Firefox 42 Arrives With Tracking Protection, Tab Audio Indicators 134
An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla today launched Firefox 42 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Notable additions to the browser include tracking protection, tab audio indicators, and background link opening on Android. The new private browsing mode goes further than just not saving your browsing history (read: porn sites) — the added tracking protection means Firefox also blocks website elements (ads, analytics trackers, and social share buttons) that could track you while you're surfing the web, and it works on all four platforms. The feature is almost like a built-in ad blocker, though it's really closer to browser add-ons like Ghostery and Privacy Badger because ads that don't track you are allowed through.
Firefox marketshare continues to decline (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Firefox marketshare continues to decline (Score:5, Informative)
Who cares? It's still the best choice if you value privacy and don't like ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. It makes me sad how many people use IE and Chrome. OTOH many people where I work refer to the E as "The Internet", so not that surprising. Also wondering about their methods... where their research money comes from (i.e. bias), etc.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH many people where I work refer to the E as "The Internet", so not that surprising.
I don't think it's a lack of creativity that caused Microsoft to use an identical looking icon for their new Edge browser. They know there are a lot of illiterate people out there who don't know what "Internet Explorer" is and just double-click the blue E to go online.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is, this "tracking protection" feature is lifted wholesale from IE, which has had it since v9 (with a less-user-friendly version present in v8). The only difference is that, in IE, tracking protection is off by default but can be turned on (temporarily or as the new default) easily, whether in Private Browsing mode or not. In Firefox, so far as I can tell from the high-propaganda-low-content links in the TFS, it's only active in Private Browsing mode but at least it's active by default there
Re:Firefox marketshare continues to decline (Score:5, Interesting)
.
Where is DANE/TLSA DNSSEC support for TLS certs? Why do I need to install a plug-in to get that ability, but I don't need to install a plug-in for the bogus Pocket functionality?
Fortunately, at least the DNSSEC/TLSA Validator for Firefox works very well.
I wish I could say the say for the apparent bugfest that is the DKIM validation plug-in for Thunderbird. Again, Mozilla, where is the security focus in Thunderbird? Why do I need to install a buggy plug-in to get DKIM validation?
You will care about Firefox's declining marketshare once it goes below 10%. That threshold seems to be the point where a browser can affect Internet web standards, and Firefox is moving to the point where it will be irrelevant, standard-wise.
Half the argument (Score:3)
How do you make money to keep the project going? Well, you have to have some give and take (*cough* yahoo default search engine *cough*).
Firefox has ~10% market share and is not installed as a default in Windows, IOS, OSX, or Android. Google does not recommend it every time you run a search on a non Chrome browser either. 10% is pretty damn good all things considered.
The doom and gloom claim is simply wrong. Sure, they may leverage some technology better than others but moving to the point it's not re
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering some number had FF over 50%, ~10% if fucking pathetic. They let their ux "experts" start calling the shots and started moving dev pet plugins into teh core browser even though no one wanted to use them. That's why their market share plummeted. Couple that with the impending destruction of their addon api, the only reason to use the fucking POS, and it's a wonder anyone bothers.
Use Chromium with uMatrix. Done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I personally would be open to paying a small amount of money per year to have no monetization "features" at all.
Re: (Score:1)
I wish I could say the say for the apparent bugfest that is the DKIM validation plug-in for Thunderbird. Again, Mozilla, where is the security focus in Thunderbird? Why do I need to install a buggy plug-in to get DKIM validation?
DKIM was designed to be verified on the receiving servers. Users' mail clients were expected to visibly mark verification results. I guess one reason they don't is because few senders add DKIM-Signatures, so much so that that add-on rolls its own DKIM verification crypto. Another reason is that DKIM authentication by itself can be misleading. DMARC adjustments still cannot address a faked domain, either look-alike or display phrase. And end users don't seem to care much.
The answer to your question ough
Re: (Score:2)
Things like FireJail on Linux, and Sandboxie on Windows are pretty handy to prevent browser-introduced crap getting on your system.. I strongly suggest my clients who are still on Windows to buy a copy of Sandboxie and run their browsers in it.. Firejail on Linux runs Firefox (or any other browser) in a nice little jail.. Pretty handy to keep the shit out..
