Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 59, 'By Far the Biggest Update Since Firefox 1.0', Arrives With Faster Page Loads and Improved Private Browsing (venturebeat.com)

Posted by msmash on from the browser-updates dept.

An anonymous reader shares a VentureBeat report: Mozilla today launched Firefox 59 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. The release builds on Firefox Quantum, which the company calls "by far the biggest update since Firefox 1.0 in 2004." Version 59 brings faster page load times, private browsing mode that strips path information, and Android Assist. In related news, Mozilla is giving Amazon Fire TV owners a new design later this week that lets them save their preferred websites by pinning them to the Firefox home screen. Enterprise users also have something to look forward to: On Wednesday, Firefox Quantum for Enterprise is entering the beta phase. Firefox 59 for the desktop is available for download now on Firefox.com, and all existing users should be able to upgrade to it automatically. As always, the Android version is trickling out slowly on Google Play.

104 comments

  1. Still on 52 ESR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheers, Mozilla!

    1. Re: Still on 52 ESR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android with Java is a piece of slimy retarded shit

    2. Re:Still on 52 ESR by thegreatbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm on 45.9.0 ESR for most of my productive purposes (with the necessary blocking plugins, of course), PM for most everything "fun" and/or where security might be of concern. However, I'll probably beat 52 into shape sometime soon as 45 is a bit... crusty. This is an easily identified case of "the new version simply cannot fulfill my needs". I understand a desire to simplify, but you know, a car doesn't technically need 4 wheels, doors, windows, seatbelts, etc... but they definitely make it a lot more useful. Going full WebExtensions was/is a horrible misstep, in my (obviously very humble) opinion. You never go full WebExtensions.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    3. Re:Still on 52 ESR by nmb3000 · · Score: 2

      I gave up and went to 56 after getting warnings from Google apps saying my browser version was no longer supported. 56 is the last version to support XUL addons, so my entire browser hasn't gone to the new shit UI and shit functionality, but it's still new enough to be fully supported.

      I don't know what I'll do when 56 gets too old or a severe security issue is discovered and Mozilla refuses to backport the fix. Honestly I'm hoping something better has come along by then - perhaps a real fork of Firefox that continues with XUL compatibility and makes Web Extensions optional.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    4. Re:Still on 52 ESR by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Which addons do you actually need, that aren't available in FF57+?

      --
      Eat the rich.
    5. Re:Still on 52 ESR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Vivaldi browser from the Opera guys.

    6. Re:Still on 52 ESR by BenFenner · · Score: 1

      Pale Moon is a true fork of Firefox that I've been using for over 3 years now instead of Firefox. It maintains XUL support as one of its main goals, and plenty of Firefox add-on creators have moved over to it. It also maintains the fully customizable UI from earlier version of Firefox.
      I'm not sure about the future for Web Extensions in Pale Moon. I know they are working on a move to UXP (Unified XUL Platform) which possibly includes Web Extension support? It's worth a look for sure.

    7. Re:Still on 52 ESR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my case it's scrapbook addon. There's WebExt version for scrapbook addon, but even in the latest version it's unusable (functionality-wise, GUI-wise, etc).

  2. Not what the article said by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Informative

    The headline says Firefox 59 is the "biggest update since Firefox 1". But it is Firefox Quantum which is described that way, not 59. Could someone please RTFA.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:Not what the article said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree, the /. editor should change the headline to remove the "biggest update" clause.

    2. Re:Not what the article said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I tried to read it but FF59 was taking too long, so I went ahead and posted the summary as-is

    3. Re:Not what the article said by n3tcat · · Score: 1

      The headline says Firefox 59 is the "biggest update since Firefox 1". But it is Firefox Quantum which is described that way, not 59. Could someone please RTFA.

      The article says 59 builds on quantum. Did you skim the article?

    4. Re:Not what the article said by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the way I read it was that 59 was the "biggest update since Firefox 1," and I was like... wait, bigger than the actual first Quantum release?

    5. Re:Not what the article said by Kopp · · Score: 1

      Yeah I thought : "didn't they already say that for 57 and Quantum ?"

  3. Gimme my "disable javascript" checkbox back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $SUBJECT says it all.

    Yeah, I know: "users are too stupid for that". This is a lame excuse.

    1. Re:Gimme my "disable javascript" checkbox back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disable javascript? Use dillo as your browser then. Doesn't support javascript, so nothing to disable. Unless you want to disable images.

  4. Thanks Mozilla Team by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Firefox is still the only browser I trust. Keep up the great work!

