Firefox 65 Arrives With Content Blocking Controls, and Support for WebP and AV1 (venturebeat.com)

Firefox 65, the latest version of Mozilla's web browser, is now available for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android platforms. The release brings simplified Content Blocking controls for Enhanced Tracking Protection, support for WebP image support with the Windows client getting an additional feature: support for AV1 format. From a report: Across all platforms, Firefox can now handle Google's WebP image format. WebP supports both lossy and lossless compression and promises the same image quality as existing formats at smaller file sizes. Firefox 65 for desktop brings redesigned controls for the Content Blocking section to let users choose their desired level of privacy protection. You can access it by either clicking on the small "i" icon in the address bar and clicking on the gear on the right side under Content Blocking or by going to Preferences, Privacy & Security, and then Content Blocking.

Next, Firefox now supports AV1, the royalty-free video codec developed by the Alliance for Open Media. AV1 improves compression efficiency by more than 30 percent over the codec VP9, which it is meant to succeed. Lastly, Firefox's new Task Manager page (just navigate to about:performance or find it under "Other" in the main menu) is complete. Introduced in Firefox 64, Task Manager now reports memory usage for tabs and add-ons.

Comments

Content Blocking, Lets just keep NoScript

[oldgraybeard]

Not sure how I feel about this. I tend to resist Firefox updates because I don't want the new crap! The problem is, I would like security updates! Wish we could get security updates separated from features I never asked for and don't really give a rats ass about.

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:Content Blocking, Lets just keep NoScript

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it's called the ESR version.

NoScript, uMatrix, uBlock

[Anonymous Coward]

In that order. NoScript handles a variety of things that uMatrix doesn't, but uMatrix does a much better job showing you an overview of the currently demanded subsites and permissions to determine what you should whitelist to get a page working right. Between the three of them you ALMOST have a private and secure browser. Add in HTTPS Anywhere, Greasemonkey and some others and you can get almost any minor features you need without being held at ransom by the shitty javascript on most websites, or accidentally whitelisting more than you need to view the content you want.

Yes, it misses the point of Firefox.

[Anonymous Coward]

The original point of Phoenix over Mozilla(/Seamonkey) was that of a microkernel: 1. Include only what is absolutely necessary, and 2. make extending it as easy as possible.

But the idea was communicated badly. Very badly. (Although not knowingly.)

It was never meant to be used in its bare state, but adapted to your needs.
(Ok, it was never perfectly minimalist.)

But users installed it, and never got told that extending/adapting it is a necessary step to obtain a full browser. Nor were they interested in the hassle.
(A few good presets for add-on collections, chosen at installation, would have fixed that, but add-on collections did not even exist back then.)

So to compensate, more and more features crept into Firefox itself.
Even during Firefox 2.x times, jokes about adding a kitchen sink existed. (See: about:kitchensink)

Then, add-ons started to become so malicious, that some people started demanding a better add-on framework.

Which, sadly, culminated in copying Chrome's utterly crippled joke of extensibility interface.

And now many things have to go into the main browser, because they are starting to become impossible via add-ons.
Especially with the current anxiety-based obsessive-compulsive minimalism fad, where new versions often announce the removal of essential (e.g. add-on API) features. (Yes, at this point, it starts becoming a contradicting cognitive dissonance.)

IMHO, it's long time, to break apart the conept of a browser. Into a clean hypertext viewer, a virtual machine, a networking service, and for everything possible, falling back to already existing OS functionality, instead of indulging in the inner-platform effect.
Then add-ons merely become small tools and services again, distributed like any other program package that follows the Unix philosophy.

Re:Yes, it misses the point of Firefox.

[drinkypoo]

(A few good presets for add-on collections, chosen at installation, would have fixed that, but add-on collections did not even exist back then.)

Or they could have just packaged the addons with the browser install... bundling instead of bungling.

Re:Yes, it misses the point of Firefox.

[MinaInerz]

Firefox's WebExtension API is a considerable superset of what Chrome provides, and offers much of the power of what old extensions could but without the risks.

Previous add-ons could essentially do anything they wanted to your computer and the spaghetti code required to support them made it difficult to speed up the Gecko engine and lower the resources that it used.

Re:Yes, it misses the point of Firefox.

[BlackOverflow]

If you switch to Palemoon you can still use all the old FF XUL/Chrome-based addons!