Re: (Score:1)
It still needs some way to show which tabs are killing the CPU. I constantly find Firefox at 100% of a cpu and can't find the tab/tabs causing the problem.
When the fuck will Mozilla wake up?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I find these stats [caniuse.com] to be more in line with what I'm seeing with many of my websites. The 12% you mention is high for Firefox. It's most likely closer to only 8%.
But you are correct, Firefox's market share does continue to decline month after month, with no end in sight.
My question is, when the fuck will Mozilla realize that everything they've done since Firefox 4 has been universally disliked?
I mean, how much further does Firefox's market share have to decline? Does it need to hit 5%? Or 1%? Or are they just going to drive head-on into 0%?
Mozilla totally missed the boat on mobile. Firefox for Android is universally disliked, and has at most 0.1% (yes, that's a fraction of 1%!) of the browser market. Chrome for Android has over 15%, and iOS Safari has over 5%.
Mozilla has repeatedly ignored what users have wanted for Firefox on the desktop. Despite a huge outcry from the community, all we've gotten is one unwanted change after another. Mozilla trashed Firefox's UI. They trashed Firefox's usability. They put ads into Firefox. They forced in totally unwanted and unnecessary social media integration. They still haven't done much to improve Firefox's remarkably slow performance or its excessively high resource usage.
Desktop Firefox is the only product that Mozilla offers that even has a small number of users. Since they abandoned Thunderbird, we've seen that gradually become avoided by users. None of Mozilla's other efforts have seen much success. Persona is a failure. Servo is perpetually going nowhere. Rust took forever to get to 1.0, and now that C++14 is out and is better there is no need for Rust. Let's Encrypt has been taking forever. Firefox OS has gotten some of the most scathing software reviews ever seen [arstechnica.com], and is seeing no uptake.
With its continually dropping share of the market, at some point soon Firefox is going to become completely irrelevant. It's close enough, as it is. Once that finally happens, Mozilla's influence will evaporate. The small number of remaining Firefox users are the only thing keeping Mozilla even remotely relevant. When Firefox's market share percentage is measured on one finger, nobody will care what Mozilla and its handful of users will think about the direction that the web is taking.
The saddest thing about all of this is that it's something that Mozilla has done to itself! It wasn't Microsoft, or Google, or Apple, or Opera, or anyone else who destroyed Firefox. It was Mozilla, and Mozilla alone! Even Firefox's users can't be blamed, because they did what they could and protested each and every awful change that Mozilla has forced. It's all so goddamn unnecessary!
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR version: s/BSD/Firefox/*
Re: (Score:1)
Yet if you ask the decision makers at Mozilla, they will probably tell you that most of the UI changes have been made using data from A/B tests, UI usage data (ie. UI hotspots). Is their methodology wrong?
Should we blame the massive marketing muscle of Google for so many people transitioning to Chrome? I've tried Chrome and IMO it's not better, though it is close.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet if you ask the decision makers at Mozilla, they will probably tell you that most of the UI changes have been made using data from A/B tests, UI usage data (ie. UI hotspots). Is their methodology wrong?
Not at all, if your goal is to appeal to the lowest-common denominator of user. You'd better get it right, though, because at that point, you're playing Microsoft's game.
Re:When the fuck will Mozilla wake up?! (Score:4, Insightful)
The saddest thing about all of this is that it's something that Mozilla has done to itself! It wasn't Microsoft, or Google, or Apple, or Opera, or anyone else who destroyed Firefox. It was Mozilla, and Mozilla alone! Even Firefox's users can't be blamed, because they did what they could and protested each and every awful change that Mozilla has forced. It's all so goddamn unnecessary!
Good rant, and pretty much spot on target.
Apparently, they haven't even fixed issues as annoying as this [helgeklein.com], after almost five years. There are always plenty of resources at Mozilla to move controls around and break the UI, but when it comes to performance and real-world usability, well, that stuff isn't as much fun to work on, I guess.
(Hint: for those who are annoyed by FireFox's habit of hitching and pausing every 10 seconds or so, that liink to helgeklein.com is well worth a click. It seems to have fixed the problem for me.)
