Firefox's massive overhaul moves to beta

A microcosm of a bigger picture. I think making things less customizable is exactly what the end game is actually. It's most apparent in every OS Windows has made since XP. With each successive one you have less and less control over what you're able to tweak and trim. And why even as this April 8'th date looms so many people, present company included, are in no hurry to down, err... I mean "up"grade.

 

Updated pdf.js is being included with v29..a-slimmer-and-faster-pdf-js

 

I can't comment on OS released after XP, but the ability to control, strip, and customize operating systems has been being steadily taken away since the 9X systems. This appears to be true for all software produced by "for profit" corporations. Some of us grew tired of this well before XP.

Update the OS so I can update the browser and get stuck with Australis? That has all the makings of a bad joke.

 

I can't imagine that there won't be further expansion of the cottage industry, primarily focused on maintaining Fx customization. Possibly even more forks released.

I assume there are at least 2 reasons to limit user capabilities - from Mozilla's view:
Reduce devs workload changing / patching things that don't work (widely) w/ extensions, plugins. If Mozilla focuses more on doing things "their way," it might reduce problems.

Limiting certain user capabilities could make it easier to deliver ads, etc., or down the road, gather user data (non-personally identifying, of course ). If you heat the water slowly, the frog doesn't realize he's being boiled.

Isn't most anything "java script based" what many users work hard to avoid, if possible? And what is most often abused? Was there no other choice for the PDF reader than JS?

For the masses, isn't "Out of sight, out of mind" usually true?
If avg users can't see what the man behind the curtain is doing, they won't think / complain about it.

 

If that proverbial frog is our right to not be force fed their definition of "value", aka advertizing and the tacking and data mining that goes with it, then that water has reached the boiling point.

 

Well said!

 

Thinking of JOKES...wait till tomorrow.


Removing Javascript on/off settings in UI did'nt like. Also adding data choices (more tracking)
which I have no need for and Australis... no thanks!

 

Regarding the Windows OS there's a less sinister reason for the UI being simplified over the years and that's to make it easier for people with minimal computer skills to use it. At least up until Windows 7 people with skills can still customize the OS to look and work however they want ("Windows 8" maybe not so much). It's also common for many applications, including Firefox, to hide advanced settings so that newbies won't cause themselves problems. We can still access those settings.

 

I think this type of argument would have much more appeal if we were back in the early days of computer technology. Even where that is a top priority, it only requires *the default configuration* to be simplified. It doesn't require reductions in UI customization, elimination of features, so forth.

This is closer to the mark I think. When reviewing a UI for personal use, one question is whether you like the default configuration. However, a much more important question is whether the UI has those customizations and features necessary to satisfy a reasonably wide range of user preferences. Including, most importantly, those desired by more advanced users and others who *do* want to optimize things for their usage patterns. You don't want the UI, itself, to be a limiting factor. In part because "dumb" UIs tend to make users "dumb".

I don't think Mozilla has, in every case, just removed the GUI interface to setting options and left the preferences available through about:config. Even in cases where they do that, it is worth noting that about:config will be a challenge for many users. There aren't descriptions of preferences right there where you see them, descriptive documentation available in various other places isn't always complete and up to date, there have been numerous cases where the code checks a preference that doesn't exist unless the user creates it, etc. Particularly if that is the way someone wants to go, I'd suggest efforts to assure that all preferences that are tested by the code are set/visible by default, and to have some documentation for each preference bundled with the program and accessible from within about:config when offline.

I think various public comments by Mozilla employees have made clear that we do have something to worry about. There genuinely does seem to be a group of decision makers that simply wants to strip less frequently used and/or more advanced features from the code base. As we know, extensions aren't without their own risks and they typically create exposures to additional third parties. On a number of occasions I've heard extension developers speak of API simplification going on too. My visibility into such aspects is limited, but I'm comfortable suggesting that we not taken anything for granted when hatchet enthusiasts are running the halls.

Generally speaking, I do think basic cost cutting accounts for some of the "simplification" we're seeing across the software industry. A tech company cutting functionality is akin to a food company reducing the size/weight of packages. There is no need to sacrifice UI functionality on traditional platform, large format devices in order to support mobile, small form factor devices. Companies are simply choosing to do that in order to save themselves some work. Having mentioned those, I wouldn't encourage anyone to de-emphasize the "purposely manipulating users into patterns that are more profitable for the developer via carefully selected (UI) limitations and defaults". I think that has been going on for a very long time and has greatly accelerated in recent years.

 

i don't see much difference with the previous version.

it looks different in a good way.
the customizations is almost the same, except that javascript thing.

it's not like it is a useful feature anyway.
go try to surf the web without js these days.
you won't get too far.

 

even the javascript option was removed in firefox 23 not 29

so for me, it is still the same

 

i see, thanks for the heads up.
i noticed it still can be accessed in the about:config page.

like i said, i don't think too many people surf the web with javascripts off anyway.

 

by the way, for the about:config tweaks (including javascript)

using PrefBar

it is great addon, you can add any about:config entry to it

 

Well that is great news electrolysis is necessary for sandboxing https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Security/Low_rights_Firefox

 

Firefox Javascript settings:

Open Web Console (Ctrl + Shift + K)
Click on far left machine button (next to Console button)
Look under Advanced Settings
[ ] Disable Javascript [current session only,reloads the page]


Don't know if the above setting is still available in latest Firefox beta and of course
if I disable javascript on certain sites they let me know. (see image below)

The default Firefox setting is true (javascript.enable) in about:config.
Setting it to false would disable javascript on all sites.

 

Perhaps there won't be time for this to affect FF29, but just in case and since this thread seems close enough...

Firefox Telemetry Experiments
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=974028

Enabling telemetry and experiments by default on the beta channel
https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=topic/mozilla.dev.privacy/LblsW65aTYU#!topic/mozilla.dev.privacy/LblsW65aTYU

So don't forget to check for phone-home features and their default settings... *especially* pre-release software... and make adjustments as necessary *before* you allow that software to have an Internet connection.

 

I've just had another beta update, anyone else? I'm not sure what release number this is though.

 

TWB,
Regarding developers who make such features "opt out" instead of "opt in", I'd bet they're not given a choice. When I used to beta test, I was fortunate to be working with a developer that really listened to both testers and clients. I also beta tested for Mozilla for a short time. The process was so bogged down in bureaucracy that I gave it up.

 

OK thanks JR. When I updated I just checked the browser's updater and it updated, so I am as confused about this as anyone.

 

OK thanks for the info. I just can't tell what update mine is as it doesn't specify. I haven't noticed any problems.