Firefox's massive overhaul moves to beta

It must be usage as every Windows PC comes with IE. Chrome does not come close to IE in terms of installations. Just usage.

 

Anyone tried 29.x with Sandboxie? If so, any issues?

 

I did, no problem whatsoever. I posted about it at the Sandboxie forum a few minutes ago.

http://forums.sandboxie.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&p=99991#p99990

Bo

 

In my opinion, Firefox ruined themselves trying to copy Chrome. First they tried to outdo Chrome updates by releasing these quick updates and now they are tying to copy the Chrome interface. Why this fixation with Chrome? I have not idea. Luckily the interface changes can be undone easily and Firefox can be customized according to the individual user's requirements and preferences, which has always been a big plus for Firefox.

One reason I can think of behind their change of interface is to make it easier to use Firefox on touch screens, because the current interface is very difficult to click and get around with fingers on a touch screen. So they needed to change to a default interface that is touch friendly.

 

Cosmetics is not a massive overhaul in my opinion.

What they really need to work on is security, in regards to itself and the rest of the system. A multi-process architecture with low-rights containers is needed to prevent taking over the entire browser process and from there on infecting the system. The browser must be aware of its own high risk status. Firefox does not do that.

Even though Firefox has the best available (security) extensions, the kudos have to go to the developers of those extensions and not the browser itself. The extensions are what's keeping the browser alive. How many security conscious users would still use Firefox without NoScript and / or the additional protection of Sandboxie?

Yet even the best security extensions don't negate the necessity of the aforementioned improvements of the browser process architecture, because they put all the responsibility on the shoulders of the user, requiring him or her to guess in advance what might be malicious or not; not to speak of the millions of people who haven't even heard of NoScript or know how to use it.

Security wise Firefox is years behind the competition. There was a time when it was highly recommended to use Firefox instead of Internet Explorer in regards to security. This time has long since passed.

 

Aren't cosmetics supposed to make one prettier?

Test driving the 'massive overhaul', Australis looks and feels like a browser for 5-year olds. Thank God for Classic Theme Restorer.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/

 

This is exactly what puzzles me as well. If you want to do better than your competitors it is a very poor idea to clone their product. If you do that, one of two things might happen:

1. Seeing two near identical products, a user might choose the original and not the clone.
2. You cannot convince the users of the competition's product to switch to yours if your product looks like theirs.

Instead you should outsmart them when it comes to the design and functionality decisions and convince as many people as you can that your solutions are better.

 

I have been a serious FF lover for years. Since the version 2 or 3 days. I have been really passionate about it and use it daily at home.

Last night, I tried the v29 beta. I can work with it. At least for now.

That said, the Mozilla Foundation has clearly lost it's way. As noted above, FF is becoming a Chrome clone (looks, release schedule and who knows what else.) And IMO, if you appear to be a copy of an original, and offer little or nothing more than the original, you will not survive. In it's new form, the only thing FF currently has are notably more mature (and IMO, better) extensions. If Chrome ever matches that, then in my mind, it wins. Period! (Look at current Opera. IMO, why bother with it? Its Chrome!)

Hopefully FF will not force us to a Chrome only GUI and hopefully they will accomplish 2 other things for me...

Come up with a unique, clever way to run each tab in it's own process.

Find new marketing people that have a clue on what users really want (and it's not always Chrome.)

 

The question is why are people using Chrome? On a regular basis I see Chrome installed on my customers' machines and when I ask them about it they don't how it got there or even what it is. They use it inadvertently because it was bundled with something else they installed and made itself the default browser. In this case people are not using Chrome over Firefox because they prefer Chrome's UI - in this scenario changing Firefox's appearance to something that looks more like Chrome won't make a difference. On the other hand Firefox has had theme support for a long time. In effect all they're doing by making the UI more like Chrome is changing the default theme. Don't like it? - just change it back....easy peasy (lemon squeezy)

 

Mozilla software became mainstream because they were listening to their users and giving them what they wanted. Their browsers became popular because they were good. Word of mouth was all the advertizing they needed. It's sad that extensions like Classic Theme Restorer and apps like StartIsBack even exist. Extensions used to be used for customizing or adding new functions that were needed, not bandaids for defective or poor design. What really gets me is that people think this is OK. As long as there's an extension or an application that can undo their design flaws or replace the missing pieces, the product is acceptable. Is that the message we want to send to the developers? Mozilla needs to stop being concerned with market share and get back to focusing on writing good code. Market share doesn't matter when the product is freeware. Make something that will market itself, like you used to.