Re: (Score:1)
I reported a bug recently where animated favicons visible in a tab or loaded and cached in your bookmarks toolbar tank scrolling performance in Firefox. This includes things like the spinning tab loading animation. Doesn't look like it will be fixed until after Firefox 44 as they still haven't figured out why the animated favicon causes so many redraw problems.
If this is your issue, you can sort of fix it by turning off all the gfx.vsync.* settings and restarting Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're bitching about resource usage you haven't used Chrome lately. And as long as FF is around, it keeps the other browsers (corporations) in line.
I for one, do not welcome our new Google overlord.
Re: (Score:1)
It does make sense when you actually stop to think about it, which is clearly something you did not do.
What does Firefox offer? A Chrome-like UI, with poor performance and excessive memory usage.
What does Chrome offer? A Chrome-like UI, with great performance and minimal memory usage.
Which browsers can Windows users realistically choose from? Firefox, Chrome, IE.
Which browsers can OS X users realistically choose from? Firefox, Chrome, Safari.
Which browsers can Linux users realistically choose from? Firefox,
No shit. (Score:5, Interesting)
No kidding it continues to decline. There's two main reasons:
1. Go to google.com and you det an advert for chrome. So, the world's largest advertiser it heavily avertising on one of the highest traffic sites in the world.
2. Chrome is installed on the majority of mobile devices, and that's now a HUGE segment, and hardly anyone seems to install a better browser on their phone.
I'm inclined to say the latter is more important. If you look at the stats on wikipedia, the decline of firefox mirrors the rise in mobile devices, not the rise in chrome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, massive advertising campaign and aggressive bundling from one of the largest companies in the world? What chance do they stand?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm inclined to say the latter is more important. If you look at the stats on wikipedia, the decline of firefox mirrors the rise in mobile devices, not the rise in chrome.
If you go to gs.statcounter.com and select just the desktop platform it's 57% Chrome, 17% Firefox, in total on all platforms it's 9.5%. At its peak in November 2009 Firefox had 32% when the mobile market was negligible. So it's about even, they've lost 45% of the desktop market share and the desktop has lost 45% of the total.market. YMMV but I switched because having Firefox running for long periods made it a slow memory hog requiring a full restart, in Chrome closing the offending tab solved things. Mozill
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like [netmarketshare.com] the current marketshare is under 12% and in a decline.
Is it any wonder, with bone headed moves like completely blocking support for some plugins (ahem, flash)? I moved off the nightly builds onto waterfox for this very reason. I'll be the one in charge of deciding which plugins I do/don't run thank you very much.
Re: (Score:2)
Copying and bloating worked well for Windows, so that can't be the reason.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, this isn't wrong. I like Firefox, I like its ease of tabs, I like the nice NoScript plugin, but every version gets worse. As is stands now, for me anyway, the dumb thing just gets buggier the longer I use it, eventually crashing. It's got a cycle of working, acting strange, crashing, restarting. Thing's just unstable. I haven't updated mine in a while because it just always gets worse. IMO, the best version of Firefox was released about two years ago; I hope Mozilla isn't wondering why their mar
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't poked at Pale Moon in a long time. It tells me to not use sudo, run pminstaller.sh and it invokes sudo and demands a password. :/ I'm not sure how this will pan out but it's a nifty installer nonetheless.
Stop! (Score:1)
"Notable additions to the browser..."
Stop adding shit!
Re:Stop! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Good Lord, is that the first useful addition to the core browser in the last 5 years? Looks like I'll be less well-informed about the world from now on, though: https://xkcd.com/1280/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you're one of those old folks who only looks at one tab at a time, and never opens more than one tab.
When you open 6 tabs at a time with middle-clicks because you're reading the news and selecting the articles of interest to you, it's easy for one or more of those to have some auto-playing video BS.
Re: (Score:2)
My browser blocks flash from playing automatically by default.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately for the world, but unfortunately for you, pretty much everybody is moving away from Flash. I block Flash by default. Three years ago I was asked to enable it for a site a few times a day, with an ugly grey box if I didn't. Now I don't remember needing to do so any time in the last few months, and I rarely even see the block indicator light up.
