Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 57 Brings Better Sandboxing on Linux (bleepingcomputer.com)

Posted by msmash on from the what-to-know dept.

Catalin Cimpanu, writing for BleepingComputer: Firefox 57, set to be released tomorrow, will ship with improvements to the browser's sandbox security feature for Linux users. The Firefox sandboxing feature isolates the browser from the operating system in a way to prevent web attacks from using a vulnerability in the browser engine and its legitimate functions to attack the underlying operating system, place malware on the filesystem, or steal local files. Chrome has always run inside a sandbox. Initially, Firefox ran only a few plugins inside a sandbox -- such as Flash, DRM, and other multimedia encoding plugins.

84 of 124 comments (clear)

  1. Firefoxalypse by freeze128 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I dread updating to Firefox 57, because it will break all of my plugins.

    1. Re: Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Firefox develops gave plenty of notice of this change, allowing add-on developers lots of time to upgrade and ensure their add-ons still work. This increases the speed of the browser dramatically. Don't blame the Firefox developers who are creating a better product. Blame the lazy add-on developers who haven't upgraded their add-ons. Alternatively, use an ESR release. Regardless, stop whining.

    2. Re: Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only waterfox has no problem being both fast and support xul pluggins.

      Yoi call people who have developed a fully functional codebase lazy because the don't adjust their priorities in line with a dick move.

    3. Re: Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But Mozilla has removed APIs so many of the plugins are impossible to implement again.

    4. Re:Firefoxalypse by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

      then run the LTS for a while. AFAICT, the plan is they're going to increase the featureset available to plugins afer 57.0. with luck what you want will mostly be available by the time the LTS expires.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re: Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it matters that much to you, volunteer your own time, fork Firefox 56, and maintain it yourself. Firefox is open source so you have the freedom to do that. Anything else is whining and making demands of other people's time when they have no obligation to you. Stop complaining and fork Firefox if you care so much.

    6. Re: Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Insufficient edginess; return to sender.

    7. Re:Firefoxalypse by nmb3000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I dread updating to Firefox 57, because it will break all of my plugins.

      Apparently some editions of version 57 will continue to support "legacy" (bootstrap, XUL, etc) addons via a preference setting, including the developer and unbranded versions. This might be an option if you really want to upgrade to 57 but still want your addons.

      Personally 56 is the end of the Firefox line for me. I completely reject the horrible Australis interface and the push towards the gimped and incapable Chrome-style Web Extensions. Firefox had a good run, but its Chromification is now complete and there's little reason to continue using it.

      Waterfox or Pale Moon will probably be my Firefox replacement. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions on migrating to one of them?

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    8. Re: Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Firefox develops gave plenty of notice of this change, allowing add-on developers lots of time to upgrade and ensure their add-ons still work. ...

      The amount of advance notice is irrelevant. The fact that the switch to Web Extensions is being driven by the calendar rather than the readiness of the software is the problem.

      The new add-on interface still lacks functionality. There are many things that a Web Extension simply can't do, but that can be done by traditional Firefox add-ons. To add insult to injury, the Mozilla team isn't treating these gaps as a high priority. Their attitude seems to be "tell us what you're missing and maybe we'll add it later."

      Alternatively, use an ESR release.

      That would be a more useful suggestion if Firefox 56 was the ESR. But it's not -- they're using an older version. I may be willing to stand still, but I'm not interested in going backwards.

    9. Re:Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've heard this so many times it seems like Chrome/Edge propaganda now. Why so negative on the visuals of the browser? WHO GIVES A FLIPPITY DO DAH what the browser looks like? Is that REALLY the criteria you judge software on? The shape of the buttons and tabs?

      Fine, quit Firefox, but they are adding more and more support for privacy while all the other browsers are removing it or don't give to diddly flips about it. Hand over your data to GOOGLE using a chrome WHICH LOOKS LIKE AUSTRALIS ANYWAYS!

      *Caps for emphasis on the total idiocy of these kinds of remarks.

      Repeat after me, ditching software A because it's ugly for software B that is also ugly is stupid logic.

