Slashdot Mirror


Firefox Quantum Arrives With Faster Browser Engine, Major Visual Overhaul (venturebeat.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla today launched Firefox 57, branded Firefox Quantum, for Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, and iOS. The new version, which Mozilla calls "by far the biggest update since Firefox 1.0 in 2004," brings massive performance improvements and a visual redesign. The Quantum name signals Firefox 57 is a huge release that incorporates the company's next-generation browser engine (Project Quantum). The goal is to make Firefox the fastest and smoothest browser for PCs and mobile devices -- the company has previously promised that users can expect "some big jumps in capability and performance" through the end of the year. Indeed, three of the four past releases (Firefox 53, Firefox 54, and Firefox 55) included Quantum improvements. But those were just the tip of the iceberg. Additionally, Firefox now exclusively supports extensions built using the WebExtension API, and unsupported legacy extensions will no longer work, the company said.

10 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. New Default. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The beta has felt quite a bit faster than my old default (Opera). With an official release Firefox has regained default status. I've used it since back in the Phoenix days. Then they got stale and Chrome was faster. Then it got stale and Opera was faster.

    Hurray for competition.

  2. Extensions, though :-( by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Finally tally: about 2/3 of my regularly used extensions don't work with 57 and don't currently seem to have a similar replacement available.

    Sadly, a performance boost just isn't work losing that much functionality for me. :-(

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:Extensions, though :-( by theweatherelectric · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It disabled NoScript.

      NoScript for Firefox 57 will be released today. Don't worry, be happy.

    2. Re:Extensions, though :-( by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hopefully now that the mainline has dropped support for legacy extensions this will motivate a few more devs to update, otherwise they are loosing most of their install base.

      Unfortunately, it looks like a lot of the extension developers have instead pulled their extensions entirely, updated the description to say something like "Sorry, doesn't work with 57, thanks for the support until now", or more worryingly updated the description to say something like "Sorry, this can't work with 57 because the WebExtensions infrastructure can't do it".

      Of course, that's just my own anecdotal experience. I've talked to plenty of people who seem to have no problem with most or all of the extensions they use, so maybe I've just been (very) unlucky in the particular extensions I have found useful until now.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    3. Re:Extensions, though :-( by Erioll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The real bear is losing extensions that take out LSOs - aka SuperCookies. The "suggested replacement" for Self-Destructing Cookies doesn't remove LSOs... thus it is not a replacement. The API is there now, but the author hasn't gotten off his ass yet to implement it. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

      Also Gestures extensions are worse, though at least somebody's trying. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

      Also no more tab groups - aka Panorama - which sucks ass. Not upgrading until I can get that, and will in fact LEAVE FIREFOX until I can get that.

      And... and... and... WTF WERE THEY THINKING??? Make it so addon authors need to update things and/or re-create is bad enough, but then remove the underlying functionality? That's insane! It shouldn't be LESS CAPABLE.

      Ugh.

  3. Re:Regression. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What's wrong with the way bookmarks have worked forever? By far my most used control in every browser I've used since the days of Netscape Navigator has been a bookmark toolbar that is set up like a menu of the sites I actually want to visit.

    Maybe I'm weird, but most of the extensions and new controls in modern browsers seem to be useful primarily to turn off other modern developments that I don't want. For me, that last big UI improvements in browsers were introducing tabs and search boxes, and we've had those for so long that the earliest known source code was found in hieroglyphs on a cave wall.

    Just give me good bookmarks, tabbed browsing, and a simple address bar and search bar with the basic controls for back/refresh/etc. and I've got a simple, effective browser UI that will do the job nicely, thanks.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  4. Re: Weird Gaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That UI is at least equally crap as the Australis, but unlike previously, it can not be fixed anymore. For the last few years the FF installation procedure was completed by getting Ad block and Classic Theme restorer, where former fixed the web and latter fixed the browser. But after this new FF, the browser is terminally unusable.

  5. Re:Firefox 57 shows a big disadvantage of plug-ins by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the old extensions mechanism was insecure. Extensions could access all of the browser internals, plus the filesystem. No sandboxing, No security, No nothing.

    The old extension API was great if security is of no concern for you.

    I would never trust any of the extensions of the old API because of this, so removing the old API is not a downside if one is concerned about security.

    For people who are concerned about security, removing the old API is a good thing. It will force a refactoring of the extension code into much more secure code and will smoke out a lot of insecure code, and make the extension systems much safer.

    The idea of adding additional functionality through extensions was dubious at best via the old API, especially if third parties are adding the features rather than the Firefox developers, especially since it was becoming very hard to security review the extensions that were coming from third parties due to the high numbers.

  6. Re:Who cares about the features? by PGaries · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Indeed. Having an extension system in which malicious extensions can hide that they're installed while monitoring everything you do on the Web was a pretty big security hole. That's why I'm glad Mozilla transitioned to the new system despite the loss of functionality.

  7. Thank you Mozilla by donstenk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Thank you for keeping up, thank you for being non profit and open source and thank you for offering a cross platform alternative independent of advertising companies and OS vendors.

    This is important work.

    Thank you ðY(TM)ðY.

    --
    Dennis Onstenk