Did you file a bug about this? I haven't ever heard about this problem, and it works fine for me. Time to look at your addons/plugins or go to about:support and force a profile refresh?
> I wouldn't be surprised if people here are being paid to be negative about Firefox, given how much they complain without ever offering any constructive criticism.
The ironic thing is that there's a much better AdBlocking plugin for Firefox for Android: uBlock. It's much lighter on resources than AdBlock. You're better off installing the real Firefox and uBlock than this thing.
I was talking about the comprehensive study with state of the art JPEG free encoders, not the visual comparison of 3 or so images that's made to make BPG look good.
You don't have to. The browser is fully open source. That's why they're actually comparing vs Chromium, not Chrome. But Chromium is missing quite a few features compared to Chrome like H264 support.
"The Chrome Security team has been a source of innovation in the browser security space. Tor Browser Bundle is based on Firefox and thus inherits progress made by Mozilla automatically. While improvements in Chrome may not be appropriate for Firefox, they could be integrated in Tor Browser Bundle. In a best case scenario, members of the Chrome Security team may be allowed to work with the Tor Project on these changes."
Basically it's saying: Chrome is also doing good stuff, combine it with the stuff you get from Mozilla for a better result.
Security bugs filed against Firefox are private until a new release is out to the users. If the issue is critical (looks like it can be exploited), it will be in a x.0.1 update. If it isn't, then it will be in n+1.
Another way of stating what you said is "if Firefox engineers find a way to 0-day their own browser, they fix it before plasting the information on how to do it all over the internet".
I was wondering the same thing. The only thing the report says is "implementing security features that Chromium has and work in Firefox would help Tor".
Internet Explorer has offered this for far longer than Chrome and it's actually quite effective when you don't click away the warnings. Note that Firefox and Safari also use the same SafeBrowsing service as Chrome does, though they have to wait for the protocol documentation to be updated before offering features like this one.
>He only said that he didn't want it to work with older versions, and that it was not a lot of work - i.e. it still took some amount of work - to make it not work with older versions
He doesn't say that at all. Really. It's not even remotely in the article. He talks about dropping support for Python 2.6. This isn't an action involving work! It means you no longer care if it doesn't work in Python 2.6.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you file a bug about this? I haven't ever heard about this problem, and it works fine for me. Time to look at your addons/plugins or go to about:support and force a profile refresh?
> I wouldn't be surprised if people here are being paid to be negative about Firefox, given how much they complain without ever offering any constructive criticism.
Never attribute to malice...
>A poorly made one with Yahoo
Do you have some inside information? Nobody outside Mozilla seems to know what the deal with Yahoo was or how much money they got for it?
>Dropping support for their long-time plugins is bad move, IMHO.
It's either that or staying forever insecure due to the lack of sandbox.
>SQLite... why?
Because most people's machines are crap and will crash randomly, yet they'll be upset when you lose their history of bookmarks.
Pale Moon designed for security? I just pissed my pants laughing.
The cool aid is not only strong, it keeps revising history.
The ironic thing is that there's a much better AdBlocking plugin for Firefox for Android: uBlock. It's much lighter on resources than AdBlock. You're better off installing the real Firefox and uBlock than this thing.
I was talking about the comprehensive study with state of the art JPEG free encoders, not the visual comparison of 3 or so images that's made to make BPG look good.
WebP is only very marginally better than JPEG, see the linked compression studies in the original article.
Not so much a "limit" as much as a complete showstopper.
Yes and yes, respectively. Though for the latter they probably won't bother.
This is just a terrible idea.
PaleMoon is just Firefox 24 ESR. You're still using Firefox, someone just s/Firefox/PaleMoon/g 'd it.
It's been in Nightly for a while. I'm posting using it. The only thing that doesn't work well for me is...Gmail.
There's also full sandboxing support, but you need a compile time flag for it.
You don't have to. The browser is fully open source. That's why they're actually comparing vs Chromium, not Chrome. But Chromium is missing quite a few features compared to Chrome like H264 support.
PaleMoon is just a rebranded Firefox 24 ESR.
Palemoon is just Firefox 24 ESR, which is coincidentally what the Tor Browser Bundle used to be based on.
"The Chrome Security team has been a source of innovation in the browser security space. Tor Browser Bundle is based on Firefox and thus inherits progress made by Mozilla automatically. While improvements in Chrome may not be appropriate for Firefox, they could be integrated in Tor Browser Bundle. In a best case scenario, members of the Chrome Security team may be allowed to work with the Tor Project on these changes."
Basically it's saying: Chrome is also doing good stuff, combine it with the stuff you get from Mozilla for a better result.
As an anonymous troll that is an authority on the subject, I think the parent is full of shit.
The sheep (or astroturfers, can't tell) have decided that Chrome is the cool thing and everything else must die, facts be damned.
Security bugs filed against Firefox are private until a new release is out to the users. If the issue is critical (looks like it can be exploited), it will be in a x.0.1 update. If it isn't, then it will be in n+1.
Another way of stating what you said is "if Firefox engineers find a way to 0-day their own browser, they fix it before plasting the information on how to do it all over the internet".
I was wondering the same thing. The only thing the report says is "implementing security features that Chromium has and work in Firefox would help Tor".
The headline is a lie.
Internet Explorer has offered this for far longer than Chrome and it's actually quite effective when you don't click away the warnings. Note that Firefox and Safari also use the same SafeBrowsing service as Chrome does, though they have to wait for the protocol documentation to be updated before offering features like this one.
As the article points out, the service is used by Firefox (with a number of privacy improvements) and Safari as well.
>He only said that he didn't want it to work with older versions, and that it was not a lot of work - i.e. it still took some amount of work - to make it not work with older versions
He doesn't say that at all. Really. It's not even remotely in the article. He talks about dropping support for Python 2.6. This isn't an action involving work! It means you no longer care if it doesn't work in Python 2.6.
>What he appears to be complaining about is "Why do projects continue to require old Python releases?"
No, he doesn't. I re-read the article after reading your post and I have no idea where you get this.
He really is talking about dropping support, i.e. no longer caring if it doesn't work on old Python versions.