http://www.drwindows.de/content/9946-nutzungsanteile-windows-10-stagniert-chrome-besteigt-thron.html
Slowly Mozilla should find a new strategy, and with the most big changes yet to come (XUL removal and Webextensions arriving) which will impact fans of the old powerful Firefox add-on system and theme system very much, it does not look like things would improve in the future.
It was a matter of time, now it has happened: Google Chrome is the world's leading browser and has the "rule" of Internet Explorer ended. Even if one expects the shares of Edge to it is not enough for Microsoft in total, in order to claim 1st place for themselves. Firefox has now arrived at its permanent retreat in the single digits.
Browser market share April 2016
Google Chrome 41.66% + 2.57%
Internet Explorer 36.96% -2.14%
Mozilla Firefox 9.76% -0.78%
Safari 4.91% + 0.04%
Microsoft Edge 4.39% + 0.09%
Opera 1.89% + 0.33%
See also: Microsoft's IE loses top browser spot to Google's Chrome
Ed Note - The web page was translated to English via Google Translate.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 02 2016, @04:01AM
Firefox was such an exciting thing, back in the day. Can't remember for certain, I think Milestone .4 was the first version I installed. I was so very impatient for FF V.1.0 to finally be released.
It's sad that Mozilla has lost their way. Maybe they should just go back to the milestones, examine what they were doing, recall what they were thinking, and start over. Fast, secure browsing. Forget about all the "added features" and crap. Leave the API's for addons, allow people to customize the basic browser as they see fit. But, cut the cruft. Speed and security are all that they should concentrate on.
Firefox should be a lean, mean browsing machine, nothing more.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Monday May 02 2016, @05:28AM
still on FF 26 or something like that. still using the old UI and my extensions work fine.
don't need much more.
any site that does not work - pffft - I don't need to see them. in fact, if it does not work, its a sign they are full of web bugs or javacrap.
I'm seeing 2 internets, now. one that is pop and full of crap (that usually renders as a nearly blank page once thru my filters) and then the internet that has useful stuff, not all oriented toward the pop-crowd and so not meant to track the fuck out of you and run tons of mobile code.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Monday May 02 2016, @05:53AM
Here's a limited comparison of features [caniuse.com] between Firefox 26 and Firefox 46 (the current stable version).
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Monday May 02 2016, @03:53PM
I'm not a web guy so I can't be sure if I'm missing anything important.
from what I can tell though, it does not look like anything TRULY important.
not sure I have run into any sites (that I care about - that part is key) that have shown problems rendering. anything I buy, FF is used and all web stores I use take my brower's input just fine and show outputs just fine.
I'll 'upgrade' when things are so broken, I just can't take it anymore.
and I do have palemoon on some other systems (like win7) but FF is actually more stable and compliant with my plugins than PM is. PM has had issues with video (flash, mostly, I guess) and FF would always be able to make those sites work.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Monday May 02 2016, @07:36PM
A lot of it is new CSS and JavaScript stuff that you're probably philosophically opposed to. But I also see better compression, HTTP/2, and some tools that can help mitigate cross site scripting and man in the middle attacks. You might also care about this list of security vulnerabilities in old Firefox versions. [mozilla.org]
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday May 02 2016, @06:58PM
Forgive me, but those version numbers sound like the old Firefox is the *new* Pale Moon. They're at Version: 26.1.1 (x86) as of writing this comment.
I wonder how it compares with the current Pale Moon, which I imagine would have to be better with more current updates and fixes backported to it.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Monday May 02 2016, @07:20PM
Their versioning diverged after 24, but I think they're still integrating some of the upstream changes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @01:38PM
I don't think the problem is so much features as it is security. That being said, with less features, you get a smaller attack surface.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 02 2016, @02:15PM
You should really just try Pale Moon. Classic Firefox feel, and it's not 28 months out of date (oh god).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @11:50AM
I rarely have problems with Firefox aside from some poorly planned upgrades.
The recent GTK3 upgrade rendered my Firefox inoperable after a browser restart. I work in a corporate environment on Linux and don't have GTK3.
Before that, it was the removal of tab groups I noticed after a restart because I was given the option of either a) opening all the saved tabs or b) losing them all. Good thing I only had 50-100 tabs in those tab groups.
The Mozilla folks will say oh, we are only losing 3% so we're keeping the majority of people happy. But each time they lose 3%, and another 3%, and so on. Death by 1,000 papercuts is what we're seeing here, and this has been going on for years.
Then you have the poor decision to go after the low cost phone market with Firefox OS. When your entire business model rests on the idea that nobody will make a super cheap Android phone, that's a pretty rocky base to stand on.
Browser options other than Firefox are pretty terrible, though, if privacy is important to you. I'm going to evaluate Brave [brave.com]. Tried Vivaldi but it spies on your search engine queries which is unfortunate, because it was good otherwise.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday May 02 2016, @01:51PM
Firefox works fine if all you do is browse. But generate your own web pages, and you encounter problems. I imagine it's a full time web dev job just to keep a dynamic website working in the major browsers.
