Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Thursday November 16 2017, @09:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the my-extensions-dont-work dept.

From Firefox's faster, slicker, slimmer Quantum edition now out

[...] Collectively, the performance work being done to modernize Firefox is called Project Quantum. We took a closer look at Quantum back when Firefox 57 hit the developer channel in September, but the short version is, Mozilla is rebuilding core parts of the browser, such as how it handles CSS stylesheets, how it draws pages on-screen, and how it uses the GPU.

This work is being motivated by a few things. First, the Web has changed since many parts of Firefox were initially designed and developed; pages are more dynamic in structure and applications are richer and more graphically intensive. JavaScript is also more complex and difficult to debug. Second, computers now have many cores and simultaneous threads, giving them much greater scope to work in parallel. And security remains a pressing concern, prompting the use of new techniques to protect against exploitation. Some of the rebuilt portions are even using Mozilla's new Rust programming language, which is designed to offer improved security compared to C++.

Also at: Firefox aims to win back Chrome users with its souped up Quantum browser

The fastest version of Firefox yet is now live


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday November 16 2017, @11:44PM (5 children)

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday November 16 2017, @11:44PM (#597980) Homepage

    Because I'm not a self-righteous holier-than-thou software justice warrior.

    How are people being abused by proprietary software (in the general case)? That's a ridiculous hyperbole. Are people "abused" by wearing proprietary clothes, eating proprietary meals, or watching proprietary TV shows?

    If you don't want to use it, don't use it. Don't start screeching at other people just because they don't agree. For the vast majority of people it makes absolutely no difference.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday November 17 2017, @01:41AM (2 children)

    by Pino P (4721) on Friday November 17 2017, @01:41AM (#598019) Journal

    Are people "abused" by wearing proprietary clothes, eating proprietary meals, or watching proprietary TV shows?

    Proprietary meals: If your farm is next to a GMO farm, watch for lawyers. (Monsanto v. Schmeiser)

    Proprietary TV shows: If you ever decide to make TV shows yourself, you are legally required to avoid making expression that is too similar to that of an existing TV show that you have seen. A successful claim of nonliteral copyright infringement requires that the alleged infringer have had access to the older work and that the works be substantially similar in expression. Even accidental similarity is actionable (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music), and even access that occurred several years prior still taints the viewer (ibid). So as far as I'm aware, the only surefire way to avoid accidental infringement is to avoid having access even once.

    If you don't want to use it, don't use it.

    This is easier said than done. When you shop in a grocery store, a fraction of what you pay for groceries goes toward a royalty for the proprietary background music played over the store's speaker system when it isn't being used to make an announcement. This again taints you with access to the songs played.

    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday November 17 2017, @05:44PM (1 child)

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday November 17 2017, @05:44PM (#598261) Homepage

      I said wearing clothes, not making them. Eating food, not producing it. Watching TV shows, not producing them.

      This again taints you with access to the songs played.

      How does it "taint" me?

      The shop sells things at a profit. I don't expect to have a say in how that profit is spent.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday November 18 2017, @08:16PM

        by Pino P (4721) on Saturday November 18 2017, @08:16PM (#598746) Journal

        I said wearing clothes, not making them. Eating food, not producing it. Watching TV shows, not producing them.

        You may expose yourself to liability for infringement of exclusive rights in the following cases:

        1. You wear encumbered clothes that you didn't make, and you copy elements into clothes that you do make.
        2. You eat encumbered food that you didn't make, and you copy elements into food that you do make.
        3. You watch encumbered TV shows that you didn't make, and you copy elements into TV shows that you do make.

        Or is your argument "I need not worry because I plan to never make clothes, food, or TV shows in my lifetime"?

        This again taints you with access to the songs played.

        How does it "taint" me?

        If you listen to encumbered music in a shop, and years later write a similar song, your writing the song will infringe the copyright in the song that you listened to in the shop but didn't make.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by darnkitten on Friday November 17 2017, @03:26AM

    by darnkitten (1912) on Friday November 17 2017, @03:26AM (#598053)

    How are people being abused by proprietary software

    Interestingly, I was talking to the proprietor of the local print shop today, and he told me how, after using Adobe InDesign for graphic design work since opening the business well over a decade ago, he came in one morning to find that all of the InDesign files from the past ten years no longer opened. They remained locked until he upgraded and purchased a monthly subscription. "Just like ransomware," were his exact words.

    Abuse? Depends on how you define it, but, while I (might not) object to an older version not opening files created in a newer version; I would classify locking him out of his entire library of projects--created on earlier, legally licensed versions of the software--mind you, in an attempt to (figuratively) extort a monthly payment as, both objectionable and abusive.

    The terms of service for his use of the software were changed to something entirely different to that which he operated under during over a decade of use. You might argue that he "should have known" not to use proprietary software, but, like most users without a background in technology issues, he didn't see the change coming until he lost access to the files he had created, and had no option but to bow to Adobe's demands.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @07:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @07:34PM (#598336)

    "re people "abused" by wearing proprietary clothes, eating proprietary meals, or watching proprietary TV shows?"

    yes, you blithering idiot. yes.