Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Firefox 32 Arrives With New HTTP Cache, Public Key Pinning Support

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the cache-money dept.

Firefox 220

An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 32 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Additions include a new HTTP cache for improved performance, public key pinning support, and easy language switching on Android. The Android version is trickling out slowly on Google Play. Changelogs are here: desktop and mobile.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Start your day the clean-shaven way (4, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 3 months ago | (#47812019)

Firefox, bagel and lox
Breakfast of champions handy
And aftershave that makes men brave
When over Macho Grande [youtube.com]
Burma Shave

Re:Start your day the clean-shaven way (2)

sconeu (64226) | about 3 months ago | (#47812461)

I'll never be over Macho Grande.

Re:Start your day the clean-shaven way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812593)

Those wounds run. . .pretty deep.

Da=DUP! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812041)

This ran a day or two ago, yesterday, or day before.

Firefox32 (1, Troll)

alexhs (877055) | about 3 months ago | (#47812089)

Will the next version be Firefox64 ?
When will we go back to Firefox ONE ?

Re:Firefox32 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813209)

Will the next version be Firefox64 ?
When will we go back to Firefox ONE ?

Sixteen years before the day after tomorrow.

Re:Firefox32 (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 3 months ago | (#47813299)

Firefox 360?

This improves your speed, security & more (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812099)

Only security that I know of that boosts speed too: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

---

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... [techcrunch.com] )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less "moving parts" complexity

D.) Hosts files yield more:

1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

---

* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too(4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

...apk

Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812119)

W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

Re:Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813421)

You guys could learn a lot from the old school Linux Advocacy FAQ. You can find it yourself.

It's all about how to advocate something without hurting the cause you are trying to advocate. Protip: spamming forums and generally acting like a religious zealot hurts your cause and makes people not give a shit about your pet cause.

You fear hosts files (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47814043)

Linux isn't successful vs. MS on PC's + Servers combined They're no good example from you in that area. Trollishly attempting to "confuse the issue", a classic predictable troll move from you too? Please. Go away, troll.

Ask yourselves these questions... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812141)

Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources

"?"

* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

APK

P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... [techcrunch.com]

So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

... apk

Re:This improves your speed, security & more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812879)

Re:This improves your speed, security & more (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813357)

Why would I ever need any of this? If anything ever happened, I would just bring up MyCleanPC and fix the problem.

I'll trust a respected companies solution over some guy-in-a-basement's free hosts program who is probably just out to scam me. At least MyCleanPC lets me hold someone responsible if I have a problem! What guarantee do I have that some "Anonymous Coward" will respond if I need support?

Ac troll attempts @ "confusing the issue"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47814101)

It's weak vs. the FACT you can't prove a single thing I wrote is wrong: That, says it all.

APK

P.S.=>

"I'll trust a respected companies solution over some guy-in-a-basement's free hosts program who is probably just out to scam me." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02, 2014 @10:04PM (#47813357)

No scam here. What I wrote is 100% truth & obviously FACT you can't prove wrong - plus WHO THE HELL are "MyCleanPC"? I'd bank on it that their LEAD CODER hasn't done jack shit compared to myself in the art & science of computing as well (& I was doing things of great value that did well in publications in this field before he was out of diapers).

"At least MyCleanPC lets me hold someone responsible if I have a problem! What guarantee do I have that some "Anonymous Coward" will respond if I need support?" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02, 2014 @10:04PM (#47813357)

I always answer support emails.

Always.

Your weak ac troll attempts @ "confusing the issue" here are pitiful... they truly are!

... apk

First impressions (4, Informative)

whereiswaldo (459052) | about 3 months ago | (#47812127)

Just installed the latest Firefox and did a bit of random surfing. First impression: noticeably faster than before, probably even on par with Chrome.

You can make it way faster still (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812229)

As well as safer + more reliable, by using this (you already have it too) http://news.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

Re:First impressions (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 3 months ago | (#47812713)

How does it compare to Pale Moon, though? Performance and not liking Australias was my main reason for changing to Pale Moon.
Since Pale Moon can no longer sync with my Firefox on other machines (one of which is my laptop I cannot use Pale Moon on), and the Classic Theme Restorer undoes most of the UX damage, I'm wavering to dropping Pale Moon.

Re:First impressions (2)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | about 3 months ago | (#47812871)

It's been as fast a Chrome for years. It's only Google fanbois on Slashdot who really say otherwise... Though I get the impression that maybe it is slightly different under Windows so maybe that's why some think it's slow. Most of the badness was quickly eliminated after FF4, and the UI changes are really just a storm in a teacup (they haven't changed the way I use FF at all).

Re:First impressions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813031)

I agreed with you until the UI changes. I have a reasonably sized 1680x1050 monitor and the UI was clearly designed for netbooks. Right now I've got a subset of the addons I have installed visible, the remaining ones are somewhere. Where they are is something that apparently only God knows as they just don't appear due to the monitor not being long enough to display them, the extra search field and all the addons.

