-27 21:26 · Score: 1

Rust is beneficial in a number of ways for security. Strings, buffers, vectors etc are far more rigorously enforced and it's extremely hard to step outside them by accident without a resulting in a panic. That means normal forms of attack such as writing beyond the length of buffers are far harder to pull off.
In addition, allocation is declarative in Rust. Memory is either allocated or it isn't, in which case it panics. So code doesn't have to worry for testing for NULL or not. So no null/dangling pointers or memory leaks.
Thread safe code is also safer because the compiler enforces access. If two threads want to share a data structure they either have to implement a send / receive pipeline or they have to protect it with a read-write lock or a mutex.
Rust doesn't eliminate all potential issues, e.g. deadlocks / memory exhaustion, or fix logical bugs but it certainly eliminates the most exploitable errors where someone doesn't check the length of a string, or forgets to account for a terminating byte and so on. And typically when it fails it does so in a way that terminates the thread rather than allow an exploit to happen. So the devs can be far more aggressive at optimizing the code.
That's the payoff for the browser. Single threaded and gnarly code can be rewritten for concurrency without imposing significant risk to the browser.
Re:So... by DrXym · 2017-09-27 21:30 · Score: 1

Anyone who has ever written highly concurrent code wouldn't find it funny.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 21:42 · Score: 0

Why is that +5 funny?
Any unsubstantiated Rust claim is +5, Funny.

The entire design of Rust is bent towards the idea that the compiler helps you a great deal with writing concurrent datastructures, because you aren't smart enough to do it unaided. If you think writing fine-grained concurrency of complex structures is easy, then please step very far away from threads and never touch them.
If it's hard to do something well, it's even harder to automate it well. There is no evidence to support the claim that using Rust's threading features leads to better performing code compared to a well-written implementation in a more mature language. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Rust is overhyped, provdides little benefit if any in practice and won't be around in its current form in five or ten years, though.
Re:So... by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 21:47 · Score: 1

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Rust is overhyped, provdides little benefit if any in practice and won't be around in its current form in five or ten years, though.
So show your evidence. Where is it?
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 00:15 · Score: 1

(i) The complete absense of any examples of Rust code that is better than the equivalent C code would be
(ii) The lack of traction of Rust outside of those that back it, the monoculture of the ecosystem and the lack of evidence to support that there is any benefit to using Rust. The fanboi culture surrounding it is also not exactly a predictor for long-term success.
You're welcome.
Re:So... by tender-matser · 2017-09-28 00:26 · Score: 1

You have no clue what you're talking about. Your verbiage sounds looks like common sense, but it has no technical basis.
Every abuse that was practical with old-style legacy/bootstrapped extensions in firefox is also possible with new, chrome style "webextensions".
Content scripts do interact with random stuff from the page you visit (broken HTML, etc), are NOT undetectable to malicious scripts on the page (because they share the same DOM), and because they have to communicate with the "privileged mode" part of an extension (in order to be able to do anything useful), they offer a easy backdoor into the browser -- unless they're written by security geniuses with a perfect grasp of the millions of javascript pitfalls.
What they don't offer is the ability to change that horrible interface (an extension can no longer build some emacs-like split window interface, or a less-like "command line" at the bottom of the page), or overcome the abject stupidity of bored (paid) developers who designed the APIs we codemonkeys are supposed to use (you're no longer able to get stuff done by using undocumented interfaces they're using in their bundled extensions, eg. developer tools).
Firefox developers vs extensions slowing them down are like a crow thinking it could fly much faster if it hadn't to overcome that pesky air drag.
Re:So... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-28 00:35 · Score: 1

Yeah they’re just vulnearable to tons of others.
Re:So... by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-28 00:36 · Score: 1

The complete absense of any examples of Rust code that is better than the equivalent C code would be
You mean except for Stylo or how Tor is moving to Rust?

The lack of traction of Rust outside of those that back it
You mean except for when companies like Google use Rust and Dropbox use Rust?

You're welcome.
I think you're a little confused about what evidence is.
Re:So... by tender-matser · 2017-09-28 00:47 · Score: 1

Why is that +5 funny?
Because of the highly evocative power of phrases like "highly parallel complex datastructures".
Don't they ever have any mercy?
Re:So... by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-28 00:52 · Score: 1

Don't they ever have any mercy?
No. They're just getting on with using Rust to improve Firefox.
Re: So... by Junta · 2017-09-28 01:25 · Score: 1

I wasn't questioning that, just that the 'javascript versus rust' is a bit silly on the 'security' side, since javascript as a language has those protections (one can again make arguments about deficiencies in the permissions architectures of the environment, but that's not really fundamental to either language.
The proposed value of Rust as an easier to secure language is a statement relative to C/C++. Comparing to other similarly protected languages, it does so without an intrusive or limited runtime or performance downsides.
At least in theory.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re: So... by Junta · 2017-09-28 01:36 · Score: 1

Time in the industry and open source I think are two factors.
Folks here have fatigue from a parade of 'silver bullets'. In the last 20 years, we've seen Java, C#, Perl, Python, Ruby, Javascript, and Rust all held up as 'the' way to do things.
So one people will jump to conclusions. For one, *most* of the fads have brought with them yet another managed runtime, meaning our operating systems are littered with at least one of each, if not multiple versions of each runtime. Which is ugly and also at times a security risk as applications bundle runtimes. So one gut reaction is 'oh look, yet another runtime', which may be inaccurate for a given language. The languages frequently get opinionated about distribution of software, sending users off to pypi, anaconda, cpan, gems, npm in addition to the OS packages, which is a pain to use and also a pain to support as a vendor as you encounter user after user influenced by their favorite language.
For another, each fad fragments various segments. You start seeing multiple projects roughly doing the same thing, and each having very good features that the other does not get because of language choice.
Also when a fad passes, a lot of projects that are very promising stall out because the language they chose went out of favor.
So there's a reluctance by now to even learn. Even after overcoming that reluctance and finding 'actually, this isn't so different in ecosystem from C/c++ like go, then the world moves on to Rust, another language that is admirably close to the c/c++ ecosystem in terms of the user experience (not as much the developer experience).

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:So... by tender-matser · 2017-09-28 02:12 · Score: 1

and yet the changing the "crappy architecture" (XUL -> WebExtensions) is what people bitch about.
You're missing the bootstrapped extensions between XUL and WebExtensions, where you simply had to fill 4 callbacks to be run when starting and shutting down the browser, and when installing and uninstalling the extension.
Nothing was presumed about inner architecture of the browser, or the way you choose to structure your extension. They killed that because of politics and policy, not because of any technical reasons.
Besides, the new WebExtension api is not only badly designed, is also HUGE, a big blob of shit taking space in your browser (just like the java goo wasting your phone's battery with no good reason). A huge pile of garbage they will have to kludge around in the future, no better than the XUL/XPCOM monstrosity.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:29 · Score: 0

You mean except for Stylo or how Tor is moving to Rust?
Those are not examples of Rust code that is better than the equivalent C code. They are merely examples of someone implementing something in Rust.

You mean except for when companies like Google use Rust and Dropbox use Rust
Aren't Google and Dropbox Rust backers? Anyway, I fail to see any evidence for Rust having another fate than the many other languages that were hailed as the solution to all of life's problems and ultimately fell into obscurity because they didn't actually add anything. Rust doesn't add anything and its fanboys are annoying as hell. That alone makes people reluctant to consider it.

I think you're a little confused about what evidence is.
You make a great attempt at trying to confuse me, but unfortunately, with no success.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:38 · Score: 0

The problem they have now is that no enough add-on developers care about Firefox for them to get all the existing add-ons ported.
Of course not. Too few users. Firefox has become slow. One can hope they really stamped out lots of performance bugs. But did they stamp out design bugs?
Firefox suddenly required the idiotic pulseaudio system. I don't want that, so firefox is not coming back to me. Unless they get rid of that dependency - or the other browsers all do something just as stupid.
Re:So... by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-28 02:45 · Score: 1

examples of Rust code that is better than the equivalent C code
Read the article and read the email. Try hard.

Aren't Google and Dropbox Rust backers?
No.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:48 · Score: 0

...which has made what was once the most stable browser on the market crash daily. Great improvement!
Re:So... by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-28 03:23 · Score: 1

Prove it.
Re: So... by JohnFen · 2017-09-28 03:38 · Score: 1

We were proud of cleaning up shit for the long term even when it caused short term pain.
Yes, but in the old days, you could easily choose whether or not you wanted to take on the short term pain or forgo the update until later.
These days, software insists on pretending "it's a service" and forcing, or incessantly nagging, you to update -- and those updates come out way, way too frequently.
The result is that in the old days, I genuinely looked forward to updates and improvements. Now, I dread them.
Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:42 · Score: 0

Go back to hacker news. The onus is on you to prove that it's better and more stable. That's how it works.
Btw you still haven't shown any examples of rust code doing a better job than C.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:50 · Score: 0

Yes, but. You only need to get the automation right just ONCE, then you reap the benefits multiple times.
And the thing with concurrency is that so many coders don't get it right just once.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 10:54 · Score: 0

WebExtensions is designed specifically to ensure that it's even possible for Firefox to be as good as Chrome can be. It's a design burden that is untenable.
The same argument you're making here, was made for IE6 to continue to run ActiveX by default. It's an untenable design. It was a mistake made over a decade ago and it's a major part why Firefox isn't seriously in the running anymore. The best answer is to go back with your time machine and design Firefox's extension model right in the first place.
It should be perfectly obvious that nobody on any browser does anything because "fuck users". At most, "fuck users" would be an unfortunate side-effect of something done for some other reason, eg. if you could get more money by breaking adblocking extensions, but I am 100% certain the major AdBlock extensions will be ported.
Re: So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 10:59 · Score: 0

It's a flaw in the same way that it's a flaw in Safari that it doesn't run Firefox extensions.
If you love an extension and it's going away, it sucks, and it's Firefox's problem. The real flaw was that they had an architecture that was broken but encouraged people to take dependencies on its untenable nature. It's the sort of flaw that generates flawed extensions that keep people in your product.
The best time to fix that sort of flaw is ASAP. You will lose users. But the problem only gets worse with time.
Re: So... by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-28 11:00 · Score: 1

Lame.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 12:19 · Score: 0

Enjoy your userChrome.css settings, then. Or stick to some outdated version until you either get hacked or can't browse the web anymore because it has moved on.
Or just bluster all you want about leaving, but no one really cares that you and a few others like a 20 year old interface, yet don't want to put the effort into maintaining one.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 18:49 · Score: 0

Adapt.
I'm serious. You're a geek - act like one. Know that the world keeps turning and standards and UI designs keep changing. You're supposed to be capable of moving with the times, because everyone else isn't going to stop just because you prefer the styles of the past.
Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 22:55 · Score: 0

Google backs golang and dart. Dropbox hired Guido Van Rossum of python, last time I heard.

Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

I know this is just going to be a Firefox hate fest, but give the browser a try.

The important extensions will come along. Ublock origin is here and Noscript will be at the part shortly.

Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah, but the extension that gets rid of Australious isn't and won't. Nor will Location Bar 2 or a whole host of addons that made Firefox something other than a Chrome also-ran. So yeah, why use the copy when you can use the thing they are basically ripping off?
Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:50 · Score: 0

The important extensions will come along?

I'll hazard a guess that this isn't the only issue for people. The UI update doesn't seem to add anything meaningful. Pocket was already something which was derided as a "feature" nobody asked for. I'm not sure why I need an option to Bookmark pages via the Page Action Menu in the address bar when a right click has always worked just fine, and a new Firefox logo is pretty mundane.
If FF57 really is faster then great, but previous experience with FF UI updates is that at best they piss about with things nobody wants and at worst they change things people actually liked, and I'm not convinced this update will be anything different.
Re:Try it before you knock it by TheDarkMaster · 2017-09-26 23:53 · Score: 2

I just tried the beta installer here. It overrides the current installation (version 55) without giving apparent options for parallel installation. Removed ten minutes after I noticing the lack of the "NoScript" extension and having seen that the version of adBlock available to him is clearly inferior (you cannot use rules when blocking new Ads, the extension gives you just element-by-element blocking, really inefficient)

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:55 · Score: 0, Insightful

Translation: "Wah, wah, wah, I hate change, wah, wah, wah, things were better in the olden days."
Re:Try it before you knock it by coastwalker · 2017-09-26 23:55 · Score: 1

As when Ccleaner was sold I have disabled automatic updates until I see a product that I want to use. Goodbye Mozilla, at least for the moment. What I also need to do is find a copy of the current installable to archive so that I can try the new versions and check out their utility.