    10. Re: Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that Waterfox is not its own browser, it's wholly reliant on whatever the Firefox developers do. Once they stop overworking themselves by maintaining Firefox's legacy while updating it, and just pull out those bits, Waterfox will be fucked. Daydreaming about how easy it is to maintain XUL is just not going to get it done. There is no covert army of coders just waiting to take up the torch; if such a team existed they would have fixed the problems before things got to this point.

      The whole "lazy" angle is just plain insulting, too. Do you honestly not realize that Firefox could have dropped this legacy stuff before they spend the last year overworking themselves to bring the engine up to speed? It would have made things easier, but they wanted to give us more time to find out how to port our legacy addons. The only people still bitching about it now are the people who never put in any effort to do so, and just feel entitled to having someone else make their niche APIs for them.

    11. Re:Firefoxalypse by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Even this sandbox is broken, as it breaks any non-trivial audio that requires a plugin.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    12. Re:Firefoxalypse by ArhcAngel · · Score: 2

      I've been using Waterfox for several years as my default browser. I keep a copy of Google IE6...er I mean Chrome for those web sites that employ less than compliant coding. I originally ran it on my Windows 7 gaming PC but now have it running on my Mint and Android devices as well. While purely anecdotal I feel like Waterfox is much faster than Firefox and comparable to Chrome in most regards. I haven't tried Pale Moon for a couple of years so I can't say how it compares to Waterfox currently.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    13. Re: Firefoxalypse by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      Only waterfox has no problem being both fast and support xul pluggins.

      Do you have benchmarks to prove it? I'd like to see the numbers on latest Waterfox versus Firefox 57, comparing both with and without add-ons installed.

    14. Re: Firefoxalypse by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Informative

      Out of 37 extensions I use, there are WebExt equivalents for, *drumroll* 11. That much only because I spent some time looking for replacements.

      APIs that would be required to reimplement those extensions aren't even coded yet, and any code that gets merged (which usually takes months) needs additional 18 weeks to percolate into an unstable ("non-ESR") release. With Firefox 52 EOL in June, the chances enough of extensions required for sane use will be ready by then are about nil. And the default, with nothing for privacy but tons of junk like Pocket or Telemetry, is almost as far from sanity as Chromium.

      I guess it's time to look into packaging Waterfox or another fork.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    15. Re:Firefoxalypse by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      Personally 56 is the end of the Firefox line for me. I completely reject the horrible Australis interface and the push towards the gimped and incapable Chrome-style Web Extensions. Firefox had a good run, but its Chromification is now complete and there's little reason to continue using it.

      Same here, even though I didn't have a problem with Australis, so I'll stick with ESR for a few months and then move to Pale Moon. There's an Adblock Plus XUL-based fork for Pale Moon, so everything is ready for the move.

    16. Re:Firefoxalypse by theweatherelectric · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's an Adblock Plus XUL-based fork for Pale Moon

      Adblock Plus works in Firefox 57. Personally, I use uBlock Origin.

    17. Re:Firefoxalypse by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why don't you just go back to the still maintained Seamonkey suite? It supports all the best FF extensions.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    18. Re: Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not that they removed them, but they simply haven't (or won't) implement them. The reason, as far as I can tell, is that they refuse to admit that there are better (or simply different) ways to design the interface.

    19. Re: Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's great, except for the part where some plugins CANNOT be implemented under the new API.

      And the part where a whole ecosystem of perfectly good extensions created by volunteers for free is being discarded without a viable replacement for many of them.

    20. Re: Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you want to stay at v56 a while, which is what I plan to do until the whole extension clusterfuck gets sorted out:

      sudo apt-mark hold firefox firefox-locale-en

      I don't use as many extensions as you, but still a solid half of the 12 or so I use have no v57 version, and many of them can't given the API limitations.

      This thing is being pushed out too early. First reach feature parity, THEN ship it.
      .

    21. Re:Firefoxalypse by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Seamonkey is dead in the water. Once XUL support is removed it will be gone.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    22. Re:Firefoxalypse by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Is that REALLY the criteria you judge software on? The shape of the buttons and tabs?

