Slashdot Mirror
NYT: 'Firefox Is Back. It's Time to Give It a Try.' (nytimes.com)
Another high-profile endorsement for Firefox -- this time from the lead consumer technology writer for The New York Times. (Alternate link here).
The web has reached a new low. It has become an annoying, often toxic and occasionally unsafe place to hang out. More important, it has become an unfair trade: You give up your privacy online, and what you get in return are somewhat convenient services and hyper-targeted ads. That's why it may be time to try a different browser.
Remember Firefox...? About two years ago, six Mozilla employees were huddled around a bonfire one night in Santa Cruz, Calif., when they began discussing the state of web browsers. Eventually, they concluded there was a "crisis of confidence" in the web. "If they don't trust the web, they won't use the web," Mark Mayo, Mozilla's chief product officer, said in an interview.... After testing Firefox for the last three months, I found it to be on a par with Chrome in most categories. In the end, Firefox's thoughtful privacy features persuaded me to make the switch and make it my primary browser.
The Times cites privacy features like Firefox's "Facebook Container," which prevents Facebook from tracking you after you've left their site.
While both Chrome and Firefox have tough security (including sandboxing), Cooper Quintin, a security researcher for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tells the Times that Google "is fundamentally an advertising company, so it's unlikely that they will ever have a business interest in making Chrome more privacy friendly."
Remember Firefox...? About two years ago, six Mozilla employees were huddled around a bonfire one night in Santa Cruz, Calif., when they began discussing the state of web browsers. Eventually, they concluded there was a "crisis of confidence" in the web. "If they don't trust the web, they won't use the web," Mark Mayo, Mozilla's chief product officer, said in an interview.... After testing Firefox for the last three months, I found it to be on a par with Chrome in most categories. In the end, Firefox's thoughtful privacy features persuaded me to make the switch and make it my primary browser.
The Times cites privacy features like Firefox's "Facebook Container," which prevents Facebook from tracking you after you've left their site.
While both Chrome and Firefox have tough security (including sandboxing), Cooper Quintin, a security researcher for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tells the Times that Google "is fundamentally an advertising company, so it's unlikely that they will ever have a business interest in making Chrome more privacy friendly."
This might be a valid strategy for Firefox future. They destroyed their original advantage of powerful extensions, so they need something new to attract people. Privacy focus just might be it, but if so they really need to emphasize it in their advertising. At least Chrome is unlikely to truly compete with them in this field.
FWIW, the new (or Quantum) version of Firefox stopped me from switching to Chrome entirely. I had been using Chrome more and more as Firefox just seemed to stagnate. Luckily they did seem to make real progress here. I hope they keep it up. A browser monopoly has never been any good for end users.
?
Techno-anarchist delusions. People don't trust Facebook, and yet still use it by the billions...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Please, Mozilla. I never used any other browser. I won't ever, because I know that you're the Good Folks (TM).
But make it easy again to *completely switch off Javascript*. No "NoScript" plugin with cheap cop-outs. Help in keeping a small-but-significant javascript population out there to keep Web "programmers" and frameworks out there honest.
Yeah, I know: users are too stupid to manage this one checkbox, your telemetry proves it (and those now quaint instructions on how to enable Javascript some sites still carry, as a reminiscence of the 2005s). Know what? If you treat your users as idiots, you'll get idiot users. I know how this may be in Microsoft's or Google's interest, but I don't get how it is in yours.
I know, I know. Your perspective is too tightly intertwined with the ad industry's -- they wet-dream of a Javascript API to a brain implant which goes straight into the dopamine center, and you'll deliver because "the others are doing it and you else become irrelevant".
Sigh. I really love you. I want to. But sometimes I hate you.
Why does chrome need 4 processes before it displays a home/start page?
Why do you care? If anything it will ensure a single process doesn't bring down the browser. Then you also get speed increases for non-threaded workloads on multicore CPUs.
In other news MySQL is currently using 33 processes on my machine processing a grand total of zero requests for zero users with zero CPU time. Are you running out of numbers to assign processes or something?
Why does google schedule update checks once at logon and then *every hour*?
Why wouldn't it? Google's threat and malware database is being continuously updated. Are you on a 28.8k modem where you can't spare the couple of kilobyte to do a web request to check if any components of your system's security have an update?
Change the frequency of google's updates back to once per day, and NOT at logon.
Why are you sacrafacing other people's security for no performance gain? Or are you trying to "tune" up computers that are too slow to fire up a process and run a web request? Maybe they should consider browsing the internet on a computer instead of a TI-84.
Ditto Adobe's products
Ditto the above. Adobe's update service uses less than 1MB of RAM and 0% CPU time while it exists. If you're getting a "performance tuneup" as a result of disabling it then maybe it's time to throw the old 486 away.
Not OP. Answers reflect Me (tm).
Why does chrome need 4 processes before it displays a home/start page?
Why do you care? If anything it will ensure a single process doesn't bring down the browser. Then you also get speed increases for non-threaded workloads on multicore CPUs.
I may not want chrome running on all cores/threads. Incase it, you know.. goes nuts.
In other news MySQL is currently using 33 processes on my machine processing a grand total of zero requests for zero users with zero CPU time. Are you running out of numbers to assign processes or something?
_Entirely_ different things. The scheduling logic alone in mysql is completely different.
For what it's worth I do work on systems where PID rolling has happened.
Why does google schedule update checks once at logon and then *every hour*?
Why wouldn't it? Google's threat and malware database is being continuously updated. Are you on a 28.8k modem where you can't spare the couple of kilobyte to do a web request to check if any components of your system's security have an update?
Speed has little to do with it, privacy does. Since you raise it, yes, there are times when I'm roaming on cell data.... paying by the byte.
Change the frequency of google's updates back to once per day, and NOT at logon.
Why are you sacrafacing other people's security for no performance gain? Or are you trying to "tune" up computers that are too slow to fire up a process and run a web request? Maybe they should consider browsing the internet on a computer instead of a TI-84.
That has nothing to do with anything he said. To my knowledge there has NEVER been a case where one site needed to be shut down in under 24 hours let alone 60 minutes. Your point - if you even have one - is pure trolling.
Ditto Adobe's products
Ditto the above. Adobe's update service uses less than 1MB of RAM and 0% CPU time while it exists. If you're getting a "performance tuneup" as a result of disabling it then maybe it's time to throw the old 486 away.
See above, troll harder. For such a low UID you should know better.
The Firefox UI still sucks. Looks like Chrome and makes interacting with the browser quite annoying because everything is hidden behind non-descriptive glyphs. Firefox should recreate the pre 3.x UI as many have requested. Also didn't help that they needlessly changed the extension engine making many excellent extensions unusable. There still is plenty of user-ignoring arrogance at Mozilla. Their developers think they are hot stuff and the users are clueless by definition. Build something we want to use and we will use it. What they offer so far is just not compelling enough to make a switch. If it has to be a Mozilla based browser, then use Pale Moon. It is put together by an excellent team of developers who truly care what users want. Even if they disagree with a user request, they explain in detail why. This is how a FOSS project should be run....not like the trash talking in forums from Mozilla's devs and Dotzler.
Web designers should be the ones caring about their sites not rendering properly, not you. You should care about the quality of the content.