Firefox's massive overhaul moves to beta

Cheers JR, I'm still running this on my notebook, I think it's working very well.

 

Re: How to change the new Firefox Australis looks

Nice tutorial. I won't know until I start using Australis whether or not I will need it, but I appreciate your work. By the way shouldn't you turn the "finger" around so it's facing the other way?

 

Makes you wonder why they made it look like a Chrome clone. Stupid. Before it had identity, now it's just a Chrome clone. And a bad one at that. I don't get it what was wrong with it before. It's far less customizable now than it was in 28 and before.

 

Apparently what was "wrong" with it was declining market share. Time will tell if changing the look will have any effect on that. As to FF's identity I haven't been using it because of it's great looks, but because of it's unprecedented functionality. As long as it stays at the front of the pack in that regard I won't care if it looks like Chrome. And besides, since anyone who wants to can change it back (as Mrkvonic's tutorial demonstrates) what difference does it make?

 

i like it.
it looks more modern.

one difference between Chrome and Firefox is that Firefox gets styled/skinned by WindowsBlinds.

Chrome refuse to get styled at all.

 

If market share is the justification for the change, then linux should make itself look like Windows to get market share. If they had used their current reasoning in their earlier days, they'd have ended up cloning IE6, and they'd be gone as a result. IMO, the Mozilla corporation has developed 2 fatal flaws.
1, They've lost their focus. They're trying to expand into more areas than they handle or afford. They've spread their talent too thin. They have become reliant on their competitors money and opened themselves up to coercion and undesirable influences. They've become more concerned with pleasing their financial backer than with the users. They're distracted by things that have nothing to do with making a good browser or any other product. Where someone donated money years ago has nothing to do with making a good product. Their "openness" policy and how it's being interpreted is now directly interfering with their ability to function. They're more concerned with being a proper, "politically correct" corporation than they are with coding a good browser. A substantial number of users, especially the loudest ones are equally at fault. When did the coders/vendors politics become a priority basis for choosing or using an application, especially one that's free?

2, They have no imagination. What happened to implementing real, functional changes that made them a better browser to use, like tabbed browsing and features that made a browser more usable or secure? Can't anyone there think beyond cosmetics, or worse, the cosmetics of a competitor? Instead of working on ways to block ads, tracking, or even ways to disarm malicious ads, they look for ways to deliver them.

Instead of being a community focused on making a good browser, they're becoming just another corporation, focusing on the same things the rest of them do, like appeasing other corporations and industries like advertizers and those who profit from users data. By making themselves dependent on money from Google and others, they've allowed themselves to be corrupted and compromised from within. I'd bet that Google is using their dependence as a means to destroy them, and they're succeeding.

 

Seems that must be true (at least part about users), or else they wouldn't have lost substantial market share in recent yrs. I'm sure? the changes in last few yrs (including rapid releases) are somehow what they thought users want. Except I've read very few saying, overall, the changes are what they wanted.

So either they made very poor decisions on how to keep up, or they're now making so much $, even with lower market share, that they don't care.

Good point. Fx didn't become a sensation by being an IE clone - visually or functionally. But copying Chrome is now supposed to bring them back to glory days? Maybe that's not their intent behind (some) changes. Maybe some changes are intended to give Mozilla certain capabilities concerning user data that Google has. I've no proof, but I'm sure it has / will come up.

To be fair, don't think they're looking for ways to deliver malicious anything. But, excellent point. I always thought a main reason Fx took off was it's openness & ability to avoid tracking. Much of that's still possible, if you look hard enough. Obviously, the masses no longer think its a superior product. It'd be interesting to see the demographics of who jumped ship. (Uh-Oh! There we go again - gathering data).
For instance, why did they remove UI option to turn off java script? Just to stop uneducated users from breaking too many sites, or other reasons?

Good point. It was a double edged sword. Possible they couldn't have developed nearly as fast, w/o major funding from someone. But... Google?!? Were they the only interested company? That choice was kinda in opposition to some of Mozilla's views - at the time. But still, Google didn't stop them from innovating. It's just that Chrome did it "better" (or at least convinced some users that it did). Google is a master at most of what they do, forthright, or by hook or crook.

 

I meant ads in general. I should have been clearer.

With Google's money, they might be developing faster as a corporation but their main "product" Firefox is stagnating, save for cosmetic changes. They're more concerned with their relationship with other corporations than they are with the users. Two examples come to mind right off.
1, Blocking 3rd party cookies by default, dropped because of complaints by the advertizing industry. You can bet that Google funding was the leverage.
2, Click to play not being applied to current versions of Flash Player. Same reason. It would block ads.
IMO, Mozilla's biggest mistake was becoming a corporation with corporate standards and motivations. They wouldn't need nearly as much money if they weren't trying to expand into other areas. They let corporate greed get into the door. The rest will be history.

 

It seems many are wrong about Mozilla's focus. This explains in black & white how that is:


http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...refox-browser-if-you-cant-beat-em-join-em.htm

noone_particular: Yeah, I was agreeing on the point on taking money from Google, only pointing out they may've thought it "seemed like a good idea at the time." Or, did it seem the heads of Mozilla.org could draw MUCH higher salaries w/ Google backing them? I've never looked up their salaries, but it's public info for non-profits.

Does Fx now allow 3rd party cookies, by default?
Been so long since I looked at it - just always turn them off & use some cookie manager - like Cookie Monster.

I wonder if Mozilla has financial arrangement w/ Adobe & Flash? As in, "Make Flash vids start automatically in Fx & we'll give you extra $."
Would some reimbursement / compensation from Adobe also be public info for non-profits? Or maybe they would make a set donation / yr to a non-profit, based on negotiation of how much it benefits Adobe, as they do w/ Google.

