SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Mozilla is rebranding Firefox. The company is asking for feedback on the new look, which will try to cover the various Firefox offerings. For most people, Firefox refers to a browser, but the company wants the brand to encompass all the various apps and services that the Firefox family of internet products cover, “from easy screenshotting and file sharing to innovative ways to access the internet using voice and virtual reality.” The fox with a flaming tail “doesn’t offer enough design tools to represent this entire product family,” Mozilla believes. Instead of recoloring the logo and dissecting the fox, the company wants to start from scratch. That said, the name “Firefox” is staying, so Mozilla doesn’t have that much wiggle room.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Mozilla is Rebranding Firefox and Wants Your Opinion
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 75 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nadia Comaneci, simple perfection.
-- '76 Olympics
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @04:11PM (1 child)
>And for some unknown reason, every now and then, it just connects to Google's servers just to talk.
That's the update check for Google's "Safe Browsing" database; it's ostensibly a list of malware-slinging domains that Google maintains in collaboration with the security community. Whenever you visit a domain Firefox/Chrome/whatever checks its local copy (or at least it's supposed to check the local copy instead of sending one request per domain to Google's servers) and the domain is on the list it'll turn on all the idiot lights and won't let you continue unless you click the secret "Yes, I'm really, positively sure I know what I'm doing" button hidden in a disused lavatory bearing a sign saying "Beware of the Leopard."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01 2018, @05:58PM
Thanks a lot for explanation! At least one part of this is known somewhere.
I usually turn these things off, my security solution is NoScript with a whitelist on a subdomain-level, HTML5 filtered in a similar way and (under Linux) a shell script which kills my browser in specific conditions (which guards against crap-designed websites more than a malware). Simple security, but sufficient in most cases. Before, it was some script control add-on, but it allowed to do too many "geeky things" with JS (specifying rules like all scripts from domains except [x] cannot execute code with eval) and got lost during Australis transition. I would use a per-application virtualization if I had enough cores.