--
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Re:Try it before you knock it by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-27 00:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

Why bother? What life changing experience will I attain by switching? Even Mozilla is mealy-mouthed about this supposed speedup.
Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:32 · Score: 0

just download the firefox-57.0b3.tar.bz2
extract it, and run from that folder /home/user/downloads/firefox/firefox
it allows you to keep your old version and use the new one
Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:35 · Score: 0

I don't hate change, I had no problem switching from Firefox to Chrome.
Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:37 · Score: 0

https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-57.0b3-SSL&os=linux64&lang=en-US
Re:Try it before you knock it by TheDarkMaster · 2017-09-27 00:40 · Score: 1

Uh, Windows user here. But yes, I also have a machine with Linux, but if you look more closely at my previous comment you will see that the problem is also the lack of a crucial extension (NoScript) and the "dumbing down" of another crucial extension (AdBlock plus). These two extensions are the only reasons I use Firefox instead of Chrome.

--
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Re:Try it before you knock it by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 00:42 · Score: 2

their support for encrypted media extensions (EME)
You can turn off DRM support in the General -> Digital Rights Management (DRM) Content section of Firefox's settings. Problem solved.
Re:Try it before you knock it by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 00:46 · Score: 1

NoScript
NoScript is migrating to the WebExtensions API and will be released for the release of Firefox 57.

AdBlock plus
I use uBlock Origin. Works fine in 57 beta.
Re:Try it before you knock it by Merk42 · 2017-09-27 00:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

NO! This is change! Change is Bad!
also
This is Firefox! Firefox is Bad!
Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:52 · Score: 0

That's why this is a developer edition.
ie. IT"S NOT FINISHED SOFTWARE! :)
Re: Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:53 · Score: 0

LOL!!!
But to be fair, if you had been using FF, you were basically already using Chrome. Switching from FF to Chrome just meant that your browser suddenly got a lot faster and didn't use as much memory. The UI wouldn't have really changed much at all.
Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:00 · Score: 0

Ruh roh, now I'm scared. The super flexible extensions are what makes Firefox good.
Re:Try it before you knock it by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-27 01:10 · Score: 0

Lame troll is lame. If people thought change was bad why would many of these supposed “change haters” be using Chrome which changes every 6 weeks? Wouldn’t they be using IE6 still which has not changed in years?
Re:Try it before you knock it by Junta · 2017-09-27 01:11 · Score: 2

A better translation is that he bemoans the convergence of the browsers to all be the same experience. What's the point of there being different browsers if they all settle on being identical?

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Try it before you knock it by tepples · 2017-09-27 14:43 · Score: 1

When I tried Firefox 57 for Linux, an accidental press of Ctrl+Q suddenly closed all tabs in all windows without confirmation, causing loss of data in unsubmitted forms. Extensions to stop this behavior will not arrive by Firefox 57.
To see this misbehavior for yourself, try these steps:
1. Install Firefox 57 for Linux, currently in the beta channel.
2. Type a reply to this comment into Slashdot's comment entry form.
3. Before you submit the reply, press Ctrl+Tab to switch to another tab so that you can do research for the comment, but accidentally press Ctrl+Q instead.
4. Where did your reply go?
For this reason, I have reverted to Firefox stable, and once Firefox 57 becomes stable, I plan to revert to Firefox ESR until bug 1325692 becomes fixed.
Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 15:09 · Score: 0

It's funny how the firefox fanboys are desperate to paint this as "fear of change" while the users supposedly "afraid of change" are switching to Chrome variants because the only reason they still had to stick with firefox is now gone.
Re: Try it before you knock it by narcc · 2017-09-27 15:33 · Score: 1

Which is odd, as the reverse has been true for a while now. Chrome is the memory hog these days. FireFox has been the only real choice for low-end systems for several years.
It's amazing how these sorts of myths persist.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 17:13 · Score: 0

So Adblock plus and Classic theme restorer will be there? Better wait for them until updating as they are essential for a functional Firefox.
Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:31 · Score: 0

trying to be fair here, but why the fuck should we give it a try? If I wanted chrome clone I would just use chrome. I am not using their polished turd just to support an organisation that has ignored and abandoned its user base that supported it so well. fuck them, it is now up to them to prove it is worth it, and a slight speed improvement over chrome in "some" scenarios certainly isn't an amazing selling point.
Re:Try it before you knock it by Waccoon · 2017-09-27 23:41 · Score: 1

Mozilla lost me a while ago. They can tout new technology as much as they want, but the UI (and their attitude about it) is still garbage.
Re:Try it before you knock it by jalvarez13 · 2017-09-28 06:53 · Score: 1

I just did, and it's really fast. I'm sold.
Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-29 23:00 · Score: 0

Or you know, you can just write the comment in your fav text editor, then paste it to the form.
Re:Try it before you knock it by tepples · 2017-09-30 01:41 · Score: 1

For one thing, do you have a habit of writing all comments in text editors? For another, it also forgets which forms were opened in the first place because Slashdot opens comment forms with scripted manipulation of the DOM, and when restoring a previous session, Firefox reloads pages (possibly from cache) without replaying scripted manipulation of the DOM.
Re:Try it before you knock it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-01 10:37 · Score: 0

1. Not really, but I know some people who do that. Mainly because your case (Ctrl+Q instead of Ctrl+Tab) never happens to me. I use ring finger for Tab, middle finger for Q, and pinky finger for Ctrl. If Shift is needed (like Ctrl+Shift+Tab) then I use ring finger for Shift, and middle finger for Tab.
2. Copy and paste the comment URL (so you can search it later) then. Or open the comment you want to reply on new tab.
Re:Try it before you knock it by samwichse · 2017-10-02 04:25 · Score: 1

Honestly, I just installed it to give it a spin and my impression is this:
It's as fast without uBlock Origin as the old Firefox was with uBlock Origin.
Just turned on uBlock, and I have to say, I'm impressed. The entire page loading process seems way less laggy, and everything snaps up on the screen with authority.
Loading the worst, fattest page I can think of (cnn.com, come on guys, what the heck are you doing???): slightly faster than Google Chrome on this machine (6 year old core i5 with 8gb of RAM).

Hell god baby damn no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:18 · Score: 0

"new interface called Photon that wipes out Firefox's rounded tabs and adds a "page action" menu into the address bar."
Stop!

"It also builds in the Pocket bookmarking service Mozilla acquired and uses it to recommend sites you might be interested in."
Nooo!

"A screenshot tool generates a website link so you can easily share what you see by email or Twitter."
Why are you doing this to us?

Re:Hell god baby damn no by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:13 · Score: 0

"new interface called Photon that wipes out Firefox's rounded tabs and adds a "page action" menu into the address bar."
Stop!
Hey, aren't you the one who complained when they moved to rounded tabs?

I do hope... by Knightman · 2017-09-26 23:19 · Score: 1, Informative

..it comes with quantum memory too since the current firefox gobbles memory like a bloated app from Microsoft...

--
--- Reality doesn't care about your opinions, it happens anyway and if you are in the way you'll get squished.

Re: I do hope... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:26 · Score: 0

That's true but Chrome is worse about hogging memory. At least on Linux. On my system Chrome has actually gotten itself killed from using all the RAM on the machine. Never had that happen with Firefox even though I agree it's a pig as well.
I usually leave my browsers open for weeks or even months at a time so I get to see their worst behaviour.
Re:I do hope... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:37 · Score: 0

currently 2.6% my memory and every tab I need is open. I could accept ten times that.
Re:I do hope... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:02 · Score: 0

Don't try to tackle a Firefox whinger with silly things like facts. The myth (which has some basis in historical fact, but little in present reality) that Firefox is riddled with memory leaks and consumes huge amounts of memory will never die, and the whingers will never stop whinging about it.
And of course the tiny bit of truth that does still remain in the myth is being tackled by Mozilla by getting rid of the legacy extension APIs. Which the whingers whinge about as well.
You can't win with those losers.
Re: I do hope... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:10 · Score: 0

Not everyone can afford 128 GB of RAM in their desktop.
Re:I do hope... by sd4f · 2017-09-27 13:51 · Score: 1

Kind of like the myth that chrome is still fast and not a memory hog.

Aptly? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:24 · Score: 0

In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction.

So a quantum leap would be the smallest possible one. Aptly indeed.

No article about the Slashdot outage? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Come on, guys... give us the goods on why the upper crust of the tech world was out of service for so long. I'm sure it'll be a hoot.

Re:No article about the Slashdot outage? by sheramil · 2017-09-26 23:30 · Score: 4, Funny

It wasn't an "outage", it was an "unscheduled hiatus".
Re:No article about the Slashdot outage? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:43 · Score: 0

Yeah, like my gall bladder surgery was "staycation."
Re:No article about the Slashdot outage? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 14:34 · Score: 0

They use Cloudflare.

No pocket. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:30 · Score: 0

It also builds in the Pocket bookmarking service Mozilla acquired and uses it to recommend sites you might be interested in.

This. Stop this.

Re:No pocket. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:34 · Score: 1

about:config
extensions.pocket.enabled = false
Re:No pocket. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:10 · Score: 0

This. Stop this.
It's probably one income source for the browser. How do you recommend they fund development of Firefox? Work two 8-hour jobs, one that pays them and another that involves developing Firefox for free for you guys?

Crashes on startup... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:30 · Score: 0

I really wish Mozilla would get their shit together. This thing doesn't even start up on my machine.

Too little too late by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:36 · Score: 0

Mozilla has lost the browser market and it won't get it back. But the point is moot, really, since the age of the open web is coming to and end. It's sad but we have to live with the new InterMarketNet where there will be no place for ideas, only for advertisements.

"Aptly named" Quantum? OK, MozColonSlashSlashA... by ToTheStars · 2017-09-26 23:36 · Score: 5, Funny

Here's what I think when I hear "Firefox Quantum":

It is an incremental advancement by the smallest possible fundamental unit. (Surely that would be Firefox 56.0.1?)
If I run it on a headless box, it will remain in a superposition of states of "crashed" and "not crashed" until I connect the monitor, at which point its wavefunction will collapse into one state or the other (with ~20/80 odds).
I'll either like it but not be able to explain why it works, or I'll dislike it but be unable to disprove its merits.

(To be clear, I do like the interface better than Chrome's, although I'll reserve judgement until I see how it handles large numbers of tabs -- my key criterion: don't shrink them to slits. I hear that there's an ad blocker around, but I hope that something like RequestPolicy will also exist in the new addon system.)

A "quantum leap" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-26 23:43 · Score: 1

is something very small. God damn you.

Re:A "quantum leap" by DontBeAMoran · 2017-09-27 01:26 · Score: 1

If I learned anything from TV, it's that a Quantum Leap sends you in an alternate Universe. Maybe they're hoping to push everyone into a reality where Firefox stayed relevant and Chrome never existed.

--
#DeleteFacebook

Re:Sheeple by Curupira · 2017-09-26 23:45 · Score: 0

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Firefox logo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:06 · Score: 0

The new logo is just disgusting. Why is it that the only thing graphical design revolves around these days is scaling away detail and simplifying the aesthetics down to the point of complete uselessness and banality. Pretty much any untalented "designer" can manage that from an already finished piece of graphical art. Are we children? Do we not have more advanced sensibilities?

Re:Firefox logo by DontBeAMoran · 2017-09-27 01:28 · Score: 1

A logo isn't supposed to look like a coat of arms. Branding has to be easily recognizable in all forms, such as a tiny 16x16 favicon.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re:Firefox logo by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:53 · Score: 0

A logo isn't supposed to look like a coat of arms. Branding has to be easily recognizable in all forms, such as a tiny 16x16 favicon.
Yes, this is definitely what non-profit organizations like to focus on.