First, browsers each format things their own unique ways. A font size that works on one will be breaking bad in the others. One way to deal with this is customized CSS for each browser, plus a little JavaScript to detect browser version and select the appropriate CSS. It's annoying to be forced into using JavaScript so soon and have to worry about NoScript, and I wondered what other ways there were to handle that issue. Then Firefox failed, and not too gracefully, when pushed past its limits with a web page I though fairly modest in size but which the browser choked upon as if I'd asked the system to allocate almost all the RAM and swap space available. It's obvious that Firefox has simply not been tested much in the area of limits. If a web page is too big for it, it ought to give up and warn the user before it brings the system to its knees and crashes itself. I don't know how Chrome handles this, didn't get around to testing there, so maybe Chrome is no better. The page was only half a megabyte of HTML and text, with links to a few thousand locally stored images of which less than 100 were present. I cut back, kept removing broken links (they were for images to be added later, perhaps never) until it successfully loaded, if slowly. Then I ran into another problem: the page would not print correctly thanks to another bug in Firefox. The page had right justified elements that the printing subsystem piled up on the first line of the first page, leaving the right side of all the rest of the lines blank. Of course what looked good on the screen looked different and not so good in print, so more fiddling to fix that.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday May 02 2016, @08:32PM
Is there a reason why you don't let the web server select the appropriate CSS for the browser?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday May 02 2016, @11:05PM
You don't always have a web server, that's why. Sometimes I email or sneakernet an HTML file, and the recipient uses the venerable "File->Open" menu option in the browser of their choice to access it.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday May 02 2016, @07:07PM
Please don't legitimize their business model. Security and support for the content creators are not mutually exclusive, but security and advertising *are*.
We can find different and better ways, even embedded in a custom browser, to support small websites with revenue not based on advertising. Either that, or at the very very worst, the small website can deal with the advertisers direct for sane no-running-code textual/banner advertisements.
All Eich is doing is acting like a Capitalist Viking taking away huge advertisement demographics for his very own (he gets 15% from revenue). Some think that's wrong, but I don't. At the same time though, I've no interest in perpetuating the advertisement business. Eich misrepresents himself as a savior of the Internet or some bullshit, when he's just a scummy marketer and advertiser now that he left Mozilla.
If we want a real browser that could do that, all we need is an add-on that would allow us to freely create different crypto currencies and transfer that to websites in micro payments. The website is giving us their accounting information to do that. If we also have crypto currency exchanges, nothing precludes people from purchasing it so that don't have to wait to produce it on their equipment.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday May 02 2016, @06:55PM
Why I left them for Chrome. Firefox, at the time, was a slow buggy piece of shit. Chrome was quick, responsive, and the I appreciated the minimalist UI.
I believe you're correct. Firefox could be pretty damn exciting again if they concentrated on only speed and security. Other communities could layer whatever UI's, add-ons, and "cruft" on top of it their hearts contents.
We want the basic chassis and engine, and they can leave their opinions about the upholstery or cup holders at the door.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Monday May 02 2016, @08:36PM
Firefox was such an exciting thing, back in the day.
The built in pop-up blocker was why I first tried it. They had tabbed browsing as well, a revelation for an IE user, and not having to deal with active-x was great as well. I suspect the people that came together from the ashes of Netscape to form Mozilla are long gone from influence and the company is run by members of the mobile computing generation, so anachronistic desktop users like myself are out of luck for the future. It still seems more pleasant now to use than Chrome, but that may be because I'm used to it. Maybe I should give up, buy a PC with Windows 10 and install Chrome and let both Microsoft and Google have their unfettered way with my privacy...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Monday May 02 2016, @04:01AM
Chrome does two things that Firefox hasn't been able to match. The first is marketing. Google pushes Chrome everywhere. You get harangued to install Chrome whenever you install one of their other products. If you use any Google website from a non-Chrome browser you are asked to install Chrome--repeatedly. The second is that Chrome is technically superior, and much faster.
Mozilla can't be blamed for Google being great at marketing. It's what Google does. Mozilla is to blame for losing their technological lead. Firefox used to be a fast, lean, browser. It's now the slowest, least responsive, and most frustrating to use on modern JS-choked websites. Mozilla is also at fault for managerial and financial incompetence. They've grown into a bloated foundation that squanders resources on pointless outreach and non-engineering expenditures. They need to slim down, become more engineering focused instead of a ridiculous web-philanthropy money pit.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday May 02 2016, @04:54AM
I generally don't change programs to do "something" (play mp3, do email, web browse) until my current program pisses me off. Firefox was a huge memory hog and performance went into the toilet 4-5 years ago, so I switched to Chrome. Didn't need Alphabet advertising Chrome, just knew FF had slowly turned into a steaming pile, I wasn't going to run IE, so Chrome was my choice. Helps a lot I actually liked it.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Monday May 02 2016, @05:16AM
Posting this with Chrome on Linux. I abandoned Mozilla products on political grounds; I am protesting against their suppression of protected political speech.
(Score: 3, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Monday May 02 2016, @05:57AM
I moved to Pale Moon, more for technical reasons than other reasons. Does Chrome or Chromium allow you to self-host a sync server?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Monday May 02 2016, @06:14AM
I do not know what a sync server is, let alone how to self-host it :-)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @09:44AM
In this case, a sync server is what allows you to keep your user profiles on various devices in, well, sync.
Mozilla hosted sync servers for Firefox, I believe. I don't know if they're still up, but I remember that they either changed something or took them down sometimes after Pale Moon forked. I guess PM devs added ability to host your own.