      YES. The size of buttons and other UI elements, the colourfulness and skilfulness of the icon design to make icons clear and pretty, and the fact that the UI functionality is even there in the first place (bookmarks sidebar, separate search bar, status bar, live bookmarks toolbar, etc.) are all important.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    23. Re: Firefoxalypse by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I guess it's time to look into packaging Waterfox or another fork.

      Pale Moon has come a long way, the compatibility issues and frequent crashes are both gone.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Firefoxalypse by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"Why so negative on the visuals of the browser? WHO GIVES A FLIPPITY DO DAH what the browser looks like? Is that REALLY the criteria you judge software on? The shape of the buttons and tabs?"

      It is not just how it looks but how it operates. Some of us want tabs on bottom. Some of us want sane, traditional "file" menus for fast access and easy training. Some of us want a status bar. Some of us want predictable forward, back, reload, and home buttons that are together, don't disappear in context, or are not combined into some moving monster. It is a lot more than just the tabs being curved.

      I agree with the whiners that claim they will "move to Chrome" which is, in no way, a suitable replacement (or logical argument). It has the same sucky UI that people don't want to use but ALSO is far more proprietary, has far less user control, and has all kinds of Google-isms built in.

      There are alternatives such as Pale Moon, or Waterfox... but even that move can be very painful depending on circumstances (we are not just talking about techie-home-users). And it is unclear if those will ever gain the ACTUAL improvements Mozilla has added to Firefox for performance, memory usage, and security.

    25. Re:Firefoxalypse by roca · · Score: 1

      Good thing those are all still there in 57 then. (Except maybe live bookmarks; I'm not sure about that.)

    26. Re:Firefoxalypse by nmb3000 · · Score: 1

      Why so negative on the visuals of the browser?

      Aside from the fact that I find it subjectively ugly, I dislike it because I think the design is unusable outside of a very base case of 2-4 tabs. Tabs-on-top is also a huge pain in the ass when using Remote Desktop or anything else that puts a bar along the top of the screen. It also goes against all OS design guidelines by removing the window title bar and system menus which makes muscle memory around those UI elements worthless. I could go on, but it doesn't really matter.

      Is that REALLY the criteria you judge software on? The shape of the buttons and tabs?

      Of course. These UI elements are the only way to interact with the application. Would you complain if the steering wheel of your car was changed to a cube and the brake and accelerator moved to toggle switches on the dashboard? After all these are just the shape and position of a few controls. So far I've been content to fix these problems using a UI addon, but every single one of those is made non-functional in version 57.

      Hand over your data to GOOGLE using a chrome WHICH LOOKS LIKE AUSTRALIS ANYWAYS!

      Which is why I would never switch to Chrome. I do have to use it occasionally as the "modern" web is becoming a "Works best with IE ^H^H Chrome" clusterfuck, but every time I do I'm just reminded why it sucks.

      After using Firefox for 15 years, watching it turn into a mini-me of Chrome is soul-crushing. Honestly, I'm really hoping that the 57 fiasco will either spawn a viable fork that puts the browser back on the right path, or pushes more development resources towards Gecko alternatives like Waterfox.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    27. Re:Firefoxalypse by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      Some of us want sane, traditional "file" menus

      The menus are in Firefox on Windows. Turn on the Menu Bar via the Hamburger menu -> Customize -> Toolbars options (or press F10 to turn them on and then select View -> Toolbars -> Menu Bar to keep them on).

      Some of us want predictable forward, back, reload, and home buttons that are together, don't disappear in context, or are not combined into some moving monster.

      That's how Firefox 57's UI is working for me. I use the Light theme (one of the three themes included in Firefox 57 by default) with the Compact density setting. See the Customize settings page.

      And it is unclear if those will ever gain the ACTUAL improvements Mozilla has added to Firefox for performance, memory usage, and security.

      So just use Firefox and customize the UI CSS if you really want to.

    28. Re:Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Noscript is still flagged Legacy. I won't upgrade until it's available.

      I run Adblock Plus, Ublock Origin, and Noscript. They're all turned up to 11, and they still manage to block different things.