But does it still leak memory like a fiend? by SlaveToTheGrind · 2017-09-27 00:07 · Score: 1

If so, I can't afford to care about modestly faster page rendering.

Re:But does it still leak memory like a fiend? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:14 · Score: 4, Informative

I've been using 57 for a while now and as a 8 GB RAM user, Firefox is for me way more RAM-friendly than any Chromium based browser.
Re:But does it still leak memory like a fiend? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-27 00:28 · Score: 1

Yeah after all the hype in the summary, their video was not impressive. Especially since it took them a better part of a decade to get this Quantum shit out of alpha.

And yet stubbornness remains by stevenm86 · 2017-09-27 00:08 · Score: 2

And yet the only supported audio backend on Linux continues to be PulseAudio. Hard pass.

Re:And yet stubbornness remains by KetamineNinja · 2017-09-27 13:02 · Score: 1

Yeah, I purged Firefox from every system I the first time I saw that "Maybe you need to install PulseAudio" message. Maybe you need to not be such a terrible bunch of programers, The Entire Mozilla dev team.

Re:Rust by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:12 · Score: 0

How much of the new engine is programmed in Rust?

I know the parent is flamebait for the Rust-allergic readership, but there's actually a factual answer to this question. It's called Stylo/Quantum CSS and is a CSS engine, first developed as part of Servo, an experimental browser engine written in Rust, and the favorite Rust trolls' punching bag. Stylo parallelizes layout computation, speeding up the styling stage of page processing. It's Rust's static enforcement of data race safety that made the parallelization easier to pull off.

Re:Sheeple by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-09-27 00:16 · Score: 0

I find your ideas boring and would like to unsubscribe from your newsletter.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...

Wake me up by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-09-27 00:17 · Score: 0

Wake me up when they fix that fucking memory leak.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...

Re:Wake me up by narcc · 2017-09-27 15:46 · Score: 1

You're many, many, years out of date.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Wake me up by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-09-28 00:07 · Score: 1

You're many, many, years out of date.
I wish you were correct, but you're not.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Wake me up by narcc · 2017-09-28 05:07 · Score: 1

Please, present some evidence to that effect. You'll be pleasantly surprised by what you learn in your search.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Wake me up by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-09-28 11:38 · Score: 1

Please, present some evidence to that effect. You'll be pleasantly surprised by what you learn in your search.
I've no need to do your homework for you, I experience the FF memory leaks on a daily basis. Right now with 5 tabs open for 24 hours it's gone from ~750Kb of memory to ~2.35Gb...in a little while it'll start to drop images, show me black/blank screens, slow way down, and finally either become totally unresponsive or just suddenly crash.
FFS, I've been seeing this kind of behavior (or similar) for the last 25 versions. But IE didn't do that, and Opera doesn't do that, and Pale Moon doesn't do that.
Oh, but I forgot- if you're not experiencing it personally, then it's all just fluff and anecdotal evidence and must not really be happening.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Wake me up by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-28 11:45 · Score: 1

Oh, but I forgot- if you're not experiencing it personally, then it's all just fluff and anecdotal evidence and must not really be happening.
Why so irrational and emotional? If it's really a problem then all you have to do is provide your configuration and steps to reproduce the problem. Should be easy.
Re:Wake me up by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-09-28 14:41 · Score: 1

Why so irrational and emotional? If it's really a problem then all you have to do is provide your configuration and steps to reproduce the problem. Should be easy.
Here you go:
1) Open 2 or 3 instances of FF, then open 4 to 5 tabs in each instance. For example, a few email providers, a few forums, some news sites, etc.
2) Sit back and watch as the memory climbs and climbs. Using the actual instances and tabs is optional. It may take a day, but it will climb steadily.
3) If you don't personally see it occur, state that it must not really be a problem because it's not happening to you.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Re:Wake me up by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-28 15:21 · Score: 1

Here you go
You have failed to specify the version number for Firefox, the OS, the list of add-ons installed, and the URLs to test against. You're clearly not serious.
This is lame.
Re:Wake me up by narcc · 2017-09-28 18:43 · Score: 1

It would have been easier to just say: "Sorry, I can't. I was just repeating something I heard 10 years ago."
That's a very good thing! As you said earlier:

I wish you were correct
Well, wish granted.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Wake me up by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-09-30 02:43 · Score: 1

You're not making sense.

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...

How about making it start up faster by cjonslashdot · 2017-09-27 00:22 · Score: 2

If one were to run Netscape 3 on today's laptop, it would load in a fraction of a second - and it did essentially the same thing. I would gladly give back whatever extra functionality we are getting for a sub-second application load - and that applies to every application, not just a browser.

Re:How about making it start up faster by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:42 · Score: 1

If one were to run Netscape 3 on today's laptop, it would load in a fraction of a second - and it did essentially the same thing. I would gladly give back whatever extra functionality we are getting for a sub-second application load - and that applies to every application, not just a browser.
Have you even tried FF 57?
No you haven't, because had you tried it, you would see that FF now starts in under 1/2 a second on something as ratty as Core2Duo. It's nearly instant.
Re:How about making it start up faster by GuB-42 · 2017-09-27 00:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Except you don't really have a choice. Web developers put tons crap with their webpages that make it impossible to use them with a Netscape 3 era browser.
Browsers used to be document viewers, but now, they are essentially OSes.
Re:How about making it start up faster by cjonslashdot · 2017-09-27 01:13 · Score: 2

OMG I feel the same way. Javascript has destroyed the Web. If one wants to run an app in a page, it should run in a sandbox using a separate protocol - not be mashed together in the HTML. Single page web apps are not what I want - but there is no going back ;-/
Re:How about making it start up faster by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 14:23 · Score: 0

Netscape 3 would even look better. This flat UI trend is hideous and needs to die. Now they're losing the rounded tabs? As if square corners and nondescript icons are an improvement.
Re:How about making it start up faster by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 19:14 · Score: 0

OMG I feel the same way. Javascript has destroyed the Web. If one wants to run an app in a page, it should run in a sandbox using a separate protocol - not be mashed together in the HTML. Single page web apps are not what I want - but there is no going back ;-/
I'm not an expert on javascript, but i've done some, though mostly with TypeScript to organise things a bit. My general impression was that it was a mess. Java and C# are similar. In Java I can build everything into a single jar and click on it. If we must have super compex web pages, then why not something like that?
In short, you would be just downloading a jar or equivalent made with something like a gradle project for java. The jar would be limited to the subset of reasonably safe libraries. In practice your "browser" would probably just auto download jars for components as needed, subject to verification by the standard security blockchain. The standard web components would also be downloadable jars, with the usual abstractions. A standard web page would be an html document fed to a standard web component (or an xml/json, if required).
Basically, I'm just not convinced that we need all the mess that is javascript. It seems a bad design that just keeps getting extended. If nothing else it fundamentally violates separation of content from code, though you get that back with various programming models that use it. It is just that the end user gets delivered the auto generated mess. I admittedly haven't tried debugging with only a jar, but at least it is a nice package with a sane folder structure (just a zip file).
Of course all of this could probably apply to C# as well... Functionality could likely be changed by having the end user override which packages provides interface implementations, though that would likely be abstracted away by the browser.
Don't trust most web sites to ever write anything to disk? Force them to use an implementation which effectively abstracts disk access to a small ram disk, or alternatively at every instantiation creates an encrypted file for that web site, with that file containing the file system that site sees.
Don't like ads. Use an implementation that fetches files, but with the internal logic to download whatever the add was in a separate thread that self terminates, and then present the end user with a gray box (or some variant). (It is becoming harder and harder to make ad blockers that don't break some pages, particularly when they check for them.)
At any rate, I'm not positive it would work or not, but the web as is seems too complex with too much turn over in APIs and all the rest. Can we not achieve security and performance more simply? The key with what I was talking about was that all major components would rely on not one uber interface, but multiple smaller interfaces that do simpler tasks. Unfortunately, as I'm not an expert in browser design, I don't know how that compares with the state of the art.
By having everything be modular, it should be possible to keep older code running longer, since you could just keep patching the older libraries, or even use an older JVM, if a secure version exists. Sure at some point the global thing that controls all this would have to ban libraries that don't have secure versions, and thus ban the rest of the application/page, but that is just a standard security practice.
Re:How about making it start up faster by thegarbz · 2017-09-27 22:41 · Score: 2

If one were to run Netscape 3 on today's laptop,

If you want fast startup just start notepad.exe. It starts up blazingly fast and will load modern web pages just as well as Netscape 3 would.

I would gladly give back whatever extra functionality we are getting
No you wouldn't. Boiling frog principle, you don't actually know what functionality you have because the transition and adoption of a dynamic and interactive version of the web that does more than just follow a few links via clicking and blink some text has been so slow that you barely noticed what has changed.
By the way for shits and giggles I did it. I loaded Netscape 3.0 and typed in www.slashdot.org
"Netscape and this server cannot communicate securely because they have no common encryption algorithm(s)"
Ok no problem let's try soylent:
"Connection reset by peer"
www.google.com:
A 9 item ordered list on the left unclickable along with the error: "too many javascript errors occurred"
Then 10 popups with errors, two of which I couldn't acknowledge.
Anyway I've had it, going back to firefox. Nope can't communicate with that server either.
But just for giggles. cnn.com
Well that just tries to download text, and 10 popups with errors followed by "too many errors".
Yeah go ahead run Netscape 3.0 on today's laptop. You can download it here:
http://www.oldversion.com/wind...
Re:How about making it start up faster by thegarbz · 2017-09-27 22:44 · Score: 1

Web developers put tons crap with their webpages that make it impossible to use them with a Netscape 3 era browser
Yeah like SSL.
Just for fun I actually did it. I wanted to try posting on Slashdot but it didn't even get as far as loading javascript.
Re:How about making it start up faster by cjonslashdot · 2017-09-27 23:17 · Score: 1

Notepad? That's amazing. Great tip. Won't work for me because I use a Mac, but good to know for when I am on Windows which I am sometimes.
Indeed, today's web pages won't run on Netscape 3, but that's because it doesn't support newer protocols, etc. - but it did essentially the same thing (Netscape invented SSL). I know it's not usable today, but I wish that it had been kept the same, but merely updated. It mystifies me that today's browers (all apps, actually), require hundreds of Mb to run and start up so slowly - something is wrong.
Re:How about making it start up faster by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 23:25 · Score: 2

start up so slowly
Firefox 57 starts up in a second or less for me. Have you tried it?
Re:How about making it start up faster by Waccoon · 2017-09-27 23:45 · Score: 1

Netscape 3? Even last year's browsers don't work! Creating a totally blank page and using Javascript to load in the body content is the dumbest thing ever.
By turning every web page into an app, it's Flash all over again.
Re:How about making it start up faster by thegarbz · 2017-09-28 01:10 · Score: 1

but I wish that it had been kept the same, but merely updated
And you think the inclusion of native HTML5 support including all the things that go with it (ability to play multi-media) etc will mean it still loads in milliseconds?
Re:How about making it start up faster by thegarbz · 2017-09-28 01:11 · Score: 1

The first or the second time? To be fair, every browser starts up in less than 1 second on my machine. That doesn't mean Firefox isn't quite slow at loading and rendering webpages compared to the others.
Re:How about making it start up faster by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-28 01:19 · Score: 1

First and subsequent times, loading no tabs or loading many tabs. I'm on an SSD so that helps too.
Re:How about making it start up faster by Rutulian · 2017-09-28 01:41 · Score: 1