This is mostly "stuff I heard about", as I sync my profiles by hand, copy-pasting files or exporting-importing bookmarks every few months or years. I've kept the same FF profile since 2005 or so, moving it from a PC to PC, from OS to OS. Worked under WinXP, WinVista, Win7, several flavors of Linux, it's older than all of my PCs and still works in the latest Pale Moon :)
(Score: 2) by Marand on Monday May 02 2016, @10:56PM
I believe. I don't know if they're still up, but I remember that they either changed something or took them down sometimes after Pale Moon forked. I guess PM devs added ability to host your own.
Firefox still has sync, but it was consolidated into a more general 'Mozilla account' kind of thing and the old sync servers were taken down. However, Mozilla always allowed use of your own sync servers and provided the necessary code for it, and config settings in Firefox, so it's still possible to keep using the "deprecated" sync. At least until someone guts it from the FF codebase.
Thanks to that, and PM being on an old build, the PM devs didn't have to do anything, except maybe make the option easier to find. What would be more interesting, and maybe they do it, is PM hosting one like Mozilla did. I recall looking into running my own but deciding not to for some reason.
It's also apparently possible to self-host the newer account/sync server as well. Didn't know that until just now. Requires nodejs though, ick. At least the old one used something more sane (python), if old (2.7).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @10:35PM
Yes it does. See the comments here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=181429 [chromium.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Monday May 02 2016, @08:53AM
So you are against the free market then? Because what happened with their former CEO was a textbook example of the free market in action. 1.- users said "I don't support his position therefor I will not use it and tell others to likewise avoid it", 2.- Others do the same, 3.- Usage drops like a stone so company cuts the worthless CEO...tada! The free market in action. No need for the government to stick a gun in businesses faces and say "You WILL support this or we will shut you down" just people voting with their wallets and feet as it should be.
Oh and I would add he DESERVED to be fired, why? He refused to do his job! What is the job of a CEO? To be the public face of the company and interact with the press...wanna guess what he refused to do? Be the public face with the company or interact with the fricking press!
So I just loove the blatant hypocrisy of the religious types, who claim its a "protected political speech" when people actually use their free market RIGHT to not support companies they don't agree with, yet seem to have zero problem with using the iron boot of the government to force their religious views on others, see the defense of marriage act.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Monday May 02 2016, @09:47AM
Hypocrisy - i don't think it means what you think it means. There was no sizable drop in firefox's popularity due to his act. There was a twitter outrage and a directed propaganda against him - the thing where leftists excel.
Also, Mozilla is a non-profit, unanswerable to 'free market' as you suggest. Not sure how you can make that mistake. Where its CEO donates or not donates his personal property is not Mozilla's or anyone's business. He was doxxed and if someone did the same thing to a... ahem... woman... or any 'member of politically approved oppressed group(TM)', your tone would be quite different. He was hounded by SJWs who think the whole world should be run according to their whims and wishes otherwise they will spread venomous propaganda against everyone, and Mozilla gave those SJWs undue importance, neglecting the silent majority that is now its undoing.
Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that it is the 'religious types' who want government involvement in marriage? Seriously? Are you high? Are you chronically addicted to LSD, sir? Every single marriage law has been passed by liberals with sole intention of replacing father with state, taking power away from men to the state. If it were to conservatives marriage would remain a private affair of man, woman and god. You feigning complete ignorance of the reality is what is actually called HYPOCRISY - which is what leftists are known for.
"Ooohh.. men are leaving their poor wives, we must make alimony laws favorable to women and harshly anti-male" - reality: most divorces are filed by women and current divorce laws are a gold digger's paradise.
"Ooohh... men abuse children and can't take care of kids" - most child abuse is done by women yet child custody remains with mother while father keeps paying money to wife in the name of children without any proof if that money is actually being spent on them or not.
"Patriarchy is bad..." so replace father with state, even though fatherless children are more likely to be incarcerated, do substance abuse and be poor.\
"'Cause if you liked it, then you shoulda put a ring on it..." reality: marriage age has increasingly gone up and marriage has become one of the most risky decision a man can ever make. The number of homeless men has reached record breaking level and liberals walk taking credit for 'great progress in personal liberty'.
"Patriarchal structures are dis-empowering women" so state must ensure women are mandatorily part of company board.
Btw, Defence of Marriage Act was signed by Bill Clinton.
DISCLAIMER: I am not religious myself and backstabbing behavior of conservatives is well known to me. But liberals are the biggest hypocrites that walk on this planet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @01:54PM
I would just love to see some substantiations for your claims
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @02:05PM
DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in September 1996 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Francis on Monday May 02 2016, @02:24PM
The only people who cared about keeping the ban on same sex marriage were committed homophobes, most of whom were religious. The Mormons were instrumental in getting Prop 8 passed.
People who wish to lead companies shouldn't be involved in such blatant bigotry. The executives, especially of volunteer organizations, have to be able to effectively lead everybody and to be able to earn their respect. Being a supporter of bigotry in a tech company isn't going to get you anywhere. Tech folks tend to be more tolerant than that.
Given some of these comments, one would assume that it would have been OK if he had had sponsored cross burnings on his property as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @09:12PM
Cross burning is legal in USA. What's your problem? Do you simply chuck your damaged cross into the trash?
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday May 02 2016, @10:25PM
It is legal, however good luck keeping your job if you're doing that. Whether it's done to insult Christians or the more typical warning to blacks and Jews, it's not something that society tolerates.
And it's especially not tolerated for people who are in positions of trust and who have subordinates.
People like to suggest that he was well within his rights and shouldn't be held accountable for it, but free speech isn't free of consequence, it's free of government interference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @09:13PM
> People who wish to lead companies shouldn't be involved in such blatant bigotry.