    29. Re:Firefoxalypse by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      It also goes against all OS design guidelines by removing the window title bar and system menus

      You can turn on the Menu Bar in Firefox via the UI Customize settings (Hamburger menu -> Customize) or by pressing F10 to turn them on and selecting View -> Toolbars -> Menu Bar to keep them on.

      So far I've been content to fix these problems using a UI addon, but every single one of those is made non-functional in version 57.

      You can customize the UI via the built-in Customize settings. You can also modify the UI CSS if you really want to.

      watching it turn into a mini-me of Chrome is soul-crushing. Honestly, I'm really hoping that the 57 fiasco

      Firefox isn't a mini-me of Chrome and there is no fiasco. Relax. Don't worry, be happy. You'll feel better.

    30. Re: Firefoxalypse by uncqual · · Score: 2

      freeze128 doesn't appear to be demanding anything of anyone. He is just observing that he dreads upgrading (just as I observed that I won't be upgrading and will be switching browsers).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    31. Re:Firefoxalypse by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      I can click on 'minimize memory' which resolves

      Sounds like you've got add-on problems. You should see if the problem persists with all add-ons disabled and maybe reset to a clean profile if you've been changing about:config settings (see about:support).

    32. Re:Firefoxalypse by uncqual · · Score: 1

      But, people who are already running 56 have no trivial LTS option - in a recent release (54?) Mozilla declared that backwards compatibility is not supported (I'd check the release notes again but find them extremely hard/counter-intuitive to find on the new FF website design - apparently it's focused on looking "cool" and trying to "sell" rather than focusing on trying to be functional and on providing information). Sure, you could reenter all your passwords, export/import your bookmarks (to some non FF format?), etc. -- but one might as well try other browsers at that point since it seems likely that Mozilla's poor planning, coupled with a lack of developer enthusiasm for developing/testing extensions for a browser with declining market and mind share, will mean that LTS will expire without a proper set of extensions available for a 57+ version.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    33. Re:Firefoxalypse by uncqual · · Score: 1

      I've considered doing that, but since the problem cropped up simultaneously with the install of 56 and without any upgrades to add-ons (I don't allow automatic upgrades), I figure that probably isn't worth my time given that the lack of add-ons I want in 57 mean I'll be abandoning FF anyway -- small odds of buying a few more weeks or couple months (before some security problem goes unfixed in obsoleted 56) isn't worth the effort.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    34. Re:Firefoxalypse by uncqual · · Score: 1

      (I forgot to mention also, I don't screw around with about:config settings hardly ever -- and certainly not in the past couple of years).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    35. Re:Firefoxalypse by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      I figure that probably isn't worth my time

      It's trivial to do. Go to about:support and click on "Restart with Add-ons Disabled" to run Firefox in safe mode. When you're finished with safe mode, exit Firefox and run it up again normally. There isn't much effort required.

    36. Re:Firefoxalypse by Trogre · · Score: 1

      So what do you plan to do? Fork the FF 55 codebase, or start your own browser engine from scratch?

      If it's the latter, please be kind enough to share it with the rest of us.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    37. Re:Firefoxalypse by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Probably sell out and switch to Chrome -- but I've not spent much time in it so plans could change (the only time I use it now is when some web site, unfortunately more frequent recently, doesn't work in FF but does in Chrome - presumably because the site doesn't bother to test as well on FF any more).

      But, nope, I'm not forking FF 55 and taking it over :) That's not the sort of system or code (or politics) I enjoy working on.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    38. Re:Firefoxalypse by jon3k · · Score: 1

      As a long time Chrome user I've been running Firefox Nightly on both Linux (Fedora 26) personally and on Windows at work, and it has been absolutely fantastic. The only plugins I use are: uBlock, RES, Vimium and Tab Session Manager but it has been wonderful so far. I have 40+ tabs open at any time and I haven't had a single issue, it's really been fantastic. The performance has been extremely good. The only caveat is that it seems to put tabs to "sleep" in the sense that if you don't use it for quite a while, when you flip back it has to reload the page. But this has really been a non-issue for me so far.