I know it's not usable today, but I wish that it had been kept the same, but merely updated.
Well, that's kind of what happened. Remember, Netscape 3/4 was originally based on Mosaic, and did not even fully support the HTML standard. There was very limited CSS support. The predominant method for page layout was the table-in-a-table method <shudder>. The only way for them to move forward was to use a different layout engine, which became known as Gecko. It was independently developed by Mozilla, but Netscape ended up adopting it. Getting proper CSS support was a big deal. Nobody talks about the ACID tests anymore, but passing them was a major goal (and challenge) for most of the competing engines at the time, including Opera's, IE's, and KHTML.
And then, of course, overall web content consumption was also increasing a ton. More assets, more complex layouts, more session management. Firefox didn't invent but greatly popularized tabbed browsing, which effectively meant people were keeping tens of pages open at the same time. The content had to remain accessible even if the tab was in the background, so multiply all of those assets/layouts/sessions by the number of tabs open. And the later problem then becomes that all of this background page loading/maintenance is happening in a single monolithic process (because Gecko was written long before multi-core processors were introduced). Chrome solved the problem by basically just spawning a new instance for every tab opened, which allowed it to take advantage of multiple cores earlier, but caused it to be a lot less efficient with resource usage. Mozilla didn't want to do it this way, and instead focused on rewriting their layout engine again. Turns out one of the biggest problems was XUL, which had been designed to be a better ActiveX (and was) back when that was a thing, but had to be replaced entirely to move forward.
Point is, when gazing into the past, just remember that the modern features we take for granted today come with a cost. It takes hundreds of Mb to write a layout engine capable of doing all of the things we expect a modern browser to be able to do.
> and start up so slowly
That part I'm not so sure. Firefox/Chrome start pretty fast to me. It seems at the very least that they have been able to keep par with startup times of old. Netscape 3 on old hardware probably started slower than Firefox does now on current hardware. Yes, it could be faster if they just stripped out all of the new features, but I guarantee that is not what you really want from your web browser. That said, there certainly are some stripped-down web browsers you could use if you really wanted to. They will have rendering glitches with many websites, though.
Re:How about making it start up faster by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:27 · Score: 0

Yes, The browser is the OS and javascript programs are the applications.
The problem with this is that the security and stability, performance, and well everything really of javascript "apps" are nowhere near their "real" operating system counterparts.
We've spent decades fine tuning the OS + applications paradigm and then promptly threw everything out when the web came along, only to try to reinvent it. why? As near as I can figure, someone needed the work :-D
What we really need is some javascript application which will render HTML documents properly!
Re:How about making it start up faster by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:17 · Score: 0

If one wants to run an app in a page, it should run in a sandbox using a separate protocol - not be mashed together in the HTML.
So, flash?
Re:How about making it start up faster by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 04:19 · Score: 0

If you create a 768MB-1GB Ram Drive and put a Portable version of your browser on this, it'll run pretty close to sub-second. That's what I do on all of my machines.
Re:How about making it start up faster by cjonslashdot · 2017-09-28 04:41 · Score: 1

Interesting. A-lot of history - thanks.
I am still skeptical that it requires hundreds of Mb. I remember when I was in college, my university had a new IBM 370 running MVS - it could (did) run multiple versions of OS370, supporting many large applications and lots of users. It had 4Mb of RAM. Boeing used to use an IBM 360 with 2Mb to run CADAM - a graphic design package - with hundreds of simultaneous users. I also recall back in 1998 running Netscape, a command window, a Java app, an editor, Personal Oracle, and about three or four other things at the same time on my 16Mb Winbook. When I see that MS Word today requires 200Mb to run, something tells me that there is something wrong in how software is built today.
Another data point: in 1994 I spent a time as a graphic designer (a career detour), and I had a large screen Mac and used Photoshop 3. It was a full fledged professional program - supported layers, masks - everything I needed to make professional quality things. I kept a copy of the program (both Windows and Mac). Years later - around 1999 I think - I had a Windows ME machine (yuck), and I think it must have had 100+ Mb of RAM, don't remember exactly. I also had Photoshop 7, and it took about 15 seconds to load, going through its splash screen, etc. Out of curiosity one day I popped in the disk for Photoshop 3 and copied the exe to my drive. I double-clicked on it, and BAM! - it was loaded and ready to go. It was essentially instantaneous - it had gone through the plugin loading and splash screen so fast that I couldn't even see it happen.
That's what I want for software. I would give up a-lot features to have instantaneous response. Maybe it's just me, though.
Re:How about making it start up faster by cjonslashdot · 2017-09-28 04:53 · Score: 1

In the late '90s there were video players that ran in 40k memory. Today's software is bloated for some reason, and so it takes forever to load. I am not sure why, but I suspect the problem has to do with static linking of large libraries, for which an app uses one or two functions, but has to link with the whole library, which in turn includes ten other libraries, which each carry ten more. What are your thoughts on why software today is so large?
Re:How about making it start up faster by Rutulian · 2017-09-28 07:38 · Score: 1

That's what I want for software. I would give up a-lot features to have instantaneous response. Maybe it's just me, though.
Ah, yeah, well that's the inexorable march of "progress", or so they say. When you have more resources available, you tend to use them. I too remember when lots of applications could get by with 16 MB RAM, and today similar seeming applications require 1 GB or more. It is a bit hard to fathom, and some of it is probably due to convenience/sloppy programming no doubt, but it is mostly due to the small things that you probably don't notice. Your modern graphical desktop environment, in addition to just looking nicer, has double-buffering to eliminate tearing, sub-pixel rendering for better font appearance, internationalized font support, rotatable fonts (sounds useless, but think charts and tables), alpha channel support, multiple screen and automatic resolution setting support, and probably a bunch of other things that don't immediately come to mind. Think of your old Nintendo games vs. modern adventure games. Low resolution graphics, sprites, simple animation cycles, no shadows, no 3D, 8-bit sound files...yeah, you can do a lot to save space and resources, and the game can still be a lot of fun. But when you have the resources available, the game can be a lot better.
Re:How about making it start up faster by cjonslashdot · 2017-09-29 00:02 · Score: 1

I think there is a more insidious explanation.
I recall the first version of MS Word for the Mac. It had rotatable fonts - it had a-lot of functionality - it had everything that I personally use today when I use MS Word. Macs back then had something like 100K - I don't remember exactly, but it was Kb - not Mb. Today, MS Word is inching its way toward the Gb range, and I don't see the kind of functionality difference that would explain that.
To really find out what is going on, one would have to decompile these apps and analyze them. I don't have time or the setup to do that (I don't build native desktop apps - I am a server person). However, I _suspect_ (don't actually know) is that it is due to the large libraries that get linked with apps.
I wish that more people would speak up about this, and not just accept it. Something _is_ wrong, but if people don't say anything, nothing will change. I believe that we _could_ have instantaneous apps, but no one is asking for it.
I will never forget Bill Gates' comment, back in the '80s, that no one would ever, ever need more than 640k in their computer - that to use that much memory was inconceivable. And by that time, we had a-lot of pretty powerful apps. They were written in C, however, and C linkers strip out unused functions.
Re:How about making it start up faster by Rutulian · 2017-09-29 01:25 · Score: 1

I recall the first version of MS Word for the Mac. It had rotatable fonts
I'm pretty sure it didn't, but I was more of WordPerfect user back in those days. It might have seemed like it had the ability to render rotated text because it generated a pixmap and then rotated it. But today text is managed as a vector graphic, and rotation is done on each font glyph individually. Font/text handling is one of those things that has just become incredibly sophisticated over the last couple of decades. Just browse through the Pango library sometime to see what it is doing under the hood,
https://developer.gnome.org/pa...
It is 3 MB, just for font/text handling, and yes it is written in C. And it still requires Glib, and a 2D graphics backend to do the actual rendering, so it is not capable of standing completely on its own. It is hard to appreciate sometimes, because if you only use the ISO-8859-1 character set (Western Europe) and don't need things like RTL, you don't necessarily notice all of the new features, but I'm willing to bet your eyes are thankful for the reduced eye strain.

it had a-lot of functionality - it had everything that I personally use today when I use MS Word
Yeah, it probably did. And this is another crux of the problem. There is a lot of stuff it does today that you probably don't use, or only use very rarely, but other people use all the time. I was a fan of Abiword once upon a time, because it was nice small stripped down word processor that did everything I needed to write papers, short documents, etc. But it couldn't handle even moderately complex documents, so I found myself turning to StarOffice (now LibreOffice), which was a bloated monolith, more and more. Eventually, it just didn't make sense to be switching between two different word processors, so I gave up and now I use LibreOffice, or Microsoft Office on my Mac, exclusively. Abiword could have been extended to add the needed functionality, but eventually it would have ended up just like LibreOffice, because feature+feature+feature (however rarely used) is what turns these applications into monoliths.

However, I _suspect_ (don't actually know) is that it is due to the large libraries that get linked with apps.
The answer is yes. That is exactly right. Libraries are huge. But they are huge because they incorporate a lot of features. There is some amount of sloppy programming, but mostly it is because of the large number of features. On top of that, Windows and OS X, the two most mainstream operating systems, have basically given up on shared libraries. So every application is bundled with its own set of libraries. And if it is a Java application, it is a very large number of libraries, sometime even bundling the JVM itself, but people want cross-platform and that is unfortunately probably the easiest way to get that at the moment.

I believe that we _could_ have instantaneous apps, but no one is asking for it.
Demand often parallels need. People will demand low resource utilizing applications when they need them. But if they have 4 cores and 16 GB RAM readily available, they just don't really care. And given the option of a less capable and more expensive (due to increased development costs), but slightly faster and more responsive application, most people will opt for the cheaper bloated monolith that has more features, even if they don't use all of them all of the time.
Re:How about making it start up faster by cjonslashdot · 2017-09-29 04:31 · Score: 1

Interesting. Thanks for helping me to understand this.
Ironically, in the server app space, there is a trend away from monolithic applications, toward microservices. One could draw an analogy between shared libraries and microservices - dynamically loaded independent components. While this is seen as a critical next step for scalable and flexible server apps, somehow in the desktop app space it is not.

Firefox dies on 2017-11-14 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:22 · Score: 0

"Quantum" is the suicide note. RIP 15 years of extension development.

Re:Firefox dies on 2017-11-14 by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-27 00:38 · Score: 0

Because your real name is “theweatherelectric”. Post your name, coward.
Re:Firefox dies on 2017-11-14 by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 00:40 · Score: 0

Huh. You really are a Lunix Nutcase.
Re:Firefox dies on 2017-11-14 by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-27 01:12 · Score: 1

Still waiting for you to show us your courage by posting your name. Stop using a pseudo-anonymous handle, coward.
Re:Firefox dies on 2017-11-14 by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 01:27 · Score: 0

No, what you're waiting for is to feel some sense of empowerment. You plainly feel disempowered in your life, hence your misdirected rage.
Re:Firefox dies on 2017-11-14 by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 13:13 · Score: 0

Lay off. His mom carelessly dropped him while she was servicing a homeless man. Wasn't his fault.
Re:Firefox dies on 2017-11-14 by Ark42 · 2017-09-27 16:03 · Score: 1

Not the AC, but I already disabled automatic updates on my Firefox. I'll update to 56 when it comes out, but I have too many extensions, and 100% of them say "legacy" which means they'll all stop working with Firefox 57. There is nothing but pain to move forward to FF57, and I've visited the home pages and blogs of various extensions that I use, and it seems like they've all come to the conclusion that they simply CAN'T migrate to WebExtensions. The functionality just doesn't exist, so the extension will never make it to FF57. I might as well switch to Chrome if I'm going to switch to a less functional browser, so let's hope FF56 gets many years of patches.

--
Morphing Software
Re:Firefox dies on 2017-11-14 by Antiocheian · 2017-09-27 16:29 · Score: 1

Well, you have demanded the name of someone else but you still aren't providing yours.
Re:Firefox dies on 2017-11-14 by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 16:34 · Score: 1

There seems to be confusion regarding user names versus Anonymous Cowards on Slashdot. You've been using Slashdot long enough to know better, but I have no such hopes for Lunix Nutcase. He is, unfortunately, as advertised.
Re:Firefox dies on 2017-11-14 by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-28 00:39 · Score: 1

Interesting deflection. Gonna stop being a coward yet?
Re:Firefox dies on 2017-11-14 by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-28 00:40 · Score: 1

No, there’s no confusion. You’re not courageous by using a pesudo-anonymous handle.

Re:Sheeple by fisted · 2017-09-27 00:24 · Score: 1

I have no real opinion on your ideas and thus don't really care whether or not I receive your newsletter.

--
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!