I'm fine with it in general. I'm also fine with people (customers and employees) getting really bent out of shape with any company that chooses to have a bigot for a CEO. Maybe that is my internal aspie splitting hairs.
Related to that topic, I am very interested to see what happens with Target and the large(?) backlash against them for supporting trans rights in the middle of all the bathroom law hysteria. Supposedly 1 million people have vowed to boycott Target for it. [foxnews.com] I see that as 1 million people endorsing bigotry. Will it make a difference? Did all the people buying from chick-fil-a in support of bigotry [lonelyconservative.com] help their bottom-line? I don't know. I do know that as long as I have a choice in restaurants it is easy to not eat at Chick-fil-A.
I am tired of big corps not having a social conscience because inevitably choosing not to act means supporting oppression. As Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” I'd just like to see more Targets and less Chick-fil-As.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @06:08AM
Religious homophobes were the ones organizing protests, raising funds and lobbying for it. But politicians look at vote-bank and these organizers were never a majority. There was a sizable moderate vote-bank that was unclear on this issue and that is why Bill Clinton took this chance. The proof is in the pudding - it took only 10 years to turn the small wave of homophobia. And I see people comparing it with slavery. Self-serving lunatics.
First of all don't use ad-hominem. It doesn't a good argument make. Secondly, we are not discussing bigotry, we are discussing freedom of personal life and liberty. Or you think people who are doing better that us should be scrutinized outside of work-place so they can be pulled down at the first chance?
What happened to personal liberty and human rights talk?
Horseshit. Tech companies are one of the most intolerant places of work. You are confusing tech scene with hacker ethos. Hacker ethos existed 20 years ago in universities. Tech folks, especially in silicon valley, are all about looking better than every other company and for that reason they are incredibly intolerant of whatever they consider politically incorrect.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Monday May 02 2016, @05:31PM
Also, Mozilla is a non-profit, unanswerable to 'free market' as you suggest
Sure it is. Everybody's choices is how the free market works, even when there's no money involved.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @08:11PM
Who were the morons who labeled this drivel insightful?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @12:52AM
> Btw, Defence of Marriage Act was signed by Bill Clinton.
Is it hypocritical to list facts but ignore context? I say it is.
Here is what Richard Socarides, Clinton's advisor on gay rights at the time, had to say about it: [newyorker.com]
The White House was unprepared to shepherd a major social-policy change through Congress. The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sam Nunn, a Democrat from Georgia, led opposition to Clinton’s gay-rights policy, working behind the scenes with General Colin Powell, who was a Bush-holdover as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The so-called Don’t Ask Don’t Tell compromise was born: gays and lesbians would be allowed to serve so long as they kept their sexual orientation secret. Gay-rights advocates were outraged that Clinton had agreed to a bad compromise, but at this point, in the spring of 1993, it was clear that the President was going to lose this battle. (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, in fact, turned out to be a policy and personnel disaster.)
After what was regarded as a fiasco on gays in the military, the Administration entered a phase of deep reluctance to tackle substantive gay-rights issues on the national stage. Although Clinton made a number of first-ever, high-profile appointments of gay leaders to his team (I was one of the minor ones), any kind of gay-rights policy agenda seemed stalled as a result of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell hangover.
Inside the White House, there was a genuine belief that if the President vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, his reëlection could be in jeopardy. There was a heated debate about whether this was a realistic assessment, but it became clear that the President’s chief political advisers were not willing to take any chances. Some in the White House pointed out that DOMA, once enacted, would have no immediate practical effect on anyone—there were no state-sanctioned same-sex marriages then for the federal government to ignore. I remember a Presidential adviser saying that he was not about to risk a second term on a veto, however noble, that wouldn’t change a single thing nor make a single person’s life better.
Was it realistic to think that a Presidential veto of DOMA would have put Clinton’s reëlection in jeopardy? At the time I thought not. But in 1996 less than thirty per cent of Americans supported gay marriage, and even eight years after that, in 2004, President George W. Bush used gay marriage extremely effectively as a wedge issue against John Kerry, who at the time only supported civil unions. In fact, many believe that it was the Bush campaign’s very strategic placement of anti-gay-marriage state constitutional ballot initiatives throughout moderate and conservative leaning states (like Ohio) which brought out conservative Bush voters and carried the day for him in that election.
Furthermore, not only did Clinton reluctantly sign it, he called it unconstitutional and asked the SCOTUS to overturn it. [washingtonpost.com] Nor was that election-year pandering, he wrote that op-ed in 2013 because two major gay marriage cases were up for consideration by the SCOTUS.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:52AM
I have already mentioned that not only I am not a religious type, I am very well aware of why we cannot rely on conservative ever. But Bill Clinton was not a baby, and he was not going to get impeached for not sighing that bill. He was not going to get sued, he was not going lose votes of democrats and basically there was no repercussion for him except that he knew he would need moderate voting for him. Christians have always been against gay marriage and homosexuality in general. They were the driving force behind the bill. Everyone knows that. But to keep focusing on them is why I call liberals hypocrite. Bill Clinton signed that bill and then denounced it in the hopes of winning moderate votes. Unfortuantely for him, moderates don't really care about gays anymore than they care about straights. So he didn't get the brownie points he wanted.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 03 2016, @03:44PM
This sounds like whitewashing history to me.