      As long as you can find a comparable plugin to what you've been using I can wholeheartedly recommend it.

    39. Re: Firefoxalypse by jon3k · · Score: 1

      37 Extensions? I didn't even know there were that many. Mind sharing a list?

    40. Re:Firefoxalypse by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Aside from the fact that I find it subjectively ugly, I dislike it because I think the design is unusable outside of a very base case of 2-4 tabs. Tabs-on-top is also a huge pain in the ass when using Remote Desktop or anything else that puts a bar along the top of the screen. It also goes against all OS design guidelines by removing the window title bar and system menus which makes muscle memory around those UI elements worthless. I could go on, but it doesn't really matter.

      You can hide the connection bar. There's also Tree Style Tabs.

    41. Re: Firefoxalypse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The real danger is that once these users try Chrome, even with only a subset of their preferred extensions, they'll see how much faster it is than Firefox and won't want to switch back to Firefox. I've tried the Firefox 57 betas and they're still noticeably slower than Chrome. It was possible to put up with Firefox's slowness when it still supported lots of useful extensions. But with that benefit disappearing there will be no reason to use Firefox, and actually a lot of reasons to not use it.

    42. Re: Firefoxalypse by doom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blame the lazy add-on developers who haven't upgraded their add-ons.

      Let me enlighten you about a secret of software projects: if you want to be taken seriously as a platform for third-party developers, breakage-on-upgrade is never acceptable. And accusing them of being lazy is an excellent way of driving them away.

      Alternatively, use an ESR release.

      Which staves off the problem only temporarily. I would suggest the waterfox fork, or possibly palemoon.

      Regardless, stop whining.

      You first.

    43. Re: Firefoxalypse by doom · · Score: 1

      This 'fuck off and die' attitude of yours is why projects like Firefox and Gnome are dying.

      It sure doesn't help.

    44. Re: Firefoxalypse by doom · · Score: 1

      Yup. Is there an equivalent for "It's All Text" yet?

    45. Re: Firefoxalypse by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      The developer of It's All Text recommends emacs chrome or GhostText.

    46. Re:Firefoxalypse by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Noscript, instead of all the grandstanding is apparently simply not portable. The functionality needed in the API does not exist.

      In before a bunch of knights in shining armour start quoting Noscript's author from months ago. Yeah, he said it might be possible and that it was a high priority to firefox team themselves to get it working. And even with that level of support, it still hasn't been done. Draw the relevant conclusions and understand you're being lied to.

    47. Re:Firefoxalypse by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      You can add the title bar back through the UI customization.

      It's almost as if you haven't actually made any effort, and jumped straight to baseless complaints instead.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    48. Re:Firefoxalypse by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Why both ABP and uBO? They overlap completely. Replace ABP with Privacy Badger instead.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    49. Re: Firefoxalypse by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      AdBlock Plus (the WebExt version is useless, BTW), bug489729. CanvasBlocker, Classic Theme Restorer, Cookie Monster, Decentraleyes, DNSSEC/TLSA Validator, Download Status Bar, some poo Youtube downloader I won't grace with naming, Font Information, Google Privacy, google-no-tracking-url, Html Validator, HTTP/2 Indicator, HTTPS Everywhere, I don't care about cookies, Iceweasel Branding, KeysDisable, Last tab close button, No Coin, Open in Browser, OverbiteFF, Perspectives, Privacy Settings, RequestPolicy Continued, RequestPolicy Sync, RightToClick, Sage, SixOrNot, Smart Referer, Stylus, TinEye Reverse Image Search, Translate This, U2F Support, View as text, YesScript.

      And I don't consider myself extension-heavy, compared to other users I have seen.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    50. Re: Firefoxalypse by jon3k · · Score: 1

      I lost it at OverbiteFF, I've actually played with that before.

      Seriously, how many do you actually need though? Two or three?

    51. Re: Firefoxalypse by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how many do you actually need though? Two or three?