    1. Re:Thanks Mozilla Team by gnick · · Score: 2

      Firefox is still the only browser I trust.

      Well there's IE, Chrome, and Opera. Assuming of course that you trust MS, Google, and the Chinese.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  5. Re: TAILS Linux v.3.6 is planned for release today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *yawn*

    Wake me when you teach 3.11 for workgroups.

  6. Re: Pale Moon Browser 27.8.1 has been released by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Perfect for those morons who think running an outdated fork of Firefox is better. Oh and that creator blacklisted Ad Nauseum for "being a threat to the internet"

  7. Donation incoming. by BenFenner · · Score: 3, Informative

    Another update I don't have to suffer thanks to Moonchild Productions.
    Time to donate $59 toward the Pale Moon project.

    1. Re:Donation incoming. by sinij · · Score: 1

      Matching Firefox release version number with a same-number donation to Pale Moon could turn into serious money very quickly.

    2. Re:Donation incoming. by BenFenner · · Score: 1

      Personally, I like the idea of tying it to Firefox releases, and their insanely high version numbers at that.

      If $59 is too much, then cut it in half, or if that's too much, just do $5.90, or figure out your own rubric if you want to donate similar to how I do.

      This is my third donation using this technique.

    3. Re:Donation incoming. by williamyf · · Score: 0

      Another Update I do not have to suffer, thanks to Firefox ESR.

      No need to go to some fork (I am not saying PaleMoon is bad, just that it is a fork).

      If you use your browser for WORK, just let the desktop guys be the gamma testers, and enjoy full compatibility and support from your web-tools, plug-ins, iLO tools from the big players (Oracle, Huawei, Cisco, HPE, Lenovo, Dell, SAP, etc.).

      Of course, the fact that Palemoon, safari, chrome, etc are not supported by the big enterprise guys does not reflect on the quality of the browsers themselves, but from a pragmatic point of view, is the way things are.

      Then, once a year, enjoy privacy/security/productivity improvements (like quantum) and iron out thew rough edges (Like interface changes, misbehaving plug-ins and add-ons). Seems like a fair compromise. Not ideal, but fair.

      --
      *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    4. Re:Donation incoming. by BenFenner · · Score: 2

      You're assuming every change that makes it to Firefox ESR is desirable, and couldn't possibly be a show stopper.
      After two or three of such changes, the last one was ultimately my show stopper, and Firefox was no longer a viable option. It happened to others before my switch, and it has happened to others after my switch. At some point, they may finally change something you care enough about to abandon.

  8. Re:Pale Moon Browser 27.8.1 has been released by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bleh... Seamonkey (the real Netscape) still has all of you beat, even (especially) after all these years. We should celebrate its stability, at least in its user interface.

  9. Re:Still lagging in HTML5 Compatibility. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And how much of that is extensions that Google pulled out of their ass in the last year that aren't actually part of the spec?

  10. Have they fixed the memory leaks yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm running firefox on 64-bit windows 7 and it is using 1.9 GB of ram.

    Closing all windows/tabs except 1 does not free up the memory.

    1. Re:Have they fixed the memory leaks yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope, that is a feature added by the memory manufacturers.

    2. Re:Have they fixed the memory leaks yet? by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I have like 500 tabs open. Maybe it's that one tab that is requiring 1.9 GB of ram. Or maybe you have a malware infection.

    3. Re:Have they fixed the memory leaks yet? by danomac · · Score: 1

      Well sure, Firefox lets you quickly reopen closed tabs, it's not going to free memory that quickly.

    4. Re:Have they fixed the memory leaks yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "about:memory" and press minimize memory usage button.

    5. Re:Have they fixed the memory leaks yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can buy 16GB of RAM for $60 you cheapskate.

    6. Re:Have they fixed the memory leaks yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See if about:performance can help you.

    7. Re:Have they fixed the memory leaks yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liar, it's not 2010 you know. RAM is much more expensive now.

  11. get back to me when all of my addons work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to be stuck on Firefox ESR until they manage to make all of the add-ons developed over the past 10-15 years work again. Since they broke *, Firefox has just been a piece of shit. Oh you want to control your browser, well fuck you!

    1. Re:get back to me when all of my addons work by theweatherelectric · · Score: 0

      Meh, there's little value in being a drama queen. All the add-ons I used before Firefox 57 still worked after Firefox 57, and so do over 9,000 other add-ons.