It absolutely costs a lot to even maintain a complex application like browsers & develop / implement security patches quickly. You can't do that w/ 3 or 4 guys & a secretary. I think some don't understand how complex it is. That said, I don't think it takes the ENORMOUS funds that Mozilla has taken in each yr. I may be wrong.

Supposedly, the $ goes for some legitimate purposes, so they maintain non-profit status. Is that also be public info for non-profits - full public accounting of all expenditures / expenses?

That doesn't mean top people in any non-profit aren't well paid (maybe over paid), or that they shouldn't be well paid, depending on responsibilities / workload.

 

Correction to references to non-profit entities: Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit organization. Mozilla Corp. (that actually develops & maintains Firefox & other Mozilla products), is a for-profit, taxable entity. As such, maintaining or increasing revenue / profit is one of their goals. Mozilla Foundation (non-profit) wholly owns Mozilla Corp. (a for-profit corp.).

Maybe this will shed light on taxable entity Mozilla.org's strategies, vs. the non-profit Mozilla "Foundation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation

With 66.8 M revenue & 19.8 M expenses, even w/ "depreciation," that's a lot to roll back in to development & maintenance.

300 M / yr, just from Google?! A lotta green. No wonder they want to / must start delivering ads, in they cut ties w/ Google.

 

A non profit organization that completely owns a for profit corporation. The financial equivalent of the shell game. Separate on paper only.

Nearly the exact same language used the the advertizing and data mining industries. Their definition of value usually comes back to ads, "personalized" by tracking and data mining users.

Regarding Flash, I doubt Adobe has much input in that regard. If all flash was click to play, flash ads and all the user data they can get through it would be blocked by default. Google themselves might not use flash ads but others they own do, like Doubleclick. The goals and values of the foundation mean nothing when the corporation, which they own and control does the opposite. Firefox is well on its way to being adware bordering on spyware disguised as a browser. We need to start asking those who work on Palemoon, Seamonkey, and others about their stance, the extent of their dependence on Mozilla, and their ability and willingness to remove the adware/spyware components being put in Firefox.

 

Can you substantiate what you wrote? I don't know anything about how Mozilla is run, but obviously they have to function in the real world. We've come to take for granted that browsers are free software, but that wasn't always the case. It is generally accepted that free software is supported through ads or bundling, whatever. Some way to support its' development and compensate the developers is necessary. If enough people were willing to actually pay for a browser perhaps one could be developed that didn't make compromises with regard to advertising and data mining?

 

A perfect example is the subject of this locked thread. What does any of that have to do with coding a web browser? It's also a prime example of another kind of hypocrisy. How can Mozilla claim to respect or protect peoples privacy while engaging in such a disgusting display of airing dirty laundry?

 

I think that's not correct. There are interesting projects in the background which are simply not known to a broader public. For example, since January 2013 the once abandoned Electrolysis project has been resumed which aims to create a multi-process architecture for Firefox. More details here. Another example is the development of Rust, a new programming language which promises to write safer applications (without buffer overflows and the likes). A new prototype browser engine called Servo is written in Rust. And a last example: asm.js, developed by Mozilla, has been adopted also by other browsers like Chromium.

You might argue that all this stuff comes too late or emerges too slowly. But it's simply not true that Mozilla is only doing cosmetic changes. Rewriting a browser in a new programming language or implementing a multi-process architecture (with the risk that most of all those thousands of add-ons don't work anymore) are extremely complex and time-consuming projects.

 

tlu wrote:

Good point & possibly / probably true, but I didn't get that was the main point of noone's statement, which was about Firefox stagnating:

You made a good point about potentially important developments, but they are all in the future, at this point. Like many Mozilla products bug & broken function fixes, they may come relatively soon or in yrs. One of the more important issues is Firefox market share has fallen drastically - now & for last several yrs, even using the most optimistic measurement data.

Is it absolutely critical for a browser, developed by a corporation that's wholly owned by a non-profit organization to undeniably be # 1? Probably not, but they don't want to lose a huge % of users, either.

 

Perhaps I'm missing something since I don't see how this little drama about the CEO making a donation to the "Prop 8" campaign has anything to do with respecting/protecting people's privacy - and whose privacy are you talking about, Firefox users?

 

i'm still having problem with firefox not shutting down properly sometimes.

i have to kill it from Task Manager.
that's underwhelming, to say the least.

 

Does it happen regularly? Did you tried using a new profile and reinstalling your addons one by one.. I suspect one of the addons might be the culprit?

 

the only addon i use in Chrome or Firefox is Ghostery.

it happens regularly enough for me not to want to use Firefox.

i never have this problem with Chrome.

 

No shutdown problems here too

 

moontan - no offense, but this isn't a thread for Firefox support.

You'd get better help & not get the thread off topic, by visiting & posting on http://forums.mozillazine.org
or https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/get-community-support
You can also start w/ the standard diagnostic article here: Standard diagnostic - Firefox - MozillaZine Knowledge Base

 

when i googled firefox + ghostery for shutdown problems, i see much of the articles are dated from 2010.

Have you tried disabling ghoatery addon to see if it fixes the issue? If it is i think it is better to shift from ghostery to other alternatives.
Or
How old is your firefox profile? you may try creating a new profile and see if it fixes your problem.

 

Firefox Enables Generational GC To Compete With Chrome.

Note: wrt Firefox Nightly.

-- Tom

 

no, i have not.

i'll just use Chrome for now.
that works fine.