Hillary voiced support for DOMA for a long, long time after that bill was signed, up until recently when she flip-flopped. It's one thing to sign something reluctantly, but it's another to keep supporting it for years and years afterwards, even after the political climate has changed. It wouldn't have been that hard for her to claim "well I wasn't enthusiastic about it at the time, but it seemed to be necessary at the time to get other legislation passed", but no.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @07:02PM
*rolls eyes* Should just scroll down, but I want you to get as angry as possible because us gays can marry now. I want you to be fucking pissed off. The next time you see a man walking into the women's room, I want you to fucking bloody him for me. Don't take some fucking excuse like "I'm legally female!" "I'm a woman!" "I was born female!" stop you. Just pummel the living fucking daylights out of him.
That'll show them homosexuals.
Sorry, not using some fucking web browser when that use will financially contribute to people who want to enact violence on me, even though you'll never target me since I use the men's room. I just think it's fucking funny how far your crowd is willing to go. I want to see security guards outside of every female restroom turning everyone away who doesn't have their birth certificate on them. I want to see more cisfemale hunnies get mistaken for men, and I full support beating the shit out of them for not looking female enough.
I'm not even going to try to reason here, because somebody is going to respond saying I've cut my dick off or something ridiculous and that they don't want me in the women's room. Please fucking read the comment first before copypasta-ing this tired shit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @05:48AM
Chrome integrates with Window's certificate store. Firefox considers not integrating as a feature.
Firefox refuses to even give users an option, instead trying to claim that their certificate chains are better and everyone should trust Mozilla for all their security. This is simply a non-starter in corporate land. Business man-in-the-middle all their connections for security. That's fine. But due Mozilla's stupid stubbornness, Firefox won't accept your company's security certificates deployed through Windows so Firefox will throw security exceptions on every HTTPS page. With more and more sites moving to HTTPS, Firefox is completely unusable in a corporate environment.
I still use Firefox at home and would love to use it at work, but Mozilla won't let me. Firefox still has the best add-ons. I'm not going to go into my complaints about Chrome in this post. There are simply no good browsers left. What is happening to the software industry?
(Score: 5, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Monday May 02 2016, @06:05AM
Of course you could use Firefox at work. Just add the man-in-the-middle certificate to the Firefox root store in addition to the Windows root store. Or -- and this is the much better option -- ssh tunnel a SOCKS5 proxy out of your shitty workplace so you can't be spied on.
You know, part of the point of HTTPS is telling you if you're being spied on. Firefox is working correctly. And you do have a way to shut Firefox up and let your privacy be violated if you really want to ... but you should at least be told you're being spied on first.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @08:02AM
It really is a feature. Read this (and try to understand it if it doesn't make sense at first, it's important): https://www.proper.com/root-cert-problem/ [proper.com]
(you can revoke privileges on certs that are already in your store, but how can you do that to the unknown certs out there that your system hasn't seen yet?).
And why do you trust your employer so much that you are fine with them MITMing you? If you trust them that much you can always manually add their certs to Firefox's store, and you wouldn't be vulnerable to the problem mentioned above, unlike IE or Chrome on Windows.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @06:31PM
what kind of slave let's their employer MITM their connection to sites? I guess the same kind of slave that uses windows.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:35PM
PLEASE tell me what company you work for so I can avoid them in the future. Unless it's something with significant security concerns, there's absolutely no reason for them to be doing that.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday May 02 2016, @06:47AM
I seem to recall in the '90's, Mozilla having a competitor that used their massive presence in front of peoples eyeballs to push their own browser. Back then, the government stepped in to ensure competition.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @07:40AM
Yes, but you see, everyone agrees Microsoft has a monopoly on operating computers. So if Microsoft wanted to monopolize the Internet also, that would be too many monopolies for one company. Now, everyone agrees Google has a monopoly on the Internet. So everything is fine with Google making the only browser. Obviously.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by stormreaver on Monday May 02 2016, @12:05PM
Now, everyone agrees Google has a monopoly on the Internet.
No so fast there, cowboy. Only Microsoft thinks Google has a monopoly on the Web (I presume you know the difference between the Web and the Internet), because Google is thoroughly kicking Microsoft's ass there. Google's Web position is achieved and maintained solely through having the best search on the Web (EU fantasy to the contrary notwithstanding). The only barrier anyone has to succeeding in the search market is that of creating a better product (which is a very high bar, but not impossible). There are no exclusivity deals with Internet providers to use only Google search, no threats to destroy companies that try to compete (they tend to destroy themselves through incompetence), or any other anticompetitive behavior (The EU delirium that Google not allowing non-conformant Android implementations to use Google's servers is somehow anticompetitive is utter nonsense).
All Google has is a far superior product. There is nothing stopping anyone from using other search engines, other than personal choice. I could use Bing, Yahoo, Ask, etc. at any time, without any retribution from Google, if I so chose. But I choose to use Google because the other search engines are just plain terrible for my needs (irrelevant search results, paid placement pushing out the results I'm after, etc.). I wonder how many people who, bizarrely, think Google is bad are old enough to remember the pre-Google Web. For the youngsters: it sucked really, really bad to try to find anything useful.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 02 2016, @02:01PM
Except Chromebooks
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @12:12PM
Chrome is not technically superior. Chrome is slow and a massive memory hog.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @09:54PM
Chrome is objectively faster than Firefox.
