Mozilla Labs proposes eternal hell and damnation for FF users

Back to the Chrome-Plated Fox. Drinking in the Last Chance Saloon with Holly:

http://msujaws.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/australis-landing-plans/

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/tinderbox-builds/holly-win32/

 

I used to run Iron but I haven't for a while. It can be a tad buggy. I'm not a huge fan of Chrome & I've never used Chromium so it's difficult for me to be objective. I think that many just want to be dissociated from any notion of Google.

I find Maxthon a better WebKit alternative.

 

So does this mean the end of about:config in Firefox then?

 

I would hope not. There are very valid reasons to adjust the settings there at times. I don't mind them changing the outside a little bit, but I don't feel it is necessary to interfere with its "guts" too often. I had held out hope that they would fix some of the older issues such as the browser quite often not exiting properly before they gave the program any surface makeovers.

 

Yeah, their priorities seem a bit odd. It's this sentence:

"Due to its large scope, Australis couldn’t be implemented with the ability to toggle its presence via an about:config preference." ~ op cit

which seems a bit ambiguous to me.

 

I don't really understand what they mean. As I had understood it, Australis was more of an interface change than anything. I'm not a developer however, so perhaps I'm not thinking of how everything interacts with one another?

 

I'm still perplexed as to why Mozilla feel the need to make Fx appear even more like Chrome.

 

English is not my main language, but I think they aren't saying about:config will be gone in Australis, but they're saying you can't turn the Australis interface off through about:config, because the scope is too wide for an simple 'off'-switch.

 

You're probably right. I think I will be able to live with Australis, but I use Firefox much less now than I used to a few years ago. At one time it was all I really used. It's not even my default browser any more.

 

BoerenkoolMetWorst, perhaps that is what they mean. If so, it does make much more sense now.

Daveski17, I definitely feel that many competitors have in the recent past copied a lot from Chrome. I don't necessarily feel it is truly bad, though I do see it as unnecessary. I feel that, beyond security which there should be an agreed upon standard for, browsers as well as other software should retain and embrace their own identity.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Chrome has its positive points. It is probably the most secure browser 'out of the box' & its clean & simplified GUI was aesthetically pleasing & innovative.

I can understand designers being visually influenced by the look of its GUI, it's just that being 'influenced' & slavishly imitating are two different things altogether.

Mozilla just appear to be making Fx into a bizarre parody of Chrome. I can only assume that they believe that the more it looks like Chrome maybe Chrome users will give it a try because it resembles it so much. I just don't get it.

 

Declining market share perhaps? What I don't get is the relative lack of debate surrounding the issue. In German-speaking countries, the browser's new clothes are receiving far more attention:

https://www.google.de/search?hl=de&gl=de&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=firefox australis&oq=firefox australis

 

Yeah, 'cause if it looks just like Chrome some people will download it by accident right?

Oh, I don't think Mozilla do debate any more.

 

what's next?

another Chrome fork like Opera?

 

Daveski17, it's that very level of security that I wish to see in all of our browser choices. And you're correct, influence and imitation aren't the same.

Moontan, if I've understood the situation at Opera correctly, it seems as though Opera changed due more to necessity than desire.

 

My knowledge of software & coding is virtually non-existent. However, I do believe that Gecko, as a rendering engine, is approaching its 'sell-by' date now. Without sandboxed tabs, & other security processes, Firefox just can't compete with Chromium/Chrome for overall security. Well, not without certain forms of browser hardening such as NoScript. Even then it is debatable just how safe Firefox is compared to other browsers. I don't see anything changing until there is a totally new engine being utilised by Firefox. I personally feel quite secure surfing with SeaMonkey & NoScript though. The only thing that I can think of is that Mozilla believe that if Firefox resembles Chrome enough people will think it is as secure.

 

I would hope that Mozilla would not stoop to such levels, but one never knows with companies these days. If an individual would take ten minutes out of their day to research the issue with a simple Google search, right away they would know that Chrome security and Firefox security might as well be entirely separate universes. I don't wish to take anything away from NoScript, as it will protect from the most widely used web attacks. But it is no Chrome level of security.

 

I think I am going with the theory of temporary insanity.

 

They don't have hardly anything innovative to offer other than Ad Choices built into Firefox, apparently. Disappointing...

 

Yes, very.

 

Ad Choices built into Firefox? What are you talking about?

Edit: NM, I think. It just dawned on me you were likely referring to the Cookie Clearinghouse project and said's intention to whitelist the DAA's opt-out preference cookies. Which would seem to help the DAA pursue and promote opt-out based solutions

 

I called it Ad Choices built into Firefox, but I'm referring to the "user personalization" proposal linked to in the OP.

I'm not sure if that's related to what you're referring to or not.

 

Ah, I didn't read the very early posts in this thread given the subject of the later ones. I should have before replying to you (my bad). I just did now. WTF.

I came to think you were referring to this "AdChoices" program run by the advertising industry:
http://www.youradchoices.com/

and Mozilla's connection to the Cookie Clearinghouse:
http://adage.com/article/dataworks/mozilla-stanford-pitch-cookie-blocking-approach/242553/

Maybe that "User Personalization Proposal" sheds light on why Mozilla backed off the original third-party cookie blocking by default approach and also backed off the softer Cookie Clearinghouse approach (http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/20...t-delayed-again-as-mozilla-commitment-wavers/). It doesn't want to burn bridges with the advertising industry because it intends to build support for advertising into its platforms.

 

So there, eternal hell and damnation

http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/20...t-delayed-again-as-mozilla-commitment-wavers/

 

Curiouser & curiouser ...