BUT POCKET IS STILL THERE! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:26 · Score: 1

You totally miss the point. We don't want Pocket merely disabled using an about:config option. We want the Pocket code totally removed from our Firefox installations. We want Pocket totally, 100% gone.

Toggling the about:config option does not remove the Pocket code completely! That is the problem with your failed "solution".

Pocket should be an extension, plain and simple. It's not there at all, unless we go out of our way to install it because we want to use it.

Merely disabling Pocket using an about:config option is not sufficient. The code is still there, infecting and bloating Firefox.

It's like when you get a new Windows laptop, and all sorts of shitware is installed by the vendor by default. Disabling such shitware from starting up isn't sufficient, as it's still wasting disk space, and there's always the risk of it starting up unexpectedly. That's why you have to get rid of it completely, but uninstalling it or by doing a fresh installation of Windows. It's even worse in the Pocket case, though, because this shitware can't be uninstalled, and reinstalling Firefox doesn't get rid of it!

Pocket is literally more insidious and malicious than the shitware pre-installed on a new Windows laptop.

Re:BUT POCKET IS STILL THERE! by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 00:30 · Score: 0

Pocket is literally more insidious and malicious
Why? Mozilla bought Read It Later. Mozilla owns Pocket. If you don't want to use it, remove it from your toolbars and don't use it.
Re:BUT POCKET IS STILL THERE! by Spamalope · 2017-09-27 01:25 · Score: 1

So what turns off all the data collection that appears to be the point of it? Who is the data being sold/rented/made available to?
Re:BUT POCKET IS STILL THERE! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 03:51 · Score: 0

Pocket was one of the last straws for me. Dumped Firefox.

fix the ui by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:33 · Score: 0

wake me up when they fix the UI.

I wont be updating to any new version that doesn't support the addons to make it a usable browser.

Yeah. The speed was totally the issue. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:40 · Score: 0

Great job, Mozilla, for once again doing the opposite of what I want.

Sophistication is a poor goal by Antique+Geekmeister · 2017-09-27 00:44 · Score: 1

Sadly, most web browser sophistication is not for the user. It's for the advertiser. And it's consuming network, CPU, and screen space resources better devoted to the web site's actual message and the consumer's interest.

Slashdot itself is a good example of how to _avoid_ this unnecessary, undesirablem, and destabilizing complexity.

Re:Sophistication is a poor goal by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 00:48 · Score: 1

It's for the advertiser. And it's consuming network, CPU, and screen space resources
So use an ad blocker. That's what I do. uBlock Origin is a good one.

Being extensible was Firefox's only benefit. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, being highly extensible can come with some risk, but it's also the only thing that made Firefox still worth using. It could be made to do things that other browsers, including Chrome and Safari, couldn't be made to do, giving it a leg up over those browsers.

But now Firefox has gotten rid of the only reason to use it, by castrating its extension system.

In many respects Firefox had already mostly been a cheap, shitty imitation of Chrome for a while now. These extension changes now get rid of the "mostly".

Let's recap the situation:

- Firefox's UI imitates that of Chrome (or with Photon, now other Chromium-derived browsers like Vivaldi and Brave).
- Firefox's extension system imitates that of Chrome.
- Firefox's alleged "privacy" is anything but, with Firefox sending user information all over the place, including to Google in some cases!
- Firefox's performance is worse than that of Chrome's. (Yes, I'm using the Firefox 57 beta right now and can confirm this is still the case!)
- Firefox's memory usage is worse than that of Chrome's. (Again, I'm using the Firefox 57 beta right now to confirm this.)
- Firefox is harder for developers to work with, because parts of it are written in the horrid Rust programming language that Moz://a came up with.
- Firefox's market share is in the low single digits already, and will probably be even less after Firefox 57 breaks extensions for normal users, who will just move to some other browser instead of trying to fix up their extensions. Many web developers don't even bother to test with it any longer, so more and more sites don't work well with Firefox.

So from what I can see, there are no benefits to using Firefox, and actually quite a few drawbacks. You're better off using Chrome or some other Chromium-derived browser. There's really no reason at all to use Firefox these days. Its extension system used to be the main reason to use it, but now that reason has been eliminated.

Re:Being extensible was Firefox's only benefit. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:24 · Score: 0

Time and time again, the people running Mozilla have shown themselves to be arrogant assholes of a level rarely seen in business. I have no idea what their end-game is here, but one thing is clear. For several years now, they have been waging an all out campaign to destroy Firefox. But I guess the $375 Million in free money they get every year makes up for it.
Re: Being extensible was Firefox's only benefit. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 19:23 · Score: 0

Firefox may be slower and use more memory than Chrome on your computer, but for most people this is simply not true.
I also doubt your reasoning about people switching to Chrome because of changes to Firefox. Nothing about Firefox has any influence on the primary driver of people switching to Chrome: software that bundles Chrome and sets it as the default browser if the user doesn't uncheck a checkbox.
Re:Being extensible was Firefox's only benefit. by xtronics · 2017-09-28 05:39 · Score: 1

quite right - if someone wants to try a new browser more in-line with what Mozilla once offered - I would recommend looking at brave - usable - but needs some tweaks with the bookmark bit.
https://brave.com/
The bitcoin connection is quite important..

If my extensions stop working I'm going to Chrome by Dr.+Spork · 2017-09-27 00:52 · Score: 1

I think I'm still using Firefox only because I found the optimal cocktail of extensions to make it work right. Just now I looked at my extension manager and guess what: apart from uBlock Origin, every single one has a "LEGACY" warning next to it, which means that it won't work after the regime change. I've used Firefox as my primary browser since version 0.3, and I've put up with some nasty stuff over the years, but I've always had a strong enough computer to make it all bearable. But you know, Chrome is actually OK as a browser. Crucially, its extension catalogue will be much more mature that that of the rebooted Firefox. Hell, the way it looks now, come November, Microsoft Edge might have better extensions than Firefox. I have a feeling that I'll just refuse to upgrade and give my extensions a chance to adjust to the new regime. But if they don't, or if Firefox forces my upgrade before I'm ready, I'll just export my passwords and bookmarks and uninstall.

Re:Sheeple by maelkum · 2017-09-27 00:54 · Score: 1

In Soviet Russia official narrative swallows you!

Re:Sheeple by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 00:56 · Score: 4, Funny

I find your ideas both intriguing and boring and would like to both subscribe and unsubscribe from your quantum newsletter.

Re:If my extensions stop working I'm going to Chro by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 00:58 · Score: 1

Crucially, its extension catalogue will be much more mature

But less capable. Firefox's implementation of WebExtensions is a superset of Chrome's, and over time Mozilla will add more APIs to enable more add-ons. Moving to Chrome is a retrograde step.

So...Shiny Chrome. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:02 · Score: 0

I thought Mozilla was setting themselves up to be using Chrome extensions?

Firefox is back, at least for me by wjcofkc · 2017-09-27 01:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

I vaguely remember ditching Firefox a decade or more ago as it had become an unwieldy, slow, decrepit, etc... pile of bloatware garbage. I never expected I would be using it again. Over the last few years, for my own reasons, I have sought to de-google my life here and there within practical limits. On my Windows 10 machine, I have been using Edge for about a year and have found it to be surprisingly nice. I think it may have been over another Firefox related story here on Slashdot last week that prompted me to install the current Firefox on a whim. I have not looked back. I am not going to hammer out a review in this comment, but I haven't been so happy with the performance, functionality, and UI of a web browser since the last time Firefox was good. I was quite surprised. I am glad to hear they are continuing to make improvements. Here's to a Firefox renaissance.

--
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.

Re:Firefox is back, at least for me by q4Fry · 2017-09-28 05:41 · Score: 1

My experience mirrors yours. I am waiting for one extension to release a compatible version, and I'm in.

So...Break-fast. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:08 · Score: 0

Already using Chrome because the latest Mozilla just broke some important extensions for me literally making it unusable.

Re:So...Break-fast. by narcc · 2017-09-27 15:30 · Score: 1

Tell us how Chrome managed to replace the functionality that you found essential.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:So...Break-fast. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 02:26 · Score: 0

LastPass, no U2F, for starters.

Re:If my extensions stop working I'm going to Chro by Lunix+Nutcase · 2017-09-27 01:14 · Score: 1

So what specifically is the supposedly mind-blowing superset of features? And why would any end user care?

Re:Sheeple by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2017-09-27 01:17 · Score: 2

It's called consolidation. Strengthen browser vendors, weaken individuals. With Rust, this can be done imperceptibly over time.

. . . so if it really is "imperceptible" . . . maybe it's already been done, and we just haven't noticed it yet . . . ?

If you can see it, and it's there . . . it's real.

If you can see it, and it's not there . . . it's virtual.

If you can't see it, and not there . . . it's gone.

. . . now when the film star and assassin James Earl Ray Jones shot John F. Kennedy, which led to our "Operation Paperclip" German scientists at Area 51 combining his DNA with the DNA of Martin Luther King to create Barack Obama (which explains why he has no birth certificate; he was grown in a very large test tube), Stanley Kubrick, who was filming the fake Apollo Moon landings in Area 51 filmed the process, which was used as the birth of the "Star Child" scene in "2001: A Space Odyssey" (Obama is not list in the credits), Jones further went on to star in the film with Australian body builder Lou Ferrigno, "Conan, The Librarian"), which led to Ferrigno's failed transgendered Vice-Presidential campaign as "Geraldine Ferrigno" . . .

. . . and then the conspiracy got super suspicious when . . .

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Quantum leap == Extremely Tiny by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:19 · Score: 0

Hmm, a quantum leap is infinitesimally small. So what they are really saying is that Firefox is the same as the other browsers now.

Re:Quantum leap == Extremely Tiny by arth1 · 2017-09-27 14:27 · Score: 1

A quantum leap is exceedingly small, but that's not what the phrase originally referred to. What was meant, once upon a time, before the unwashed masses got to mangle the meaning, was that a quantum leap goes from one state to another without any intermediary steps. It referred to a subset of what in newer jargon is called disruptive inventions, and only those that were radical changes, and not just improvements, no matter how big.
A quantum leap for Firefox would be replacing it overnight with something that isn't a visual web browser. That's not going to happen.

Those extensions are gone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:20 · Score: 0

The good ones (the ones that fix the broken UI that recent firefox versions ship with) are no longer possible in version 57.

For me, that's the end of the line.

A firefox fork or a new browser using perhaps the same rendering guts will do what mozilla refuses to do: look and feel NOT like chrome.

(Capcha: "hostage". Just how I feel when mozilla talks about how firefox is "improving"...)

So in reality it will be a very small change by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:22 · Score: 0

... because a quantum change is a very small discrete step. If it's really a big change then it should be something like "Firefox Parsec" or "Firefox AU" or "Firefox Galactic"

Violate it by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2017-09-27 01:22 · Score: 1

Does it stop the popups Chrome seems incomoetent to stamp out? *

* I assume it is a loophole in a Java spec or similar that cannot be ended without violating the spec. Here's a hint: VIOLATE IT!!!

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:Violate it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:41 · Score: 0

Does it stop the popups Chrome seems incomoetent to stamp out? *
* I assume it is a loophole in a Java spec or similar that cannot be ended without violating the spec. Here's a hint: VIOLATE IT!!!
Last night, I violated your mom. She loved it and begged for more of my penis.
Captcha: damage. A little anal bleeding is a good thing. It's a trophy. It means she had a great time!

Re:Sheeple by DontBeAMoran · 2017-09-27 01:23 · Score: 4, Funny

Thank you. Your email was removed from our mailing list and added to the mailing lists of 500 of our clients.

--
#DeleteFacebook

Re:Sheeple by GLMDesigns · 2017-09-27 01:23 · Score: 1

You're not comparing apples to apples.

What was the federal gov't providing in 1945 compared to 2015? Much less.

No medicare. No lots of things. Not to mention that at that time the Federal Government had not taken over so many state functions - example interstate roads.

--
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond

Re:If my extensions stop working I'm going to Chro by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 01:26 · Score: 1

superset of features?