    2. Re:get back to me when all of my addons work by bekeleven · · Score: 2

      Many of mine did not. For that matter, neither did any of my UI tweaks.

      Anyway, since I'm everybody, clearly the update is unusable.

    3. Re: get back to me when all of my addons work by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      I have used only three addons, two of them stopped working after the update and the authors say that they can't port them. These two were the only reason to keep using Firefox, so I simply have switched to Opera. No drama, just facts.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re:get back to me when all of my addons work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      same with me. I'm still on 56. Fuck mozilla.

    5. Re: get back to me when all of my addons work by theweatherelectric · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I simply have switched to Opera

      So.. you switched to a browser with WebExtensions based add-ons? Might as well have keep using Firefox.

    6. Re: get back to me when all of my addons work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I switched to Opera because it seems with Firefox you can no longer customize keyboard shortcuts! Also VimFx was discontinued. Opera just happens to perform as well if not better and also support chrome web extensions. All I need is cVim and the built-in ad blocker and I'm s3t.

    7. Re: get back to me when all of my addons work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The base Opera browser is better.

    8. Re:get back to me when all of my addons work by fafalone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      theweatherelectic is a paid promoter. His comments, nearly exclusively on Firefox stories (he's recently started commenting on some others after repeatedly being called out for lying about his affiliations, look back further in post history and you'll see absolutely exclusivity to Firefox stories before I and others began calling him out), and always starting within minutes of one being posted, repeat Mozilla talking points and downplay or deny every negative aspect of updates. Take this comment here, bragging about all his addons and 9000 others working, as if that excuses major limitations that count as "working", and the many very popular plugins that absolutely do not work. All of yours work? Well half of mine do not work and do not have equivalents.

    9. Re:get back to me when all of my addons work by theweatherelectric · · Score: 0

      theweatherelectic is a paid promoter.

      What a bizarre conspiracy theory.

      All of yours work? Well half of mine do not work and do not have equivalents.

      Then guess what, kid: your experience is not universal. It's a much simpler explanation than the fantasy world you've constructed for yourself.

    10. Re:get back to me when all of my addons work by fafalone · · Score: 2

      I've offered extensive justification based on your behavior. You've offered absolutely nothing except "nuh uh" and ad hominen in response. Nobody is always there to comment on stories within minutes of them being posted, but only on one specific topic, across months and months, and always using the same talking points as the official pages, largely aimed at persuading those with criticisms to think their points aren't valid or important, continually advocating updating no matter what your use case, unless they're an employee or otherwise compensated to do so. You started with posting in other threads for deniability immediately after other users joined me in outing you, just another coincidence right? You have offered no other explanation, let alone a plausible one, for any of that.
      And while my experience isn't universal, it's at least as common as yours. But I'm not the one pretending major problems don't actually exist.

    11. Re:get back to me when all of my addons work by theweatherelectric · · Score: 0

      I've offered extensive justification

      Yes, "justification" is exactly the word. No proof, no actual evidence, just rumor and innuendo. Just self-reinforcing delusion. Your claims are bizarre.

      Just think about what you're saying logically. You're claiming that Mozilla pays people to go "undercover", on Slashdot of all places, to comment on Firefox. I think you're dramatically overstating the importance of Slashdot in the scheme of things. And why would Mozilla do that? The way they promote Firefox is through blog posts, media interviews, and good old fashioned advertising, not some bizarre cloak-and-dagger campaign.

      You can audit Mozilla's financial statements. So find me the pay packet that they allegedly send me. And if you can't do that, then it's time to face up to the possibility that you really have lost perspective.

    12. Re:get back to me when all of my addons work by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Lots of companies tell employees to post positive endorsements on social media without disclosing their affiliation. It's hardly some unheard thing. Bottom line, is there is no other more likely explanation for your observed posting pattern. Even your denial hyperbole lends credence to my case, you're constantly calling the idea bizarre and insane despite it very clearly being at a minimum highly suspect (and always the idea, you will never address any of the specific behaviors that led to it, pretty clearly because there simply isn't a more plausible reason someone would do what you do). Now you've issued a challenge to audit their finances? Really? Because I know your personal details? Because it's definitely not a verbal request to a employee? And the breakdown of what part of employee compensation is to you for one specific part of your job is in those records? Do you read the stuff you post? Come on.
      As to Slashdot, a) It's far from the only site where incidents like this have occured, and b) It is important enough to target. The crowd that posts here are largely the type of people who get asked by all the non-technical users what they should use or to directly set up their systems.