Re:Yes, it misses the point of Firefox.

[MachineShedFred]

Yeah, but when you adopt a no-compulsory-nonsense approach, how can you trumpet how many new users you have for $FEATURE when the users who get the upgrade jammed down their throat don't have $FEATURE turned on by default?

Next you'll be suggesting that software shouldn't nag you on every launch that there's a new version available, and that you really should upgrade because reasons!

Last time I got frustrated with Firefox

[oldgraybeard]

I went back and checked out Palemoon. But it seemed Palemoon rejected NoScript so I rejected using Palemoon.

And I hate Chrome, it can not even scroll/re fresh the screen properly and the ads, ads, ads and no NoScript. The whole experience just sucks. The only time I use it is to moderate Slashdot since Firefox does not work no matter what I do.

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:Last time I got frustrated with Firefox

[jfdavis668]

Interesting, since I use Firefox to moderate Slashdot.

The last free browser

[110010001000]

Once Google starts stopping adblocking in Chromium, Firefox will be the last browser to allow the blocking of advertising and related malware. It is only a matter of time until Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc closes the adblock loophole.

Re:The last free browser

[BringsApples]

Once Google stops adblocking in Chromium...

You either start or stop, dude.

English language botched or not, this is still a good point. An add-on to that point: Google, Microsoft and Apple all write operating systems and mozilla doesn't. In the future, I feel like these operating-system-writing companies will invest heavily into laws that require web browsers to be a part of the OS, rather than a program that installs. This will, of course, be in the name of defeating terrorism and baby-rapers. Of course, it's also possible that, given that advertising accounts for about 19% of the nation's total economic output, it's possible that in the future avoiding advertising itself will be illegal.

Re:The last free browser

[110010001000]

Wrong. You can "start to stop" something. "Once Google begins to stop adblocking in Chromium" is another way of saying that. It will be a long process. But you are right, and I will take it one step further: eventually you won't be allowed to connect to the Internet except on an "approved" locked down device. People don't think that will happen, but there is too much money at stake here.

Re:The last free browser

[nightfire-unique]

But you are right, and I will take it one step further: eventually you won't be allowed to connect to the Internet except on an "approved" locked down device. People don't think that will happen,

Rather horrifyingly, this is already the case for a lot of Internet users.

If you're running an iPhone or iPad, you do so at the behest of Apple. They control which browers you're allowed to use. Presently there are a few choices, but that could change at any moment.

Google implements SafetyNet, which means if you root (assuming you don't own a device with a locked bootloader), you lose access to some of the ecosystem. They're in almost the same position as Apple: arbiters of permission.

At least with Android, you can go AOSP (again if your device is not bootloader locked) ... but I forsee a future where Google's greed simply overwhelms them, and they pressure all vendors into locking bootloaders, giving them absolute control.

Point aside, the vast majority of people don't root, meaning Google is free to remove any adblocking systems (browsers or VPNs) that they want.

Windows is apparently riddled with ads now, and the last I checked, it's difficult to block remotely initiated updates.

Checkmate for 95% of Internet users out there. It's fucking terrifying.

Linux, you say? Thanks to UEFI "secure" boot, we may well find that actually Free operating systems no longer run on new PCs.

Certainly a far cry from the computing I grew up with. :(

Re:The last free browser

[fred6666]

If you're running an iPhone or iPad, you do so at the behest of Apple. They control which browers you're allowed to use. Presently there are a few choices, but that could change at any moment.

All "browsers" on iOS are forced by Apple to use Safari as the rendering engine. Basically, alternatives browsers are themes on Safari

Even harder to compile from source?

[ReneR]

Let me guess, they found new creative ways to make it even harder to build from source? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Not sure if this is recent

[squiggleslash]

The latest entry in the Book of Mozilla appears to note Edge's switch to Chrome:

The Beast adopted new raiment and studied the ways of Time and Space and Light and the Flow of energy through the Universe. From its studies, the Beast fashioned new structures from oxidised metal and proclaimed their glories. And the Beastâ(TM)s followers rejoiced, finding renewed purpose in these teachings.
from The Book of Mozilla, 11:14

Re:Great, can't wait for FF to auto block content.

[lgw]

I don't want my web browser to block any of that. It's not its job. Pop up a warning for sites on a list of known phishing/attack sites, that's fine as long as there's no sending my every URL to the mothership to do it. But that's browser security, not content blocking.