The WebRequest API, for example, is superior in Firefox. Chrome has no support for sidebarAction or theme.

why would any end user care?

Because the add-ons will work better, silly rabbit.

But it runs on a... by havana9 · 2017-09-27 01:27 · Score: 1

Sinclair QL computer? As fat I could remember there was a TCP/IP stack using the serial prort for SLIP or PPP and a couple of email/newsgroup clients.

Re: Sheeple by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:28 · Score: 0

Schrodingers newsletter

Adblocker and Anti-Cross-Site by DrYak · 2017-09-27 01:28 · Score: 1

I hear that there's an ad blocker around,

uBlock Origin has a release candidate that has been made available for webextensions API.

but I hope that something like RequestPolicy will also exist in the new addon system.

NoScript is Currently in the process of being ported to webextensions. Or, more precisely, Mozilla is in the process of adapting WebExtensions so that things that formely required XUL like NoScript could be ported.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]

Script blocking WILL work by DrYak · 2017-09-27 01:31 · Score: 5, Informative

I use a scriptblocking extension which has to be able to interact with every "tab" to be able to actually work.

And script blocking is probably the number 1 feature of Firefox-based browsers (this is technically impossible to achieve on Chrome according to professionnal developers).

That's why NoScript is currently in the process of being ported to webextensions.

Or, more precisely, Mozilla is in the process of adapting WebExtensions so that things that formely required XUL like NoScript could be ported.

So, unlike Google Chrome, it's very likely that either your favorite script blocking extension will eventually work on Mozilla, or you'll find a nice alternative to your taste.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]

Re:Script blocking WILL work by cb88 · 2017-09-27 13:37 · Score: 1

I'm using the WebExtension version of NoScript and uBlock right now.. they seem to work just as intended. h264ify seems to already be a web extension as well..

Honestly those are the two I care most about. Another one that was nice to have was Toggle Proxy I need a simple replacement for it that acutally works (there is one but it isn't one click and also forgets the proxy port all the time but that will get fixed sooner or later).

It seems like web extensions may enable more fine grained permissions for each addon at some point as well... that would be cool.
Re:Script blocking WILL work by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:20 · Score: 0

I'm using the WebExtension version of NoScript
nope, you aren't. there is no webextensions noscript.. YET. the one you're using is just the legacy addon in a wrapper. the 'real' webextensions noscript won't be released until firefox 57 is. so we won't know exactly how shitty it is until then.
Re:Script blocking WILL work by Waccoon · 2017-09-27 23:39 · Score: 1

So, unlike Google Chrome, it's very likely that either your favorite script blocking extension will eventually work on Mozilla, or you'll find a nice alternative to your taste.
My main concern is that Firefox has lost so much market share that they are below critical mass, and nobody will make the alternatives.
Perhaps if Mozilla hadn't been ignoring the public's pleas for... oh, the last decade...
Re:Script blocking WILL work by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 23:45 · Score: 1

Though they're not exactly the same, the WebExtensions APIs are quite similar between Firefox, Chrome, and Opera. That's a much larger ecosystem for add-on developers to work in and browser add-ons are now easier to port between browsers. This sort of thing has already been happening, such as with the Sylus add-on.
Re:Script blocking WILL work by AmiMoJo · 2017-09-27 23:52 · Score: 1

Chrome has script blocking. Has had it since nearly the very beginning via extensions.
Scriptsafe (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/scriptsafe/oiigbmnaadbkfbmpbfijlflahbdbdgdf?utm_source=chrome-ntp-icon) does all that and much more.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Script blocking WILL work by JohnFen · 2017-09-28 03:34 · Score: 1

I'm using the WebExtension version of NoScript
Where did you get it? I've been looking for this, but all I can find is "NoScript Lite", which is an inadequate substitute.

How about making it start up faster-Cloudy. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:32 · Score: 0

That's because the Cloud needed remote apps to justify it's existence, and the browser was the lowest-common-denominator.

Safari by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 01:32 · Score: 0

Safari 11 smokes them all, but thats none of my business...

Articles on /. by DrYak · 2017-09-27 01:33 · Score: 1

This is /.
What do you expect ?

Of course, there's is going to be an article about the outage. It will come one week after it has been talked about on reddit.
And then, there are going to be 15 more dupes about it.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]

pocket?? by HermMunster · 2017-09-27 14:19 · Score: 1

Not liking that at all. Suggesting sites can be used as agenda based advertising. I don't want to see any of it. Ever.

--
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.

Re:pocket?? by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 14:26 · Score: 1

So turn it off. That's what I do.

I really want to love the new FF, but... by Mr.+Cancelled · 2017-09-27 14:28 · Score: 1

It fucking breaks EVERYTHING!!!

I'm not talking about the plugins and extensions breaking, although that is also a potential deal breaker for me, but my Autohotkey scripts will not fire when the latest Firefox Developer Edition has the focus (v.57).

They won't fucking work, no matter what's ran. Trackpad gestures, nothing. Overlays and hotkeys, nada.

Even opening WindowSpy shows noting when FF has the focus. What the fuck??? My scripts are not app-specific, and work in every browser, including older versions of FF and the alpha and beta versions.

Now... It's the developer edition, and perhaps there's some esoteric setting that's user configurable which will allow me to correct this, although I seriously doubt it.

The problem is that these kind of unique-to-Firefox problems, coupled with them breaking most of their extensions makes Firefox a huge time sink on top of everything else.

Not only do we need to reconfigure the FF configuration we've spent years tailoring to our unique work styles and needs, but now we have to spend hours troubleshooting random weirdness such as this AHK problem. How much is a user supposed to endure, considering the quality of FF's competitors?

I find FF's live bookmarks indispensable and use them daily. I hate to lose this feature... For now, I am sticking with Waterfox, but I find myself more drawn to Chrome based solely on the performance of its mobile browser. FF on any mobile device I've used is SLOW and displays things oddly. Try loading the dailymail on your phone in FF mobile to see what I mean.

Damn you Mozilla! You've completely fucked up my computer experience and are requiring me to make some very big choices for my Internet browsing needs... And for what? A Chrome clone which lacks it's best features?

Re:I really want to love the new FF, but... by serviscope_minor · 2017-09-27 20:02 · Score: 1

Try loading the dailymail on your phone in FF mobile to see what I mean.
I would, but then I'd have to burn my phone.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

Re:Sheeple by arth1 · 2017-09-27 14:33 · Score: 1

In 1945 corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes.

In 1945 we had a world war to finance. The squeeze was on corporations to do their part. Families contributed by sending their young men, and having less income to tax.

Aren't data loss and DoS also security issues? by tepples · 2017-09-27 14:38 · Score: 1

The new set of browser extension APIs that make up WebExtensions, which are available in Firefox today, are inherently more secure than traditional add-ons

From the point of view of an end user, the transition just takes one problem (security) and replaces it with another (data loss). Ctrl+Q in Firefox 57 for Linux quits the whole browser without asking for confirmation, causing loss of data in unsubmitted forms. XUL extensions used to be able to prevent this, but WebExtensions cannot because bug 1325692 was marked as "wontfix" for Firefox 57.

Re:Aren't data loss and DoS also security issues? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:53 · Score: 0

It's not just Ctrl-Q on Linux. I have the same problem with Alt-F4 on Windows (which happens to be just as close to Ctrl-F4 as Ctrl-Q is to Ctrl-W).
Closes the window without asking, even though I have it set to always ask when closing more than one tab. And as I'm using private browsing, there is no way of getting the closed tabs back.

Lack of EME had been keeping sites honest by tepples · 2017-09-27 14:40 · Score: 2

The problem is that once all major browsers support EME, website operators will feel more justified in requiring EME on grounds that users can choose to just switch on DRM as part of the economic bargain associated with visiting the site. The one thing that had been keeping website operators honest is the existence of at least one widely used browser that doesn't support EME at all.

Re:Lack of EME had been keeping sites honest by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 14:53 · Score: 1

The one thing that had been keeping website operators honest
No. It just made them use Flash which was a worse outcome.
Re:Lack of EME had been keeping sites honest by Curupira · 2017-09-27 22:11 · Score: 1

Do they? Youtube and Vimeo use html5 without any DRM. I can easily use third-party software or extensions to download videos from them.
Perhaps doing that will be harder once every browser adopts EME.
Re:Lack of EME had been keeping sites honest by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 22:33 · Score: 1

Perhaps doing that will be harder once every browser adopts EME.
Every major browser adopted EME and DRM quite some time ago. See for example Netflix's HTML5 requirements. YouTube uses DRM for its "premium content", it's why they bought WideVine.

Review and thoughts by Kinematics · 2017-09-27 14:44 · Score: 2

UI: Much improved. Or, put another way, they removed a ton of the Australis crap that people have been griping about for years. That says quite a bit about their UX team.

- Caveat: They still manage to make a few small stupid errors, like removing the color from bookmark folders (change applied in FF58), and a 'default' theme that mixes light and dark in a way that's annoying no matter which you'd prefer. Just change to either light or dark and be done with it.

Performance: *Vastly* improved, across the board. This is both in chrome and on web pages. These are all the speed improvements that should have been done 5 years ago, but they were too busy pretending desktop didn't matter (Firefox OS is the future!) or pretending user complaints weren't valid, and not putting in any effort to really measure the problem.

- Caveat: That said, this basically just brings them up to on par with Chrome. We'll see if WebRender actually pushes them ahead.

Security: Presumably better. Rust still only covers limited modules, though, so it's not a suddenly perfect system. They have a huge amount of replacement work still to do.

Memory: Each individual process has improved a great deal, but all the processes together still add up to quite a bit. Right now (on my system as I write this), the largest content process is only 170MB. However all processes together add up to over 1.1GB. On the other hand, a few years ago 1.1GB total memory used would have meant the program was starting to melt down. Now, it's completely unnoticeable, and doesn't build up problems over time.

Extensions: On life support. 75% of my extensions are unusable, mostly because the APIs necessary either have not been or will never be built. The ones that *do* run are examples of unpolished, alpha-quality software. Yeah, there's a replacement, but even ignoring what's been crippled, what it does do, it doesn't do as well as the old mature extension did.

- Caveat: This changeover did need to be done. None of the above changes could have been done without ripping out the old ecosystem entirely. Extensions had become the kudzu that kept healthy growth from happening.

Summary: This is the sort of work that Mozilla should have done ~5-7 years ago, back when Chrome was just starting to take off. Chrome ate Firefox's lunch because Firefox couldn't be arsed to look at the problems that people were complaining about. But Mozilla will still claim that Chrome's rise to prominence was solely due to Google leveraging it's ubiquitous presence on the web, and not because Mozilla got sloppy and lazy.

Re:Review and thoughts by Curupira · 2017-09-27 22:24 · Score: 1

Performance: *Vastly* improved, across the board. This is both in chrome and on web pages. These are all the speed improvements that should have been done 5 years ago, but they were too busy pretending desktop didn't matter (Firefox OS is the future!) or pretending user complaints weren't valid, and not putting in any effort to really measure the problem.
True, but it's not easy to compete with Google (Chrome UI) and Apple (Webkit*)-backed developers. What Mozilla is doing is a major overhaul of Firefox's architecture, and it took ages also because it is a difficult task.
I agree that they screwed-up when they decided to waste time and development workforce on Firefox OS, though. Faster and more secure code should've been their priority since webkit-based browsers arrived. If you have to catch-up with corporate behemots, better not to make major mistakes.
*Yeah, now Google have forked Webkit, but when Chrome arrived, it was the result of both Google and Apple (also, KDE with KHTML, which kickstarted it all).
Re:Review and thoughts by Rutulian · 2017-09-28 01:53 · Score: 2

This is the sort of work that Mozilla should have done ~5-7 years ago, back when Chrome was just starting to take off.