 

Why is Australis defective or poor? Many applications are "skinnable" and that is usually considered desirable. What an application can be skinned what difference does it make what the default skin is? How do you know that market share doesn't matter just because Firefox is freeware? And last since Firefox is not bundled with anything nor pre-installed on new machines (AFAIK) it does market itself.

 

Australis is defective because:

It tries to fix a nonexistent problem
It makes the UI that less productive
It is designed for people with IQ < 100
It insults my intelligence

Mrk

 

Can you say more about it "fixing a nonexistent problem"? Is that what Mozilla says it's doing? Can you also say more about how it makes the UI "less productive"? I saw your mention that the status bar is no longer available. I can understand that some people will miss that functionality. What else?

As for your last two comments the first is opinion and the last isn't intentional

 

I really don't mind Australis at all. There doesn't seem too much of a difference to me.

 

Yeah, I tend to agree. When I learned they were dropping the status bar I configured Fx so I didn't need it. So Australis doesn't seem that different to me either. Mind you, Maxthon hasn't dropped its status bar and it is not unlike Chrome in many respects (same rendering engine). I do get a feeling that Mozilla are trying to simplify the Fx GUI somewhat. I can only surmise the reason.

 

Will it still have: Menu Bar, Navigation Toolbar, Bookmarks Toolbar and Add-on Bar available, even as an extension/theme? If so, I'll still be happy!

 

Been a long-time FOX user when they were giving IE stiff competition and Chrome wasn't
even in existence. My how times have changed. Now we have FF 6-week rapid cycle releases
where things are added or dropped and addon authors scrambling to keep up with the latest
build. FF was the go-to- browser that many preferred, but that may be changing.
If FF went back to their roots by distinguishing themselves from other browsers
like they did in the beginning...


The FOX may be heading down the wrong shore by paddling a copycat candyChrome (ccc) only to find
it tipped too far over and plunged into the deep Sea of Australis.

Time will tell if the FOX can resurface again into a sea of built-in customizable configurations
that privacy/security users like to wade through without being swamped with cosmetic code.

 

personally i like it. i have been using this for a long time now though in using the nightly builds with this gui. so for me this was not really a change. i have liked it since then and i still do. my wife was not super thrilled but after a bit of time using it she said its no different for her than before minus the shape of the tabs and color changes.

 

We had that discussion here some time ago. According to Mozilla's own feedback report, a vast majority of Firefox users who commented on the interface were unhappy with it. Since then, Mozilla has proceeded to wipe out any form of dissent and rigidly push Australis as planned. So unless projects like Cyberfox and/or Pale Moon will be willing and able to maintain the current interface, sadly it looks like Classic Theme Restorer will be the only alternative.

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=356114

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=359966

 

See: How to enable a separate process per tab in Firefox.

Note: The OP of the above linked article mentioned that they use the nightly builds to do the about:config modification. Therefore, I would recommend you tryout the change using the Nightly Build version of Firefox. If you choose to throw caution to the winds and use your normal Firefox profile to make the change, I would recommend you backup your profile prior to making the change, such that if you run into a problem with the change when not using the Nightly Build, you can recover your normal profile before you made the change.

Running separate tabs in separate processes is not the most effective implementation. While separate processes would be a step up from a single process, it would be more effective to run separate tabs in separate threads. The difference between a thread and a process is that a process is a heavyweight mechanism in terms of resource usage, while a thread is lightweight by comparison.

-- Tom

 

There's another option. Stay with the last version that works the way you want. It's not like the previous release self destructs.

 

Well said

Afaik this is only a feature to make sure that only the tab freezes/crashes instead of the whole browser. Imo what mozilla should be doing is using separate low rights/untrusted processes to improve security.

Many will not consider this a valid option as you won't be receiving security updates and the longer you stay on the preferred version, the more insecure it gets. You could also move to the ESR release so you'll still receive security updates. However that's only postponing the inevitable as ESR gets updated to the main release once in a while, the next time at v31.

 

The average user has been so bombarded with the "you're gonna get owned if you don't have the latest and greatest" rhetoric for so long, they accept it as fact and inevitable.

 

Why do you say that? What kind of security do you think that Firefox should offer?

 

No sandboxed tabs yet in Fx?