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
I already use uBlock Origin in Firefox.
It might not solve the problem in your particular case, but also turn on Firefox's built-in tracking protection (set it to "always" to have it on all the time). It runs after any blocker add-ons and it blocks some stuff uBlock Origin misses.
Firefox was ditched for the same set of reasons that Netscape was ditched:
- Both Firefox and Netscape had become or were perceived as slow and bloated compared to the competition. I vividly remember my eye twitching back in the late 90s during my phone tech support days when I heard a fellow phone jockey recommend Internet Explorer 3 to a customer over Netscape because it was 'so much faster'. This was back in the 28.8/56k dial-up era, so take that into account. Chrome is widely perceived to be faster and more powerful at running webapps than Firefox... and regardless of the reality, this perception goes top to bottom. Developers frequently choose to develop against Chrome and then test against Firefox... if they bother to test against Firefox.
- Privacy, browser configuration, and Internet safety are widely perceived to be 'too difficult'. This was as true in the 90s as it is today. People are intimidated by the reality of what it takes to be safe and private on the Internet and/or far too lazy to learn to configure their browser. Netscape and Mozilla have never quite made it as easy to 'click click click dubya dubya dubya' as their competition. Microsoft and Google both are much better at hand-holding... and leading their 'customers' down the garden path. Installing ad or script blockers *seems* more intimidating on Firefox than similar plugins for Chrome because Google has successfully 'App-Store-Ized' their plugin ecosystem.
- Netscape and Firefox have never been 'The Internet'. Microsoft did its damndest to make sure that Windows users all directly equated that blue 'e' icon with 'The Internet'. Google is its own damn verb. Both companies' marketing divisions have made very good pushes to make themselves synonymous with 'The Internet'.
- Netscape and Mozilla have never had a strong pre-install base. Every Windows Install since 95 has come with IE. Every Android device comes with Chrome. Most folks simply can't be assed to install another browser. Sad but true. If Firefox ever wants to become really relevant, it's going to have to get some kind of mainstream pre-install base going. We're not talking Linux distros here. They're going to have to pull off the Firefox equivalent of an 'Android OS' or 'Chromebook'. It's doable, but Mozilla is not strongly steered the way Microsoft was or Google is. Moz has a long history of dropping the soap far too often.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
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.
I think that they could up the stakes even more by tainting third party (and deeper when a third party site links further) cookies depending on which primary site you access so that the cookies are stored in a hierarchy and won't be cross-site accessible unless you tag them to be for selected sites.
It will of course require a completely new cookie manager and it would consume some more resources. But your privacy would be improved.
And that would of course also apply to other kinds of data as well so that the caching is also isolated as well as http headers.
Isolating information areas from each other is important in the world of today. I just feel sorry for those that have Facebook accounts considering that they are usually logged in to that service and then Facebook sees almost every site they visit. It's hard to filter out Facebook, but if you at least feed them less than useful data so it always looks like you are only visiting a certain site then their pool of data is diluted.
Of course they can still see that you come from the same IP address, but if all Facebook traffic is passed through a proxy then it won't do them any good. Selective proxy traffic routing for your internet access.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It's hard to filter out Facebook
The Facebook Container makes it easy.
Of course they can still see that you come from the same IP address, but if all Facebook traffic is passed through a proxy then it won't do them any good.
Tor is being integrated into Firefox. So once that happens Firefox can offer this out of the box and the Tor project will no longer have to maintain Tor Browser.
Pocket tracks your site usage to "give you a better home page by providing recommendations of sites to visit" among other things.
They have been investing heavily in PR ever since Quantum disaster hit, and a large amount of people left firefox for any other browser, because there was no longer a meaningful reason to use it.
First PR push was "hey look, we have speed parity with chrome now". Took them a few months to realise that "parity in speed and parity with features" means that people that wanted extra features you axed will leave for mainstream browser, while being on par won't make any meaningful number of people switch the other way.
So now they have been trying other ways of selling firefox. This looks to be one of them, which is just silly. Firefox, as you note, most certainly collects usage patterns. Pocket which is built into firefox literally uses those to recommend web pages you should visit next if you go to your default home page in the browser.
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.
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.
Why does chrome need 4 processes before it displays a home/start page?