      Need: AdBlock Plus, bug489729, Classic Theme Restorer (for sane UI), Cookie Monster, DNSSEC/TLSA Validator, I don't care about cookies (EU sites are useless otherwise), Open in Browser (you can't view a goddamn diff otherwise!!!1!elebenty-one!), RequestPolicy, Sage, YesScript (too many sites have anti-AdBlock javascript).

      Want for privacy: Canvas Blocker, Decentraleyes, Google Privacy, google-no-tracking-url, Smart Referer.

      The rest merely make life nicer. And indeed, OverbiteFF is dead weight.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    52. Re: Firefoxalypse by G00F · · Score: 1

      WOW! You are the second person I know to have more than 10ish. I know one person with 20's and they claim to be a plugin addict. I have 10, and think that's on the higher side. I set most people up with uBlock or Disconnect and that's it.

      Going over your extentions, some appear to duplicate what already exists. Examples: can use google to translate page. Can shift click to force right click. Seams many of your plugins wouldn't be needed if you used NoScript.

      FF 57 with no NoScript, ment that I use Pale Moon with NoScript + uBlock as a minimum until NoScript released for FF.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    53. Re: Firefoxalypse by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Sadly, a majority of web pages are unusable or seriously degraded with NoScript. Even Slashdot is uncomfortable to read.

      That's why I use RequestPolicy to kill most third-party stuff, but default to allowing first-party scripts. Certain offenders then get smacked down with YesScript.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  2. Re:Not in Munich though by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Year of the Windows desktop!

  3. Download Link... by unique_parrot · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/fir...

  4. A question for Mozilla by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it called "Firefox 57" because that's how many users are left?

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:A question for Mozilla by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Is it called "Firefox 57" because that's how many users are left?

      I thought it was homage to Wesley Snipes Passenger 57 :)

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  5. Cripplefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No Tab Mix Plus? It's not Firefox, it's Cripplefox. Fuck the crips.

    1. Re:Cripplefox by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, google only wants your blood.

  6. Why Chrome and not Chromium? by short · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why does Slashdot always compare Firefox with proprietary Chrome when all the mentioned features does provide already Free Chromium?

    1. Re:Why Chrome and not Chromium? by short · · Score: 1

      That blob has been fixed both upstream and in Fedora chromium since 2016-09-07: enable_hotwording=false

    2. Re:Why Chrome and not Chromium? by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is manipulating our minds :)

      --
      Casteism
    3. Re:Why Chrome and not Chromium? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that there's really no standard "Chromium" as they all differ depending on who built it and what they decided to include/exclude. However, Google specifies exactly what's in Chrome so if someone says Chrome you know exactly what they are talking about.

      The same thing exists actually on the Firefox side. While the source code is open, Mozilla owns the Firefox trademark and keeps pretty strict rules on what you can call Firefox should you start distributing your own builds. So the Chromium equivalent is closer to IceCat (formally IceWeasel, which exists exactly for this reason), along with other builds like Waterfox.

  7. Original Article by theweatherelectric · · Score: 2

    The BleepingComputer article adds nothing of value over the original blog post.

  8. Re:How about giving users a choice? by theweatherelectric · · Score: 4, Informative

    including some used for security

    Like what? uBlock Origin works in Firefox 57, so does Adblock Plus, so does Ghostery, so does Privacy Badger, so does HTTPS Everywhere, etc. The only one missing from AMO at the moment is NoScript but that will be released soon.

  9. Re:How about giving users a choice? by Antiocheian · · Score: 2

    The author of Adblock Plus stated that the significant changes introduced here are unfortunate but sadly unavoidable. Thankfully Adblock Latitude, ABP's fork for Pale Moon doesn't have to apply such unfortunate changes.

  10. Re:How about giving users a choice? by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

    I don't see any major problems in that list, and in any case they say improvements are already in the works. The fork will be left behind as new releases of Adblock Plus roll out.

  11. Re:Too little too late. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's entirely fitting given how little Linux users have given a shit about Firefox and in contributing to it ever since they decided to care more about the licensing of some icons. You get back what you give; it goes both ways.