Mozilla has always been a bit on the slow side in development. The original Firefox took ages before it was finally released. Meanwhile the Netscape4/MSIE6 browser hell was going strong. I think Mozilla tends to spend a lot of time trying to design a good architecture and implement it. Hence their adoption of Rust, and using it to completely rewrite the ECMAScript engine. I don't think it has so much to do with not being arsed. Quick hackish workarounds are just not something they have historically done well, and yes, much of Chrome's early performance work were ugly hacks.
Re:Review and thoughts by Thiez · 2017-09-28 05:09 · Score: 1

Hence their adoption of Rust, and using it to completely rewrite the ECMAScript engine.
What are you talking about? As far as I'm aware nobody is working on rewriting Firefox's javascript in engine in Rust. Various other parts? Yes, but not IonMonkey.
Re:Review and thoughts by Rutulian · 2017-09-28 07:49 · Score: 1

Sorry, my bad. You are right. Other parts of Servo are written in Rust, but not the scripting engine. I think I was mixing that up with the work being done on things like WebAssembly, which is still very much an experimental playground.

Firefox ESR by tepples · 2017-09-27 14:44 · Score: 1

I think those who like security updates but hate change use Firefox ESR.

Re: Sheeple by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 15:20 · Score: 0

Cuz we're totally not at war or anything right now.

Okay, tempting. by aussersterne · 2017-09-27 16:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just for fun, I downloaded the beta and installed it on my Mac OS desktop (core i7-4770k, 32GB).

Two initial impressions:

1) SHIT it's fast.
2) The UI is neither ugly as sin nor weirdly laggy any longer.

Okay, I have been using Chrome for many years now, but this is tempting. I've always kept Firefox installed but rarely use it. But I have just added it to the dock. I can see myself starting it instead of Chrome just because it's so damned fast.

I don't track Firefox development at all, so I have/had no idea this was in the works. I'd never have believed it, I thought FF was effectively doomed. Call me at least initially convinced. Using it now to post this.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW

Re:Okay, tempting. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:50 · Score: 0

You must have not visited Slashdot within the past year either since this upcoming change has been talked about in the comments of every browser-based article. You almost sound like a paid post.
Re:Okay, tempting. by thegarbz · 2017-09-27 22:47 · Score: 2

It's interesting that you say "shit it's fast". Looking at the video posted by Mozilla it would appear to actually be slower than Chrome in half the cases. HOWEVER.... it seems to load content more on a first come first shown basis. Chrome seems to wait till it has loaded nearly everything to display it on the screen. Firefox appears to put the content up as it gets it.
Maybe that makes it perceptibly faster, but in terms of having a usable page it's nothing to write home about.... at least compared to other browsers, compared to itself it has taken a huge leap forward.
Re:Okay, tempting. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 23:29 · Score: 0

How can you be complaining about Firefox's UI being ugly as sin when you've been using Chrome?
Re:Okay, tempting. by Rutulian · 2017-09-28 02:07 · Score: 2

HOWEVER.... it seems to load content more on a first come first shown basis. Chrome seems to wait till it has loaded nearly everything to display it on the screen.
Arguably that's what you want, right? Why do I have to wait until all of the advertisements load before being able to scroll down to the content that I'm interested in? It might be one or two seconds slower in the final rendering on some pages, but that is probably irrelevant to most users.

it's nothing to write home about.... at least compared to other browsers
I think we will see as it gets more adoption. Being at least on par with Chrome (and in some cases better) is a pretty good achievement in my opinion. Safari and IE don't really compete in this space, so Chrome can use some real competition. Also, I kind of view this as the opening salvo. Once WebRender is more mature, that's going to bring additional improvements. And hopefully Mozilla will be able to bring back some of its more traditional strengths: customizability, security, developer-friendly, etc. Speed is important, but it is only one of many usability metrics.
Re:Okay, tempting. by thegarbz · 2017-09-28 04:09 · Score: 1

Arguably that's what you want, right?

Yes and no. While it's nice in some cases I often find myself seeing a website and trying to use it's controls before it finishes loading resulting in broken javascript requests and requiring a refresh.
It's even worse on touchscreens where the context of the input isn't captured, just the location, and that is then handled after the page loads resulting in me seeing a page, clicking on a link, the page finishing to load (including the advert) which then moves the page down because the advert is at the top and THEN the browser acting on a click in the wrong location. Bonus screw-you points if the click happened to land on another link and the wrong page opens as a result.

Being at least on par with Chrome (and in some cases better) is a pretty good achievement in my opinion.
I agree, speed is one of the reasons I moved away from Firefox. There was so much focus on memory that people forgot what was important. "look it uses less RAM than Chrome, hurrah" yeah but I don't care if it tries to load the entire internet into my RAM. I have 32GB for a reason. It'll be good to get Firefox back.
Re:Okay, tempting. by d0rp · 2017-09-28 05:18 · Score: 1

Arguably that's what you want, right? Why do I have to wait until all of the advertisements load before being able to scroll down to the content that I'm interested in? It might be one or two seconds slower in the final rendering on some pages, but that is probably irrelevant to most users.
Arguably, a lot of this is also controlled by how the page itself is coded. Good websites allow you to start interacting with the page immediately (well at least as soon as the minimum amount of stuff is loaded), and then load the rest of the page essentially "in the background", and progressively enhance the experience as the additional javascript, images, videos, advertisements and whatever else gets loaded.
Re:Okay, tempting. by Rutulian · 2017-09-28 07:53 · Score: 1

Sort of. Websites can control it to some extent, but the browser does most of the work. Part of the problem is that the browser has to layout the page as if all of the assets are present, even if they haven't been downloaded/rendered yet. Because redrawing the page ends up being much slower and more glitchy. It is generally good for websites to do as much asynchronous loading as possible, though, yes.

Hosts = FAR better & how/why by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 16:49 · Score: 0

UBlock can't do 14 things hosts do:

1.) Protect vs. bad sites (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. botnet C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. downed DNS (reliability)
4.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned/downed dns
5.) Protect vs. trackers
6.) Protect vs. spam payloads
7.) Protect vs. phish payloads
8.) Protect vs. caps
9.) Get past dns blocks
10.) Keep off dns request logs
11.) Speed up 2 ways (adblocks & hardcodes)
12.) Work on anything webbound multiplatform.
13.) Ez data edit
14.) Block ads more efficiently in cpu/ram/I-O use

* BEST hosts file maker = APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Hosts = native vs. illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" & not ClarityRay blockable like addons.

APK

P.S.=> Hosts (1st resolver) do MORE w/ less in fast kernelmode & before slow usermode addons

Hosts ~3mb vs. UBlock = 64MB -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

Re:Hosts = FAR better & how/why by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-27 17:20 · Score: 1

APK
Hmm. I suppose a benefit of the technical problems Slashdot has had in the last little is the happy side effect of blocking APK posts.
But it seems Slashdot really is back up and running now.

So wait by TheDarkener · 2017-09-27 17:01 · Score: 1

That brings us back to performance we had in the early Firefox days? I bet everyone could have saved a lot of time by just not adding bloat and focusing on FF's initial motivation (to split from Mozilla and be fast again) while adding value in other ways.

--
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

Re:So wait by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:48 · Score: 0

That brings us back to performance we had in the early Firefox days? I bet everyone could have saved a lot of time by just not adding bloat and focusing on FF's initial motivation (to split from Mozilla and be fast again) while adding value in other ways.
You mean, to split from Netscape, I assume? Mozilla is the organization developing and releasing Firefox. In fact, they had the Netscape source code but they threw it out early on mostly because of how bloated and messy it was.

<something>.enabled = false by fahrbot-bot · 2017-09-27 18:06 · Score: 1

It also builds in the Pocket bookmarking service ... A screenshot tool ...

Okay, as long as I can still disable them and any predictive DNS queries and page pre-loading/fetching and any other crap -- I mean *features* -- I'll never use or don't want leaking my browsing habits.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

A Quantum of Solace by Roger+W+Moore · 2017-09-27 18:11 · Score: 1

No, a quantum is literally the smallest possible amount or change of a quantity e.g the quantum of electric charge is a third the charge on an electron since quarks have electrical charges that are this small.

So when the summary says that "the upcoming version 57 is a quantum leap over predecessors" what it is literally saying is that it is the smallest possible increment over predecessors. So perhaps a little truth in advertizing managed to slip through the hype-laden buzz of scientific words they clearly don't know the meaning of offering, perhaps, a quantum of solace.

Re:A Quantum of Solace by serviscope_minor · 2017-09-27 19:46 · Score: 1

Pedantry aside that's not how it's used colloquially and it has a different interpretation too.
A quantum leap is when an electron transistions from one state to another without moving across all the points in between (which you already know).
So when the summary says that "the upcoming version 57 is a quantum leap over predecessors" what it is literally saying is that it is in a new state compared to it's predecessor without taking the time to make all the steps inbetween.
The colloquial use of quantum leap is a reference to the instantaneous nature of the jump to a new state, not a reference to the size of the jump.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:A Quantum of Solace by RockDoctor · 2017-09-28 07:22 · Score: 1

Pedantry aside that's not how it's used colloquially and it has a different interpretation too.
That's their problem, not ours.
Yes, I am dichotomising the world. No, I'm not apologetic about it.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

What technical problems? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 18:12 · Score: 0

See subject: I was offline for the last 2 days (busy w/ other things in life, it happens - rarely). What tech problems did /. have? I have to say 1 thing on its uptime - it's always stayed up pretty solid since I started looking @ /. in 2005 or so to present.

* I have to say that having seen this site go thru 3 different ownerships, it's always been solid (even the 'beta' stuff DICE did but it never affected me - I used hosts to get around it, never even saw or used it (& I don't use script either here so that probably had much to do w/ it - there's good things about being AC like I do it - I don't depend on scriptage).

APK

P.S.=> In fact, I can't recall it ever being "down" here (or really have MASSIVE "technical issues") in fact over that timeframe & unless anyone can fill me in otherwise, that may mean it's SO RARE I didn't even consider remembering it or it just 'washed away' in time & became an insignificant occurence that's so rare it wasn't worth remembering for me... apk

Install base shrunken too much? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:00 · Score: 1

Too bad that mozilla already heavily alienated it's userbase, and this update cannot capture back market share, because many people don't start firefox anymore and won't notice this improvement.

Re:If my extensions stop working I'm going to Chro by serviscope_minor · 2017-09-27 20:01 · Score: 1

Firefox has implemented WebExtensions which is the same API as Chrome, so many Chrome extensions should work on firefox. I'd give those a chance too.

Chances are though there'll be a knock to firefox 57 for a bit (stay on LTS for a while) and it'll then pick up to be similar to Chrome. Firefox are already extending the WebExtensions API beyond what chrome offer in order to keep some of the major plugins working. I suspect they're taking the sensible attitude of "make it run at all" (while the LTS one still exists) then "make it run well".

That's not a bad way to make such a major change.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

Re: Hosts files do more than both for less by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:29 · Score: 0

Yeah they work great on my PC.
How to use one on iPhone?

Re:If my extensions stop working I'm going to Chro by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:53 · Score: 0

I just upgraded Thunderbird, and every single extension I use either is greyed out, or has "legacy" in big red letters next to it.

I gave up on Firefox a long time ago, and now it looks like I have to give up on Thuderbird.

Not tempting. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 20:54 · Score: 0

You are wrong: 57 (and 58 nightly) still have the same insane UI-experiment (including pocket) we know from the neverending experiments of Mozilla to alienate it's remaining userbase.

Re:Hosts do more than both for less (by far) by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 21:20 · Score: 0

I like to use both a good h0sts and browser extensions. This machine is more than fast enough that any "inefficiencies" caused by browser extensions is not humanly perceptible. I consider this an acceptable (favorable) trade-off.

Note the h0sts I use is not generated by your program. There are lots of good freely available blocking files. Plus I don't use Windows. And I frankly suspect you are mentally unstable (sorry) which is not a good way to advocate that users trust your closed-source software. Those are cold hard facts, not meant to be offensive yet not meant to be inoffensive either, just true. But I will agree that a comprehensive h0sts is definitely a useful part of a multi-layered (read: effective) security strategy. You know, the kind based on realistic threat models? A h0sts comes with all the limitations of any other relatively-coarse blacklist but like any *good* blacklist, it'll instantly remove a huge chunk of the worst troublemakers.

The difficulty is in producing the data, the actual list of known h0sts. Many sites offer this for free. A program that concatenates (and maybe uniq's) a few text files is no great accomplishment. I can do that with a single Bash command. It's nothing. You're seriously not normal.