      By all means, continue posting 'nuh uh' instead of offering a plausible explanation for your posting behavior.

    13. Re:get back to me when all of my addons work by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      Even your denial

      Ah, belief perseverance. I understand.

    14. Re: get back to me when all of my addons work by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Opera is faster and several web extensions that were poor substitutes for the addons I have used previously didn't work with Firefox at all because apparently the Firefox implementation of web extensions is only partially compatible to Chrome and Opera.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    15. Re:get back to me when all of my addons work by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Jesus christ on a horse, shut the fuck up already.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  12. Since Firefox 1.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they restored the UI to something sane like 1.0 had...

    http://www.andrewturnbull.net/mozilla/fx-10.png

    1. Re:Since Firefox 1.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, still the same lousy new interface.

    2. Re:Since Firefox 1.0 by Kopp · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should simply get an old 14" CRT screen with 640x480 screen resolution and you'll get what you want. Otherwise, I see no fundamental changes except the color of icons ... and the hidding of the useless File Edit View... controls. (which appear by the simple press of Alt key)

  13. Make an enterprise version of Firefox 52 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the last ESR to support traditional addons and plugins as well as supporting Windows XP which still has 15% market share in China. Version 52 should be an LTS, being supported for years like Microsoft supports IE11 until at least October 2025. If Mozilla can’t support it that long, don’t call it enterprise.

    1. Re:Make an enterprise version of Firefox 52 by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      That would be great. Right now if you want to make a kiosk device, the only browser that has enterprise long-term support is IE11. Chrome and FF don't have any kind of enterprise support. And Microsoft doesn't support Edge in their long-term support branch. If you purchase their embedded Windows or server Windows, it doesn't have Edge and there is no installer to add it.

    2. Re:Make an enterprise version of Firefox 52 by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

      market share is rather poinless ehen it comes to XP, It is EOL and therfor shuld not be used on anything connected to a network with internet access, at which point a bprwser becomes rather less interresting unless you hav an internal web app

  14. NoScript = "disable javascript" on steroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject: Gimme my "disable javascript" checkbox back.

    Disabling Javascript across the board just breaks most websites. This is why the feature is gone. You should use the NoScript add-on to Firefox instead (It blocks more than Javascript, too!)

    1. Re:NoScript = "disable javascript" on steroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Disabling Javascript across the board just breaks most websites.

      No, not those I care about (save very few).

      Thing is, all web "designers" now assume every browser "does" javascript because browser "vendors" (and Mozilla is among the worst here) have been nudging users into just giving in.

      This is the Internet equivalent of dumping garbage on the streets, to the detriment of all. What we get is bitcoin mining "plugins", and Meltdown deployment via Javascript in the browser (sandboxing? HA! "next time we get it right, promised").

      As if it ever was a good idea to have a program which hoovers up executable stuff off the intertubes and... execute it on the user's machine.

      Barf.

      And oh, I don't trust a "plugin" on top of all of this mess.

    2. Re:NoScript = "disable javascript" on steroids by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      Subject: Gimme my "disable javascript" checkbox back.

      Disabling Javascript across the board just breaks most websites. This is why the feature is gone. You should use the NoScript add-on to Firefox instead (It blocks more than Javascript, too!)

      Unfortunately, the new redesigned Noscript has a fucking awful interface. So much worse than the old one.

    3. Re:NoScript = "disable javascript" on steroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then use NoScript, as someone said above. Or disable javascript in the dev tools.

      But you're going to keep crying like the little girl you are.

    4. Re:NoScript = "disable javascript" on steroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Then use NoScript, as someone said above. Or disable javascript in the dev tools.

      NoScript under quantum has been a shitshow. Crippled and clumsy compared to prior versions.

      > But you're going to keep crying like the little girl you are.

      FFS. Javascript has been a necessary component of every single browser exploit for well over a decade now. There is nothing even remotely childish about wanting vastly better control over the #1 security bottleneck on the internet.

    5. Re:NoScript = "disable javascript" on steroids by mentil · · Score: 1

      It's not as bad as it was in the first days of the 10.0 release. I actually had scripts fully enabled for a few days before I realized I had it configured wrong. But I agree it still needs work, and is missing a bunch of options 5.0 had which improved privacy and security.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    6. Re:NoScript = "disable javascript" on steroids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the new redesigned Noscript has a fucking awful interface. So much worse than the old one.

      ... and the "disable javascript" checkbox was a "better" interface?