Prior to the UI bullshit, it wasn't a problem, the addons got their own bar and I could see all of them. As it is, I can't access some of them because the icon isn't available.

Not to mention the way that they moved the favorites bit from the URL bar to right next to the bar. The URL bar is plenty long enough for me to see what I need in most cases, having that star in there really made sense. Not to mention the bullshit that is that chrome style menubar.

Re:First impressions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813151)

Not sure what platform you're using, but Firefox is (or, was) slow on Mac as well. Chrome was obviously faster, and that's my impression -- someone who rarely uses Chrome.

Re:First impressions (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 3 months ago | (#47813369)

Sorry, only your impression. When I use Firefox on a weaker computer, the speed difference compared to Chrome is obvious. The detail is that a current machine is usually fast enough to hide this difference (but it still exists).

Re:First impressions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47814195)

Oddly enough, on my slower machines I find Firefox runs all that much faster than Chrome. It's definitely a case where certain hardware and software configurations will lead to varying results.

And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (-1, Flamebait)

Khyber (864651) | about 3 months ago | (#47812133)

No plugins or extensions installed, ONE WEBPAGE WITHOUT FLASH goes from 96MB up to 500+ MB.

The page has maybe ONE FUCKING PARAGRAPH OF TEXT, ONLY.

Firefox is gone from my system, now.

Totally fucking useless browser. Mozilla went to shit the second they started with this every six weeks update cycle.

FireFox 4, with add-ons, runs faster than this new version with NOTHING added, on a 64-bit dual core system and 2GB RAM.

Quit supporting Mozilla, people. It's become quite obvious they don't have a clue what they're doing and these rapid version increments are just to make them look like they actually care about you, while they push out an entirely inferior product compared to what they used to offer.

Re:And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (3, Informative)

mspohr (589790) | about 3 months ago | (#47812221)

Autoupdated this am.
Seems to work fine.
Memory use seems about the same. (I have 10 tabs open now... lots of "complex/rich" sites... 536 MB)

Re:And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813755)

Why do you Mozillians always give this response? IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF IT WORKS FOR YOU! It cleary doesn't work for Khyber. Your experience is totally irrelevant. Instead of bringing it up, you should be pressuring the Mozillian devs to fix their busted junk.

The more you deny that these problems exist, the more people you drive to Chrome. And there aren't that many Firefoxers left! Less than 10% of all web users are using Firefox these days. People are instead choosing to use Chrome, because it isn't ass slow and Google keeps making it faster with each release.

And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812253)

I don't know what you're talking about. Multiple tabs open and I have less than 500MB of used memory.

Re:And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 3 months ago | (#47814315)

Two tabs. TWO.

http://imgur.com/8oaZW6D [imgur.com]

Zero excuse for that bullshit. Slashdot and Fark are NOT loading up nearly half a gig of information.

Re:And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812299)

What do you expect? It's open sewers!

True enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812389)

Firefox memory usage is the worst of any browser. I use it as my secondary browser, when I have to, and then I close it out.

Re:True enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812455)

And you're lying. Try actually comparing it against your browser of choice (I'm going to assume Chrome here) and do a fair comparison. More often than not, Firefox will probably be lower.

Re:True enough (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 3 months ago | (#47812673)

I prefer FF over other browsers. But it's mainly because it's what I'm used to and the tree style tabs. I'm sure you can get the same for Chrome. But I haven't gotten around to checking.

FF became pretty unstable a few versions ago, though I don't recall which. It seemed to be a memory leak or something. It got up to around 2.5 GB of RAM and then became unresponsive and would eventually crash. My system has 16 GB of RAM, and was never near 100%. The next release took a little longer to reach this point, and the one after that was even longer. I think the version before 32 only crashed once on me. And 32 is open right now as I post this using 2.1 GB of RAM. Granted, I have 13 FF windows open with 5 to 24 tabs open in each.

Re:True enough (1)

onix (990980) | about 3 months ago | (#47812837)

Grim Reefer, " I have 13 FF windows open with 5 to 24 tabs open in each." Yes, just try exactly this on Chrome and report back on memory usage.

Re:True enough (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813117)

firefox would have crashed long before i was able to open up that many windows with that many tabs.

after a few hundred pageviews using no more than a few tabs at a time firefox gets close to 2 gigs memory used and stays there.. ui gets sluggish (even more than usual now since the omg-it-looks-like-chrome version), pages start stuttering on scrolling and taking longer to load up in the first place, and acknowledgement of mouseclicks can be delayed so much that what firefox 'clicks' on isn't even what *I* clicked the button on.... this on 8gb quad core win7x64.... and even when running only bare minimum addons like abp and noscript.

and yet i stick with firefox because a) its not google, b) it's not microsoft, and c) adblock and noscript are unequaled still in every other browser

Re:True enough (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813307)

The next time it gets that bad, open about:memory and see what stands out as eating the RAM. There have been issues with AntiVirus software, old crufty features like "ask me about every cookie", the YouTubeCenter addon gobbles up RAM (developer version doesn't), and video drivers with shared RAM being problematic. Adobe has also stopped caring about Flash on Firefox, so that's becoming a real turd in the punchbowl lately. But if you try to dig deeper and help Mozilla find out what the problem is, I'm sure they'll help find out what the cause is. They did for me, so if you're not a total asshat about it, they'll probably help you out too. They do care, they just need someone to help them find the actual problem.