  12. Re:Too little too late. by theweatherelectric · · Score: 2

    dropping flash support

    That's what everyone is doing, even Adobe themselves. Flash is dead. You are in the first stage of grief. Time to move on.

  13. Bug 1325692 marked as wontfix by tepples · · Score: 1

    The Firefox develops gave plenty of notice of this change, allowing add-on developers lots of time to upgrade and ensure their add-ons still work.

    Yet they mark some admittedly missing WebExtension functionality as "wontfix". See comment 11 by Andy McKay to Bug 1325692 - [commands] Explicit support for overriding built-in keyboard shortcuts by WebExtensions: "Removing flags, this API is not going to be written in time to for Firefox 57."

  14. Port the plug-in to Web Audio API by tepples · · Score: 1

    Then download the source code for the plug-in, exercise your right under the source code's free software license to transpile it to JavaScript and port it to the Web Audio API, and use one of the *monkey extensions to insert it into every page that requires said plug-in. Or hire someone to.

    1. Re:Port the plug-in to Web Audio API by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Then download the source code for the plug-in, exercise your right under the source code's free software license to transpile it to JavaScript and port it to the Web Audio API, and use one of the *monkey extensions to insert it into every page that requires said plug-in. Or hire someone to.

      How exactly do I "transpile" a honest LD_PRELOAD library (and its dependencies) to JavaScript? And how do you propose to call ioctls from JavaScript injected into a page?

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  15. Re:How about giving users a choice? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Bug 1325692 causes data loss by making it impossible to disable the Ctrl+Q shortcut to quit. In the XUL era, one would use Keybinder, but the replacements for Keybinder are incompatible with the Linux version of Firefox because of bug 1325692.

  16. Re:Too little too late. by tepples · · Score: 1

    The next step is to dig up the contact information for the authors of each animation and game on Newgrounds and ask them to port them to HTML5. How would we go about that?

  17. Re:Too little too late. by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

    The next step is to dig up

    No, the next step is to get Adobe to release a WebAssembly build of the Flash run time. And if Adobe doesn't care about Flash enough to do that then tough luck, kid.

    It seems like you're in stage 3 of grief: bargaining.

  18. Re:How about giving users a choice? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    It's ctrl+shift+Q in FF57, not just ctrl+Q. If you have session saving turned off, it will also warn you before closing the browser.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  19. Emscripten by tepples · · Score: 1

    How exactly do I "transpile" a honest LD_PRELOAD library (and its dependencies) to JavaScript?

    First you obtain its source code, and then you use Clang with the Emscripten or WebAssembly target.

    And how do you propose to call ioctls from JavaScript injected into a page?

    By writing a shim that translates audio ioctls to their corresponding Web Audio API calls. In some cases, it may be easier to delete all the operating system integration, keeping only the codec proper, and write a new Web Audio API integration.

    1. Re:Emscripten by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      easier to delete all the operating system integration, keeping only the codec proper, and write a new Web Audio API integration

      That can work if all you want is some codec, rather than making audio work at all. That "Web Audio API" won't work if the browser itself can't output sound.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:Emscripten by tepples · · Score: 1

      In the HTML5 model, integration with the operating system's audio output API is the responsibility of the browser, not the plug-in. If your browser can't play sound, your browser is broken.

  20. Re:How about giving users a choice? by tepples · · Score: 1

    It's ctrl+shift+Q

    That solves being close to "close current tab", but it's dangerously close to "switch one tab to the left" (Ctrl+Shift+Tab).

  21. Re:How about giving users a choice? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    For me, I use different fingers for those two shortcuts, so it makes it rather difficult to mix them up by mistake.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  22. Tree Style Tabs ported by PingSpike · · Score: 1

    Piro's Tree Style Tabs has been ported to 57:
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

    So I'm on board. No other browser offers this functionality still and its my must have feature. Vivaldi has something similar, but not the same.

    I wish Video DownloadHelper would get ported though. That could be a problematic change.

    1. Re:Tree Style Tabs ported by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      I wish Video DownloadHelper would get ported

      Version 7 has been released with Firefox 57 support.