Both Chrome and FF have suffered memory leak bugs, but Chrome uses more memory overall. This isn't incorrect behavior on modern systems which rarely have less than 4GB with the average being more like 8GB. Chrome makes use of otherwise idle resources which is a good thing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Monday May 02 2016, @04:05AM
Perhaps if they would stop messing around with the UI, put things back the way the should be, and go back to a sensible long term support release schedule, then people would not be abandoning them like a sinking ship.
I don't even know why so many people like Google Chrome other than "It's faster".
Which is absolutely true. For a fun time, try running the early open source Mozilla releases. Even on a modern computer they will be annoyingly slow. Many of those performance issues have only been fixed in the last 5 or so years due to the competition from Google chrome.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday May 02 2016, @04:48AM
I don't even know why so many people like Google Chrome other than "It's faster".
\
Agreed. I'm not in love with all aspects of chrome, but the speed and the sandboxing make chrome, (and derivatives) my browser of choice.
I actually use chromium as much as chrome, and firefox occasionally as well. None of my browsers have the "fast start" (stay in memory after user exits all web page).
But if Mozilla would Re-code firefox and make it crazy fast, and beef up the sandboxing and I'll switch in a heartbeat.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @04:54AM
I like the Pepper Flash Player, which is included in Chrome, and ... oh right, nobody uses Flash anymore except me. Carry on then. (cough) trendy dickheads
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @06:36PM
"trendy" would imply that people are not using flash just to be cool or to do the latest "in" thing. html5 adoption over flash is taking forever and their are many solid reasons not to use flash or any other adobe slaveware. either you're really stupid or are trolling.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @04:18AM
Where's my Facebook browser and Facebook office suite and Facebook operating system and Facebook phone? Come on Facebook. Kill Google already. Kill! Kill! Kill!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 02 2016, @04:56AM
We, the internet community, have observed that Google's "don't be evil" philosophy has become tainted over time. Facebook never had any such philosophy. Facebook couldn't be convinced or forced to accept any such philosophy, under any circumstances. We DO NOT WANT Mark Zuckerberg and company to gain any more power on the internet, than they already have. In fact, I'd like to see their influence reduced by 50% or more. Facebook is in the ranks of the enemies of freedom, it is not on our side at all.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @05:11AM
I *want* Facebook to ruin the Internet. I *want* Facebook to force everyone behind a walled garden that makes the Great Firewall look free by comparison. I *want* "Internet.org by Facebook" to become the only Internet. I *want* the Internet of Idiots to be walled up, so I can escape the Great Facebook, and stand in the barren wasteland outside that wall, and piss on it.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Monday May 02 2016, @07:57AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @02:58AM
Someone wants eternal September to end.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday May 02 2016, @06:50AM
Google never had a Don't Be Evil philosophy, although they (used to?) claim it. But I never saw any evidence they did things differently.
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Monday May 02 2016, @12:12PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @01:58PM
It's on Wikipedia? Then it must be true!
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Monday May 02 2016, @06:00PM
Yes, this is the "claimed to" I alluded to. Please point to an instance where it resulted in behavior change. Or anything that indicated it wasn't just marketing BS.
(Score: 1) by lgw on Monday May 02 2016, @11:43PM
It's a simple misunderstanding. Their motto was "Don't, be evil". Totally consistent with their actions.
(Score: 2) by CaTfiSh on Monday May 02 2016, @05:51PM
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e#.m8ttaag6i [medium.com]
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday May 02 2016, @01:27PM
I guess putting up as company motto something that should go without saying should have been a warning sign that they actually consider it to be optional.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by anubi on Monday May 02 2016, @04:51AM
The main things keeping me loyal to Firefox are NoScript and streaming video downloaders.
I get charged by the megabyte once I pass a pretty low ( by today's standards ) threshold, so I try to locally cache as much as possible and block javascripts that ask for everyone and his brother to come into my machine. Also my bandwidth is pretty low, and trying to view live streaming video from a website that has also sent a swarm of javascript my way renders the video unwatchable unless its cached and can be played back in realtime.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Informative) by WizardFusion on Monday May 02 2016, @09:38AM
On Chrome, I use ScriptBlock and uBlock Origin.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/scriptblock/hcdjknjpbnhdoabbngpmfekaecnpajba/ [google.com]
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpalhdlnbpafiamejdnhcphjbkeiagm/ [google.com]
(I don't know the format for inline URLs)
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Wednesday May 04 2016, @03:16AM
UBlock origin is the bomb! A must have.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @05:03AM
Mobile browsing is so frustrating, they could get everyone to switch by making one that doesn't suck. Yet, Firefox for android totally sucks and last I checked didn't have add-ons. The add-ons on desktop have been hamstrung because now everything is reviewed because Apple does it that way or some such nonsense. Mozilla has totally lost its spirit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @06:03AM
Not only does it not suck on Android, but it has add-ons. I have mine running uBlock Origin.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @06:40AM
Firefox has worked on mobile - with noscript - since the n900 way back in the day.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Marand on Monday May 02 2016, @08:51AM
Mobile browsing is so frustrating, they could get everyone to switch by making one that doesn't suck. Yet, Firefox for android totally sucks and last I checked didn't have add-ons. The add-ons on desktop have been hamstrung because now everything is reviewed because Apple does it that way or some such nonsense. Mozilla has totally lost its spirit.