  15. Re:Still lagging in HTML5 Compatibility. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    FYI: I think the parent used https://html5test.com/

  16. The headline and the summary disagree by tepples · · Score: 2

    The headline says 59 is "biggest", while the summary says 59 builds on Quantum (that is, 57), and Quantum is "biggest".

  17. Extensions killed the beast by vossman77 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have been using Firefox since when it was only part of mozilla, but I have since moved to Waterfox, because I have not been able to replace my old extensions. And the newer version of my old extensions, e.g. noscript, really slow down the new firefox browser.

    https://www.waterfoxproject.or...

    1. Re:Extensions killed the beast by Xenolith0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I myself switched over to Pale Moon once Firefox started killing off features and pretending to be Chrome.

      I would recommend you ditch NoScript and check out uMatrix. It is a full, and better (and without the whole AdBlock controversy) replacement to NoScript. As well as CookieMonster, and other resource blockers, allowing control over loading of not just JS/Cookies but also CSS, images, media, and more.

    2. Re:Extensions killed the beast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you use uMatrix you should combine with uBlock, since uBlock provides useful replacement scripts for some websites so they keep working even when their shitty scripts are blocked.

    3. Re:Extensions killed the beast by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1, Informative

      I would recommend you ditch NoScript and check out uMatrix

      The latest versions of uMatrix are WebExtensions based. I imagine they'll get bored with maintaining the XUL version eventually and stop development on it.

    4. Re:Extensions killed the beast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uMatrix is great, but you really should keep noscript around for the extra protection that uMatrix lacks (XSS and ABE). Just set noscript to allow scripts globally and you are good to go with no overlap between them.

  18. Quantum for Enterprise is entering beta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so that means one last gasp of breath for pre-quantum esr. almost time to migrate to pale moon. it's been a great ride, mozilla, but you dun fucked up.

  19. Re:Still lagging in HTML5 Compatibility. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Pulling a Microsoft, eh?

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  20. No thanks, I'll stick with Firefox ESR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it allows running legacy addons such as noscript 5.1.8.4 (don't care for the newer redesign for FF59) and many others.

    1. Re: No thanks, I'll stick with Firefox ESR by p91paul · · Score: 1

      59 will be the new ESR shortly...

  21. Firefox 59 = Firefox Quantum = Firefox 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally an *actual* 2.0! :D

    At least, if you go by the Gecko version numbering, which managed to keep a more sane versioning scheme, that still actually meant something specific.

  22. Re: Pale Moon Browser 27.8.1 has been released by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This. The entire reason firefox ditches the broken old add on implementation is because it's full of security holes.
    Making a fork to keep using the a vulnerable API is stupid.

  23. What spec? You mean that HTML5 catastrophe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is just as much not a spec, as MS OOXML is not a spec:
    It is just literally their browser-internal spaghetti code, poured into a jelly mold, and then left to "mature", like a French cheese of the most smelly kind.

    The same spaghetti code that brought us HTML 3.2, with its <blink> and <marquee> tags, where you never knew what would work how on any given day. The very opposite of the definition of a standard.

    The whole "living standard" thing is such a ridiculous oxymoron, that I suspected they must be inside some sort of delusion. And after I had an extensive 3-hour chat with the WhatWG and Mozilla key people on IRC, I can say that they are certifiably mentally ill. (I'm a neuro-psychologist with a degree.)

    Sorry, the Web died with HTML5.
    Nowadays, I recommend just using normal software, if necessary in a VM with application firewall, and only also compile to WebAssembly for backwards compatibility with that textbook example of an inner-platform effect.

  24. Re:Pale Moon Browser 27.8.1 has been released by arth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    PaleMoon is alas no longer an option at work, as it won't work on Enterprise Linux 6 anymore, the still supported and last systemd free major OS family.
    And building it on my gentoo machine at home is not an option either, as I have to install and switch to old gcc 4.9 compilers just to get it to build.

    Seamonkey is no problem building, but alas, there are a few sites it doesn't work with. Like the Kinja empire and BofA.
    So Firefox it is, at least for now.

  25. Still has memory leaks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only extension I have installed is uBlock and it still uses a lot of CPU and memory on MacOS.
    Back to Chrome again....

  26. No thanks, palemoon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hadn't tried palemoon, and comments here made me give it a try.

    Installation process was smooth, but 10 seconds after launching it I notice the start.me window helpfully telling me, "Downloading from www.facebook.com"

    Whaaaa? I don't think so. Uninstalled, and goodbye!