Re: (Score:2)
Not auto-playing audio or video is something that would be far more useful. Flash loaded via plug-in? Scan that shit on-the-fly for media APIs and replace its window with a permission button.
Windows 64bit stable (Score:2, Informative)
The builds are available for anyone in the know. Just not yet directed from download page.
Waiting on partner [mozilla.org] before it gets publicised.
Re: (Score:2)
I just used Help/About to update Firefox on this 64-bit Windows 10 machine, and can verify it works.
Re: (Score:1)
I just used Help/About to update Firefox on this 64-bit Windows 10 machine, and can verify it works.
If you updated from the 32-bit version, you are still running the 32-bit version
To switch to 64-bit, you need to uninstall 32-bit then install 64-bit. get it here:
https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/fi... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:1)
https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/fi... [mozilla.org]
Why does every site try to open video now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can. Install NoScript or FlashBlock.
Re:Why does every site try to open video now? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, audio indicators are a good first step, but can we just block all auto-playing videos outright?
You can try the about:config setting media.autoplay.enabled, but that seemingly-benign feature has it's own long sad story [mozilla.org]. As of version 41 this setting finally applies to HTML5 video, preventing the video from playing unless there's been "user interaction", but it makes some sites behave a little oddly (for example, YouTube thinks the video is playing even though it's not).
Re: (Score:1)
Google Chrome at least has a built-in click to play feature which blocks autoplay for flash.
But it doesn't block for HTML5 (coincidentally? used by Youtube).
https://code.google.com/p/chro... [google.com]
-_-
Re: (Score:2)
On the other side, this year I haven't had my TV on, the net gives me (almost) all I need.
(read: porn sites) (Score:1)
The new private browsing mode goes further than just not saving your browsing history (read: porn sites)
Oh really?
Don't tell your mom...
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:dont link the fucking presser. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
What's wrong with installing it as an extension if you like it?
I don't understand the question.
--Firefox Dev
Re: (Score:1)
Pretend he's talking about a feature that lots the users used, but that you don't personally use, and for which UX team thought a menu option or tickbox took up valuable pixels that could be better used for whitespace or advertising.
-- former Firefox user
Re: (Score:2)
I don't use it myself, but I have nothing against it in principle.
However, it started out as an add-on; and it really should have stayed an add-on. It is not core functionality of a browser; so it shouldn't be bloating the browser.
At least sync makes it so you can run your own sync server if you are so inclined; so its its 100x better than pocket which backs onto a 3rd party commercial service, but it still shouldn't' have been integrated.
It should be a plugin, not a feature. (Score:2)
It should be a plugin. I don't want it, don't need it, and it gets in my way because it's on by default. I've deactivated it on three systems this week alone.
That's exactly why it should be available to you as a plugin.
Firefox was created because Mozilla (now seamonkey) was too bloated. The stated design philosophy of FF was that a browser should browse the web, and have no other features except as provided by way of rich plugin support.
I don't run F
Re: (Score:2)
| but those went right out the window once that sweet sweet Google cash started rolling in.
Correction, when all that sweet Google cash STOPPED rolling in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
None of my plugins are dead, and my old add-ons appear to all be working, too. That's really important to me, because the only reason I use Firefox is for the value added by the add-ons, especially NoScript, Ghostery, PrivacyBadger, AdBlock, and FlashBlock. It seems like Mozilla has finally figured out how to stop changing the add-on API with every damn release, for which I am very grateful. I used to have to wait a long time to find out which of my old extensions would need upgrading before updating Fir
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One piece of shit they've left in is the broken UI idea that tabs should be above the toolbars and bookmarks.
Why is that a broken idea? I only have one tool bar, and it contains the address bar and search box, along with the adblock pro, ghostery, etc. All of those functions are applicable to the currently displayed tab; the little number in ghostery for example is how many things were blocked in the current tab. The address bar is the address of the current tab, etc.
Even the home button and bookmarks are navigation controls that apply to the current tab. (although multi-tab bookmarks are an exception to that --
Don't worry until FF 44 (Score:3)
Actual release notes (Score:1)
Instead of linking to blogspam, why not link to the actual release notes?