I still can't comprehend rationally how you've made your own personal religion around what should be a straightforward technical matter. Did you fail to anticipate that your ideal use-case may not be universal, that perhaps different users have different goals and needs? For one thing they don't all run Windows. For all your posts, you're conspicuously silent about cross-platform uses.

I use tons of useful programs written by many different (open source) authors around the world. None of them anti-advocate their software the way that you do. (having to write it as "h0sts" because congrats, you've given Slashdot admin cause to go crazy with their lameness filter)

Re:Hosts do more than both for less (by far) by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-27 21:26 · Score: 0

Cue typical A..P...K (lameness filter) reply about who he assumes this AC is (this month) and how many "great victories" he's had lately ... anything other than addressing the substance of a well-reasoned post.

Soon I'll have to write a post that says only "prediction fulfilled".

To late.. by CptLoRes · 2017-09-28 00:08 · Score: 2

After many years sticking with Firefox, I figured since they seem hell bent on emulating Chrome, I might as well just use Chrome. And let's face it. For better or worse, Chrome is a much better Chrome then Firefox.. So it is going to take a lot to switch me back again at this stage.

Chrome Apps by sirber · 2017-09-28 00:50 · Score: 1

I really like Chrome's "make a web page act like a desktop application". No other browser can do that yet.

--
Be or ben't

Watched a video.... by MerlTurkin · 2017-09-28 01:26 · Score: 1

Of a comparison between quantum and Chrome. Not really all that much speed difference. A few seconds here and there but nothing Earth shattering.

I did some reading. Not much, by aussersterne · 2017-09-28 02:16 · Score: 1

but it would appear that the new rendering is optimized for multi-core, so it's possible that the YouTube video was run on a two-core machine (I'm on four) or that it had a slower clock speed per core (multiplication factor of clock speed increase with multiple cores when code can take advantage of them efficiently).

In any case, I can say that on the sites that I regularly visit, it's clearly faster to render the whole page in most cases I've tried so far. I work in SaaS these days, so I spend a lot of time in a browser (and will still have to spend a lot of time in Chrome regardless). But with the number of hours that I'm working in a browser every day right now, I have a pretty good complacency going on, and this beta definitely knocked me out of my complacency, especially compared to my usual experience of Firefox (average on render speed, with slow, choppy UI elements).

I'm on 1Gb fiber and most major brand pages give me a pretty complete render in less than a second on an i7-4770k and achieve interactivity within 2-3 seconds tops and the UI elements feel native. Not checking for when all resources have completed load on a page, as that's often irrelevant to UX. But the experience of using for actual browsing it is that it's blazingly fast, at least in my reckoning. I used it for another couple of hours last night and I'm using it again right now and I'm impressed.

Now we'll see about stability...

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW

Two decades ago I read Slashdot religiously. by aussersterne · 2017-09-28 02:18 · Score: 1

The last five years? I stop by once every couple of months, just because.

So no, I haven't visited in a few weeks, and when I do visit now and then, I just page through maybe the first 10-15 items in the scroll and then move on. It's usually a matter of boredom that brings me in.

I almost scrolled right past this story, because in my mind, Firefox has been effectively dead for years.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW

What's insane about it? by aussersterne · 2017-09-28 02:20 · Score: 2

Missed a lot on this, so fill me in.

I wasn't a fan of the old UI code (I'm grokking that it's been replaced?) because it made the UI elements slow and choppy to render and react to clicks. It felt like using Linux+X in 1999, even on modern hardware.

This UI feels fast and native, and it's also much cleaner and doesn't do half-assed things like stretch images and icons in the UI out of aspect ratio or scale them without anti-aliasing, which always made me snicker about the old default UI.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW

As far as I'm concerned, by aussersterne · 2017-09-28 02:21 · Score: 1

Chrome is the gold standard.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW

Goal by slapout · 2017-09-28 02:57 · Score: 1

Are browser speeds a real problem today?

--
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad

Tried the beta by JohnFen · 2017-09-28 03:30 · Score: 4, Informative

I tried the beta, and I have to say... it's not as terrible as I feared.

Personally, I honestly couldn't care less about the performance increases (I'm sure they're there, but I didn't notice them). I was concerned about two things:

1) That there wouldn't be NoScript. There currently isn't -- and that's why I'm not yet going to use the Beta as anything but a curiosity -- but apparently there will be. Assuming that no features will be lost in the port, that will be a showstopper removed.

2) That the UI was going to be unfixably horrible. I absolutely detest the current UI of Firefox (and Chrome), but I could fix the problem with Firefox by using Classic Theme Restorer -- an extension that can't be ported to the new plugin scheme.

My fear was that Firefox would keep a similar UI as it had been using, but without any way of fixing it. That would be a showstopper. But, as it turns out, the Beta UI is much improved, and I can fix the things that I still find irritating using the built-in options. So I'm happy.

I may be able to stay with Firefox after all! And that makes me even happier.

Re:Tried the beta by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:58 · Score: 0

What about tabs control? Is Vivaldi the only browser that will allow a vertical tree of tabs?
Re:Tried the beta by JohnFen · 2017-09-28 08:09 · Score: 1

I don't know. Out of the box, the tabs look like they work the same as always. I don't know if there are extensions that change that (it's not something that is important to me, so I didn't look).
Re:Tried the beta by Tim+Locke · 2017-09-28 10:12 · Score: 1

The Tree Style Tab addon is compatible with FF57

--
*** On the Internet, no one knows you're using a VIC-20

Re:If my extensions stop working I'm going to Chro by thejynxed · 2017-09-28 04:08 · Score: 1

Uh, that's because at least in the case of theme, it doesn't need that cruft functionality as an extension because it already has a theme engine as part of the browser. I'm running a dark Chrome theme with custom tab sizes and icons as we speak. As for sidebars, I don't think those even exist in Chrome the way Firefox has them and never has (and ultimately they aren't useful for this browser anyhow). That leaves WebRequest API and that's so minor the majority of users won't notice nor care.

--
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.

Firefox already best for linux by dabrowsa · 2017-09-28 04:14 · Score: 1

I've never seen it noted that on linux Chrome is a dog: a slow, greedy, system-sapping vampire. Moreover on linux Firefox runs the Google docs pages better than Chrome. I use Chrome as little as possible.

--
`Perche non reggi tu, o sacra fame de l'oro,l'appetito de' mortali?'

Re:If my extensions stop working I'm going to Chro by theweatherelectric · 2017-09-28 04:18 · Score: 1

That leaves WebRequest API and that's so minor the majority of users won't notice nor care.

It's fundamental functionality for ad and script blocking add-ons which are among the most popular add-ons. Blockers work better in Firefox precisely because of its extensions to WebRequest. Read the articles I linked to.

If speed is an issue... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 05:25 · Score: 0

If speed is an issue, what we *REALLY* need is to get rid of all the cr*p that pages want us to download beyond the actual content. My usual speed complaints are not with basic rendering but with a) excessive extraneous images, fillers, "fluff" that are supposed to make pages "stylish", b) overly scripted pages to add "features" that don't really add to content or usefulness, c) calls to slow, third-party (usually ad) sites that have to be looked up and downloaded

Re: Sheeple by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 07:33 · Score: 0

LUL. 99% of Americans were self employed.

Hosts do more than both for less (by far) by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:41 · Score: 0

Hosts do more than both for less (by far): Compared to UBlock (or AlmostALLAdsBlocked) e.g. https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55267683/ hosts do FAR more for FAR less & NoScript has to parse pages for script tags - hosts can block script sources LONG before that (for far less CPU & I/O expense).

* No need to wait for "ports" to new API's either - hosts are NATIVE to your IP stack & you have one already!

APK

P.S.=> To populate it, best tool for it is by "yours truly" APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Hosts stop BOTH better vs. addons by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:50 · Score: 0

See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.

Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

* Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

APK

P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

Hosts files do more than both for less by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 08:57 · Score: 0

Hosts do more than both for less (by far): Compared to UBlock (or AlmostALLAdsBlocked) e.g. https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55267683/ hosts do FAR more for FAR less & NoScript has to parse pages for script tags - hosts can block script sources LONG before that (for far less CPU & I/O expense).

* No need to wait for "ports" to new API's either - hosts are NATIVE to your IP stack & you have one already!

APK

P.S.=> To populate it, best tool for it is by "yours truly" APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ ... apk

Hosts files do more than both for less by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 09:08 · Score: 0

Hosts do more than both for less (by far): Compared to UBlock (or AlmostALLAdsBlocked) e.g. https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55267683/ hosts do FAR more for FAR less & NoScript has to parse pages for script tags - hosts can block script sources LONG before that (for far less CPU & I/O expense).

* No need to wait for "ports" to new API's either - hosts are NATIVE to your IP stack & you have hosts already!

APK

P.S.=> To populate it, best tool for it is by "yours truly" APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ ... apk

Hosts files do more than both for less by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 09:14 · Score: 0

Hosts do more than both for less (by far): Compared to UBlock (or AlmostALLAdsBlocked) e.g. https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55267683/ hosts do FAR more for FAR less & NoScript has to parse pages for script tags - hosts can block script sources LONG before that (for far less CPU & I/O expense).

* No need to wait for "ports" to new API's either - hosts are NATIVE to your IP stack & you have hosts already!

APK

P.S.=> Best tool to populate hosts is by "yours truly" APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ ... apk

Addons = exploitable/blockable/illogical by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 09:35 · Score: 0

See subject & AmiMijo data on addons being highly exploitable https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55266729/ & ClarityRay (uses native browser methods to detect which addons you use & blocks them).

Some addons DO NOT WORK by default (which most users won't change) fully BRIBED NOT TO WORK vs. ADS http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboola-pay-adblock-plus-to-stop-blocking-their-ads-2015-2/

* FACT: Addons don't do as much as hosts do YET USE FAR MORE (not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM BY THEMSELVES unless you 'stack some' creating slowness & inefficiency as I noted in my other reply to you WITH PROOF https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55269607/ )

What really stood out is YOUR ERROR regarding my program doing all that's needed from the BEST security community sources for hosts data - a program YOU couldn't produce yourself equivalent to 15++ *NIX commands & GUI (roughly) + EZ to use vs. script CRAP!

Lastly, considering the "best YOU had" was downmod hiding my replies to you 3x? Make me laugh - I just repost, run you dry of your "downmodpoints" leaving "your kind" with EGG ON THEIR FACES, lol!

APK

P.S.=> Your "layered-security = COMPROMISED & inferior + total "ILLOGIC LOGIC" via using MORE & doing LESS (lol) right there (& you try call ME 'crazy'? Please, lol)... apk

Unidentifiable anonymous worm eat your words by Anonymous Coward · 2017-09-28 09:44 · Score: 0

See subject & 2 posts that BLOW YOU AWAY easily via facts & proofs https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55272375/ & https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55269607/

* Of course I also KNOW you're the same UNIDENTIFIABLE FOOL replying to himself to make it appear as if you are "support" for yourself too, lol...

APK

P.S.=> Do you REALLY honestly think you're fooling ANYONE but YOURSELF? Good luck proving those posts wrong (never will happen & you KNOW it) LMAO - ALL YOU HAD WAS EFFETE "downmodpoints" to try "hide" my replies that CRUSHED YOU, lol, easily... apk

Quantum is a memory pig by Anonymous Coward · 2017-10-09 23:49 · Score: 0

Quantum is a memory pig! I installed it, used it for a while, found out the x32 version of Quantum was just a memory pig like the x64 veersion of Quantum, or the older x64 version of Firefox.

So I went back to the older x32 version of Firefox, which is positively thrifty on memory.

On a 2GB media center machine, I can open 30 pages with Firefox x32 before running out of memory. Using Quantum, I can open a total of 3 pages and I'm out of memory.

So yeah, Quantum is kind of a memory pig like Chrome. Chrome is even worse, it will thrash your harddrive to death...

Slashdot Mirror

Mozilla's 'Firefox Quantum' Browser Challenges Chrome In Speed (cnet.com)

297 comments