It's been a few years since I looked, but as I recall:
For something that deals with as much untrusted data and code as a web browser, I'd want it to be compartmentalised as much as possible.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Install uMatrix. Now you have "NoScript" and much more (uMatrix = NoScript + RequestPolicy)
They may claim to be all about privacy and all that stuff, but in reality their main source of reoccurring income has always been from the embedded search features, provided primarily by Google, the company they're talking up as the main enemy of privacy. Because of that I'm genuinely skeptical as to how truly committed they are to privacy as a proper committing to it would require them to stop using Google as the a search provider and we're not seeing anything even hinting towards this. Not only that, they also rather conveniently try to allude they're the only company trying to dedicate themselves to privacy when Opera has been doing that for years and Chromium is also basically a Chrome fork with much of the privacy-compromising stuff removed.
However the core of Mozilla's problems is that they've spent many years more focused on moonshot projects like FirefoxOS and politics, which includes everything from firing their CTO as he was taking the role of CEO on purely political grounds to spending a considerable amount of money modifying the codebase to modify any functionality using Master/Slave naming to not use it. To make up for this shortfall in spending on actual browser development they've also gone ahead and tried to streamline development by removing features despite very vocal opposition from their userbase. Hell, this isn't even the first time they've tried copying what their competition is doing, the last time they did major changes to the UI those changes ended up only making Firefox look more like Chrome and their users naturally hated that because if they'd want to use Chrome, then they'd actually use Chrome.
No, the real fundamental problem Firefox has had for the last decade or so is simply unfocused and incompetent management. Until they can to a complete management "flush" and replace their management with people focused on the actual product rather than everything else, I can't see Firefox going anywhere in terms of it's already small market share.
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
uMatrix is vastly superior to NoScript. I use uMatrix on Firefox.
So is mine. It still shoves "pages recommended by pocket" in my face when I start typing in an address.
Try setting these about:config values to stop Pocket:
browser.pocket.api = ""
browser.pocket.enabled = false
browser.pocket.oAuthConsumerKey = ""
browser.pocket.site = ""
extensions.pocket.api = ""
extensions.pocket.enabled = false
extensions.pocket.oAuthConsumerKey = ""
extensions.pocket.site = ""
In Cyberfox, it kills it dead here.
--
If this is paradise, I wish I had a shovel.
Web designers should be the ones caring about their sites not rendering properly, not you. You should care about the quality of the content.
Thanks for the instructions. I hope they will be helpful to me once I switch my main desktop beyond 52ESR.
My point wasn't that I am haven't stopped pocket though. The point is that if you use default browser, without going into about:config fuckery, which average user is not going to do, firefox tracks your usage closely and is not a "privacy minded browser" by any reasonable measure no matter what PR shills try to tell people.
I don't value pockets functionality so i remove the icon. And I thought it was idiotic that it was integrated instead of left as a 3rd party extension.. but...
As far as I can tell, Pocket operates locally; while the pocket extension functionality in the browser does track you *locally*, its about as evil as the firefox "history" list, which is to say: not even slightly evil.
Neither Mozilla nor Pocket receives a copy of your browser history. The entire process of sorting and filtering which stories you should see happens locally in your copy of Firefox.
https://help.getpocket.com/art...
Near as I can tell, the list of all pocket recommends is sent to you. Your local browser then filters and sorts the list by comparing it to that. Your history and preferences aren't sent to pocket in this process.
Read how it works for yourself. What part specifically do you object to? What am I missing?
What's more, folks are going on like processes are intrinsically expensive.
On Windows, starting a process is expensive for two reasons: spawn semantics instead of fork semantics, and the common practice of real-time antivirus. On any system, RAM owned by a process and not shared with other processes is expensive, particularly if it causes cached disk sectors to get evicted to make room or (worse) leads to swapping.
Another user already posted Mozilla's relevant policy page in this discussion, which clearly states that they do indeed reserve the right to track your usage patterns.
What specific mechanism they use for it is rather irrelevant in scope of this discussion. "Oh it's not Pocket that sends it, it's that other module. Pocket just handles the received data based on it" is quite a disingenuous way of dancing around the issue.
Pocket Privacy Policy
Snippet 1:
And above it in a separate paragraph:
and in that same paragraph:
They are collecting this information and telling you they aren't going to use it for anything bad; this always results in they sell your information at some point. I find it *really* hard to believe it's anonymous, as on mobile devices it captures your advertising ID on iOS and Android.
There's a reason people wanted this to stay as an extension.