Just when did you try it that it didn't have addons? Mobile Firefox had addon support when I first installed it on an Android device in 2011. The addon support is precisely why I installed it, in fact. So, either you're talking out of your ass or you're complaining about a program you haven't actually tried in at least half a decade. Neither one gives a good impression, and it makes the entire comment look like bitter trolling instead of anything meaningful.
It's the closest thing to a good, proper browser on Android, in my opinion. This despite an extremely annoying problem: it crashes daily, and has an annoying bug where rendered tiles of the page just draw black and refuse to show content. The latter eventually leads to the former unless I kill the process and relaunch, too. It's goddamn annoying and the only reason I put up with it is I've hated every other mobile browser more than I hate dealing with the crashing. If it didn't constantly do that it'd be the best mobile browser, no contest.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday May 02 2016, @05:11AM
How much of Chrome's market share is due to Android phones?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Monday May 02 2016, @05:23AM
How much of Chrome's market share is due to Android phones?
Why would that matter? Android SDK was open to all, MS and Mozilla alike. Chrome works on Android; Opera works on Android (and is my primary browser on that OS.) Mozilla? I saw it on Android, and that was a scary sight. Why MS chose to not implement IE on Android? I guess the corporate behemoth that lives in Redmond hasn't yet finished thinking that thought. Or, perhaps, they were blocked by tight integration of IE and Windows :-)
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 02 2016, @02:18PM
Because Chrome comes by default on Android phones.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by CHK6 on Monday May 02 2016, @01:22PM
If you look at the low Safari percentage, I would guess the Chrome numbers is for desktop only. Because I would expect Safari to be much larger if mobile devices were in play and the amount of iPhone users in the market.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @11:12PM
Almost ALL of Chrome's "share" is from Android mobile. Its like Explorer bundled, nay welded into Windows - now Google repeat this model with impunity (so far). Chrome wanted me to register / create a Google ID - WTF? I have used FireFox since before it was v1.0 and still use it today (v46.0) - and I don't see one single reason to change that.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Shimitar on Monday May 02 2016, @07:12AM
I once was an entusiast Firefox user. I was using firefox on all my devices, Windows and Linux. Then i was so happy when Firefox for Android come out, and it was a great piece of software, finally a valid browser with plugins and all the goodness of Firefox on Android!
After a little bit, my Firefox on Windows started behaving badly. It was one year or so after the so called "big numbers" release cycles started. Frequent crashed, hangups, massive memory eating... Fed up, one day, i tried Chrome out of desperation because i could not get anything done that day (yes, even cleaning the caches and even creating a brand new profile). Well, chrome has immediately replaced all my Windows firefoxes everywhere within a week. Fast, lean, gets the job done, identical plugins, identical UI (even if i likes the "old" firefox more, the "new" firefox always seems a bad copy of Chrome), the switch was so seamless and painless i just did it in a wink.
One year later, i switched to a custom ARM based HI-DPI (1920x1200 on 10inches) linux laptop... Surprise, firefox was totally unusable at such a massive level (random white boxes jumping on the screen, selections would not cover the selected text properly, HI-DPI support non-existent, UI would freeze more than not..., touch screen was totally unusable) that i tried Chromium... which JUST worked out of the box: hi-dpi support was perfect, touch screen just worked like it was supposed to, rendering was perfect... some things needed some tweaking to enable, but not more than googling and setting an environment variable.
Needless to say, within another few weeks all my linux boxes switched to Chromium as well.
I still use Firefox on my Android device, since it rocks, it's fast and it has no issues (as of yet, waiting given the past history...). I tried Chrome but got put down due to the lack of add-ons on which i heavily rely (ublock? Ghostery?...).
So this is it, simply put, keep up with a GOOD PRODUCT and you don't lose userbase. Crap it out, and you lose userbase.
Coding is an art. No, java is not coding. Yes, i am biased, i know, sorry if this bothers you.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 02 2016, @12:38PM
1920x1200 on 10inches) linux laptop
Oh very well, I'll bite. Been thinking along those lines. It'll spend 99% of its working life running emacs on X on freebsd. The higher the res the better and I don't want to carry something the size of a house window everywhere I go.
amd64 with virtualization support would be nice, but if I have to ARM, I'll ARM. I only work connected to bigger machines so a chromebook is fine. In fact I'd actively like not storing stuff locally.
There seems to be nothing out there. I can get small machines with crappy low pixel count like x768 or something bigger than the backpack I'd put it in with high pixel count, but no high res. What little high resolution displays there are, are expensive apple products or semi-obscure.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 02 2016, @02:08PM
Well, chrome has immediately replaced all my Windows firefoxes everywhere within a week. Fast, lean, gets the job done, identical plugins, identical UI (even if i likes the "old" firefox more, the "new" firefox always seems a bad copy of Chrome), the switch was so seamless and painless i just did it in a wink.
What the heck? What are you smoking? No the plugins are not identical, and neither is the UI. The UI is annoyingly similar *now* but no way back in the 4.0 days. And don't they still not have a full NoScript-equivalent?
"Seamless and painless with all the features" my ass.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03 2016, @01:00AM
Maybe the plugins he uses are the same. There are some that are common across both browsers, like AdBlock Plus. But for the most part the plugins that are the same are also pretty useless. So maybe he's not all that much of a sophisticated technical user after all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @07:20PM
Not to mention that technical people like you and I have a lot of sway with non-technical people when it comes to choice of browser: push us off to another browser, and we'll recommend that other browser to our friends who value our opinions.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Monday May 02 2016, @07:54AM
Focus on the main objectives stable, fast, standards compliant and so on. Skip the other chaff.