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/42.0/releasenotes/
Re: (Score:2)
The new version still has the same choices for updates as always:
So, yes, it comes with optional forced updates. You can either set your preferences or continue living in the past as you wish.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, why not ask every user of Windows who thought the same thing about Window Updates, and suddenly discovered a 4GB download forcedon them for an O/S they don't want?
Only for Private Windows (Score:2)
The tracking protection only appears to work in Private Windows. It should work by default if you want it to, with or without Private Windows. I have NO interest in being tracked regardless of mode unless I opt-in to such tracking. (can't imagine me doing that but I should control the option)
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't tried 42.0 yet, but the last few releases have tracking already and can be turned on through about:config.
Just set privacy.trackingprotection.enabled and privacy.trackingprotection.pbmode.enabled to true.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, Mozilla? Copy a feature IE has had for years, ok, fine, good for you, have a cookie.
Make it completely obscure how to use it in the common scenario (i.e. not launching in Private Browsing mode), though? That's just... Stupid. Ridiculously stupid.
I'd like to see CPU / RAM use per tab (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
about:memory
Re: (Score:2)
about:memory
That is for memory use, not CPU use.
I think that the real reason that so many people want to see per-tab CPU use is due to Firefox freezing so often. Another poster above posted this link, which seems to resolve the issue partially:
https://helgeklein.com/blog/20... [helgeklein.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I use Tab Memory which works pretty well for adding a little usage count to the top of every tab.
http://mybrowseraddon.com/tab-... [mybrowseraddon.com]
Firefox 42 arrives (Score:1)
But unfortunately, it's not the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything.
Fight for your bitcoins! [coinbrawl.com]
New private browsing mode (Score:2)
Silly timothy, that's not how you use porn sites!
Fight for your bitcoins! [coinbrawl.com]
Cannot connect to my WLS consoles (Score:1)
Back to 'vi' and editing directly the config.xml.
Seems to work fairly well (Score:1)
Surprisingly fairly easy to use the new No Tracking windows.
That given, I should warn you that your actual keyboard, mouse controller, and CPU GPU are all directly accessible by the NSA GCHQ CSES and all the other p3rvs.
Browser alternatives? (Score:1)
Is there another browser that can be configured like FF with the Tree-Style tabs add-on? I've gotten so used to having the tabs along the left side of the browser, that I can't stand using a browser with them across the top. I tend to have a lot of windows open, 14 at the moment. And currently have 7 to 22 tabs open in each window. If I'm researching something, that number can go up more. When the number of tabs gets past 8 or so, it's too difficult to figure out what's in them if they are across the top.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'm aware of. The closest is, oddly, IE; it has "tab grouping" that color-codes tabs so you can tell which tabs were opened from which other tabs. Still only along the top, though, and it doesn't actually show the hierarchy.
I'd really like to have tab trees in Pale Moon. At least Pale Moon supports switching tabs (Ctrl+Tab shortcut) in recently-used order... Firefox's default tab handling is shit (and not just for the location or lack of hierarchy).
Re: (Score:1)
I'm using Opera with the Simple Vertical Tabs extension and am pretty happy with it. Opera is actually a decent option if you have realized how wonderful vertical tabs are, but also need compatibility with existing Chrome-only extensions (Tabs Outliner, in my case) and are therefore prevented from using Firefox with Tree Style Tabs.
Another option would be the Vivaldi browser, which supports vertical tabs natively. It just entered beta, so it still has some rough edges, but it does already look promising. Vi
Tracking protection, can it work? (Score:1)
I wonder how well the tracking protection really works.
Just looking at the huge amounts of ways that your browser can be fingerprinted - https://wiki.mozilla.org/Finge... [mozilla.org] - it seems virtually impossible. To start with they already have your IP and there's about a dozen other standard parameters the uniquely identify you. Then there's some crazy shit, like checking system clock time skew.
Re: (Score:2)
It's less about preventing fingerprinting and more about preventing third-party requests. For example, browsing Slashdot with Slashdot's ads ostensibly disabled, there are still eight different third-party requests (not counting stuff I've whitelisted, like jquery and other necessary evils) that my browser has blocked. That's not counting requests that the responses to those blocked requests themselves would have generated, which is usually several times as many (page loads third-party scripts A, B, and C,