    1. Re:No thanks, palemoon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a dumbass. Open the start.me page anywhere else and the same thing would happen. Change the homepage to something else if you don't like it.

  27. yeah WOW biggest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    meanwhile you have to disable all pre-fetching and can't use actual ip spoofing plugins because they don't "work on Quantum Firefox".

    Firefox is bought. Best is to just use an old portable version. The speed of .0118 seconds faster page load is bullshit compared to what they actually did. Step by step they made it lamer and lamer. Old Firefox was great.. up to about 45.x

    l8r fags

  28. Oh Jesus. Okay, what have they messed up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox update is a synonym for massive, horrific UI changes.

    So tell me, what have they ballsed up?

    Can I keep using FF after this update, or have they really messed it up so badly it's time to leave?

    I'm partially use Pale Moon now anyway - trust issues with FF and their jerking about with uncommanded plugin installs.

  29. Re:Still lagging in HTML5 Compatibility. by bn-7bc · · Score: 1

    I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not up to speed on web standards, what standards hav google "åulled oute of their ass" lately, that is if we ignore the whole AMP thing?

  30. Still... by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

    Still no support for the old add ons.

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
  31. Firefox Private Browsing by Quantum+gravity · · Score: 2

    If you use private browsing, FF59 removes "referrer values" when you click a link. And you can also change the default referer behavior for the browser. See: https://blog.mozilla.org/secur...

  32. raspberry pi build? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi, need a build for rpi Debian, stuck on 45 or something old. Kthxby

  33. Re:Pale Moon Browser 27.8.1 has been released by janeil · · Score: 2

    I don't see why this comment is modded funny! Seamonkey still works great, and the web works with it just fine. It is the real mozilla.

  34. Re:Pale Moon Browser 27.8.1 has been released by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After Firefox Quantum came out, I downloaded Pale Moon again. I was disappointed when I tried to install one of the plugins that isn't supported in Firefox Quantum only to find out that whatever version Pale Moon is branched off of is too old.

  35. Not sure if a bug... by brad3378 · · Score: 1

    In version 58 and all prior versions you could type "about:" in the URL window to quickly determine which version you were running. In 59, this feature is no longer available, however you can still type "about:ram" to check RAM usage.

    --
    1. Re:Not sure if a bug... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never knew that the pseudo-URL "about:" existed. I've only ever used "about:config", "about:plugins", etc. For checking version, I usually just use "Help > About Firefox", and even knowning that "about:" exists, I would still continue to use the graphical version, because it's faster.

      I can see how maybe you like to type "firefox 'about:' &" on the command line or something, but wouldn't it be considerably easier (and faster) to just type: "apt-cache show firefox" or "dpkg --list firefox"?

      p.s. FYI: "about:ram" doesn't work in 58.0.2 on Ubuntu 16.04.4.

    2. Re:Not sure if a bug... by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      p.s. FYI: "about:ram" doesn't work

      Use about:memory. There's also about:support and about:mozilla.

    3. Re:Not sure if a bug... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try "about:about", and/or "about:support"...

  36. Re: Pale Moon Browser 27.8.1 has been released by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Meanwhile in the real world where people don't use a whole 3 addons and are actually capable of testing the new Fireshit to see what a shitpile in terms of addons it is, half the addon replacements come with stripped down addons that are shadows of their former selves - useless, a quarter can't be ported because new system doesn't allow deeper interaction between Fireshit and the OS like Open With because "muh security" (as if power users give a shit), and the leftover quarter barely works with some minor stripped and removed stuff.

  37. Re:Pale Moon Browser 27.8.1 has been released by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are using DEU's overlay to build Pale Moon on Gentoo, you can override the compiler version check and Emerge it with gcc 6.4. I currently am running 27.8.1 at home this way. Reports are that trying to compile on gcc 7 does not work.

  38. The "editors" don't even speak fluent English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can they be expected to make that distinction?

  39. Re: Pale Moon Browser 27.8.1 has been released by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

    Try again, this time without the pointless name-calling.

    Come on, I know you can do it.

    --
    Eat the rich.
  40. Re:Oh Jesus. Okay, what have they messed up? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

    The hardware accelerated rendering is horribly broken in 59 leading to half rendered web pages. This is reproducible across several machines/configurations, so it isn't a bad video driver. Turning it off fixes the problem. On one older machine, turning off hardware acceleration actually lowered CPU usage and sped up browsing! It also seems to have fixed the broken printing problem I've been having on one machine (FF only outputs blank pages after multiprocess/e10s is turned on).