Oh, and have an *option* to enable one process per tab.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mtrycz on Monday May 02 2016, @09:16AM
Chrome is the default on many Android (mobile is more than half of web access now, I don't know anybody who replaced their default on mobile), and IE/Edge is the default on Windows boxes, and IE is acceptable nowadays. Yes, Firefox is default/preinstalled on *some* linux distributions, but it's not saying much in comparison.
10% of browser share is still millions of people, and far from irrevelant, anyway.
I have no reason to switch actually. I'll wait for servo, and then laugh at the technological inferiority of other platforms. Or it will fail and I'll abandon ship. It's still a great ride.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday May 02 2016, @04:42PM
I installed a skin for the default on mobile to avoid agreeing to the EULA.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @09:34AM
They're horrible. I present exhibit one, TFS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @11:58AM
Nah, half the human-written shits are worse, at least here on SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @10:31AM
The market share for Windows 3.1 soared last month. Who will seize the new opportunity?
https://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpaf=&qpcustom=Windows+3.1&qpcustomb=0 [netmarketshare.com]
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday May 02 2016, @05:19PM
I wonder what's going on with 3.1? Why are people suddenly using it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @11:23PM
There is a lot of work within the historical software community to get it running properly. Until now, it was a weird combination of WINE and DOSbox, and neither worked 100% and there was not complete coverage. The increase in usage corresponds to the support hitting RC. My guess is people are experimenting with it on the net. For some reason, one of the first things people do is look at either their own website or their favorite one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @12:16PM
sure sure trust all the numbers. I got firefox everywhere.
it doesn't suck on linuxafter some "about:config" tweaking. Haven't had a crash in ..oh ... cant remember.
First thing i do on new windows install is open "cmd.exe" and use the ftp to fetch firefox. IE never ever runs even once :)
Firefox on android is a mixed bag. Not sure if it's because i'm running old 4.x android. Android already spies sooo much.
Mobile firefox crashes about once or twice per day per device ... strangly enough most just after recharging battery and then after battery nears end.
Also it would be nice if one could update firefox for android from inside firefox without having to go to the google play app store (i have tried the function but it reports that firefox is up-2-date even if it's not)?
Also I am so sorry to have changed useragent string to something i am not really using (windows and version 31.x firefox) but it don't want to report
even more where it hurts if you punch.
Privacy(?) is more important then stability and speed for me?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @12:24PM
in a perfect world, it should not be possible to tell what market share the different browsers have, because the browser should not tell the servers what they are. (but yes firefox have lost its way completely and will totally destroy any remaining reasons to live when they destroy the extensions too, I hope palemoon can live on as "the real firefox")
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday May 02 2016, @04:23PM
It's developer listens to use users.
Pale Moon [palemoon.org]
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @09:17PM
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday May 03 2016, @05:19AM
One developer listens to his users. Several developers listen to each other.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 02 2016, @12:45PM
On the bright side, is there any better NPAPI supporting browser out there? I mean if you have a proprietary app that needs it and isn't going to be updated, you can cross off Chrome from the list, and I LOL at the idea of running MSIE, so is there any realistic alternative?
If you don't know what NPAPI is, you're better off not knowing along the lines of watching sausage being made. Think java applet in browser (not java web start).
So under that weird constraint, will FF ever die?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @02:38PM
http://www.ghacks.net/2016/04/30/webextensions-still-on-track-for-firefox-48/#comment-3894295 [ghacks.net]
Mozilla not caring about Chrome or market share? That comment is showing that they are lying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @03:41PM
Depite hundreds of millions of dollars, they cannot manage to pull off basic safety features like multiprocess and sandbox. The browser is way behind the times on this and it is just utterly neglectful to not have these features implemented.
The dumping of XUL is shooting themselves in the foot over a megabyte or two of XML code, breaking a vast array of plugins.
While Google Chrome is far better engineered under the hood, it is said that Firefox is run by these kinds of people because while it still has the best user interface, under the hood it is lousy and they are just doing stupid things like dumping XUL and screwing over their users because someone thinks that all thats worth it to save a megabyte.
For example, if I wanted to sort bookmarks on Chrome by date or alphabet and want to have a full metadata in the columns of bookmarks, or history and sort by any column, cant do it at all in the horrible brain dead chrome UI. Firefox has a better UI but crappy internals and incompetent developers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @04:36PM
FF is designed to fail around this time. The authorities made sure of that. The developers and managers were "encouraged" to kill it slowly so no one notices (boiling frog problem).
So that there will only be 2 main browsers, each with close to 50% share giving the user the illusion of choice. And compromising those 2 is much easier than 20 different browsers, each with 5% market share.
The loser here not FF, not something else. The loser here is freedom.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @06:43PM
it sounds like (from the url) that this market share only covers windows and maybe win 10. If so, #$^ off. You're wasting my time with BS.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2016, @11:20PM
Pale Moon reports as Firefox as the User Agent. I would bet Firefox share is way lower than reported, because Pale Moon is not correctly counted.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday May 03 2016, @10:44PM
Eh, Chrome is alright if your use case is opening the browser, loading a few websites, then closing it and being done with them. If you're the kind of person (like myself) that uses tabs as bookmarks, Chrome *will* eventually crash and wipe all your tabs. Firefox won't. And other than the UI (I prefer Firefox there as well) that's the only difference I've noticed. That and Chrome's binary blobs...