Re:True enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812603)

You have to add all of the chrome processes together. They are not all shared memory. They are separate.

Re:And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812399)

Assuming Google hasn't taken up astro-turfing and you're being honest here— you need to wipe out your preferences or something... because something is weird there I have several windows with a good hundred tabs open across them and are currently using 690MB RSS.

Re:And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 3 months ago | (#47812467)

I have 3 tabs open one with flash and its only 196 megs (and some change), dunno what your fucking problem is

Re:And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812643)

Shut the fuck up

Re:And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812797)

Bad day at school?

Re:And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47813917)

Yeah. The cookie jar was empty, so he had to take his nap with an empty tummy.

Re:And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (1)

narcc (412956) | about 3 months ago | (#47812629)

Might as well chime in:
Two tabs, 264mb

What do we care... (0)

fleabay (876971) | about 3 months ago | (#47812151)

about cruddy old FireFox weekly reports?

This improves your speed, security, & more (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812169)

Only security that I know of that boosts speed too: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

---

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... [techcrunch.com] )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less "moving parts" complexity

D.) Hosts files yield more:

1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

---

* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

...apk

Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812179)

W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

Ask yourselves these questions... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812193)

Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources

"?"

* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

APK

P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... [techcrunch.com]

So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

... apk

This improves your speed, security, & more (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812323)

Only security that I know of that boosts speed too: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

---

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... [techcrunch.com] )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less "moving parts" complexity

D.) Hosts files yield more:

1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

---

* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

...apk

Ask yourselves these questions... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812337)

Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources

"?"

* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

APK

P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... [techcrunch.com]

So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

... apk

Re:Ask yourselves these questions... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812649)

16) Work with IPv6

uh-oh

Re:Ask yourselves these questions... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813605)

hosts files work in ipv6 perfectly or did you think they didn't?

Ever seen :: or ::1 in IPv6? apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813813)

:: = 0 or 0.0.0.0 in IPv4, & ::1 = loopback adapter address/127.0.0.1 in IPv4...

APK

P.S.=> Hosts work just fine in IPv6, using either :: (0.0.0.0 equivalent or 0 in Win2k SP#2 - Windows 7 pre 12/08/2009 MS Patch Tuesday's patch disabling the superior smaller/faster 0 there when it works on Win2k/XP/Server 2003 just fine still) OR using ::1 (loopback adapter address)... apk

Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812355)

W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

Re:Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813133)

You're an idiot. AdBlock is about easy choice, and your precious hosts file isn't able to do some of the fancier testing and filtering that better filtering solutions can.

Palant might have rubbed us all the wrong way with his "acceptable ads" thing, but what's really embarrassing is that he and Firefox haven't been able to come up with a less inefficient means of accomplishing that fancy ad blocking yet.

I honestly tire of you misinformants constantly telling the world YOU WERE RIGHT when clearly you were not. If you were then everyone would be using hosts files for this, because the only people who run ad blockers generally try out multiple solutions and settle on the best for their purposes.

You want a really superior solution? Try NoScript. After a few days of customizing, 99% of the web will run like a dream, and for the rest you can easily just allow them through your whitelist. No ads, better security, better all-around performance. But no, that's too much work isn't it? Far easier to just pretend your hosts file is better when it clearly isn't.

You're tossing names: You're the idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813613)

You're trying to tell us adblock doing far less than hosts less efficiently too is better? LOL!

Re:Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813943)

I honestly tire of you misinformants constantly telling the world YOU WERE RIGHT when clearly you were not.

You're project you know apk's right on hosts being better in your quoted reply.

IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812575)

Good luck with that.

Re:IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813625)

Hosts files work perfectly in ipv6 and do far more of value than adblock.

Ever seen :: or ::1 in IPv6? apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813827)

:: = 0 or 0.0.0.0 in IPv4, & ::1 = loopback adapter address/127.0.0.1 in IPv4

APK

P.S.=> Hosts work just fine in IPv6, using either :: (0.0.0.0 equivalent or 0 in Win2k SP#2 - Windows 7 pre 12/08/2009 MS Patch Tuesday's patch disabling the superior smaller/faster 0 there when it works on Win2k/XP/Server 2003 just fine still) OR using ::1 (loopback adapter address)... apk

Yuo fail It? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812395)

'You see, even of the warring study. [rice.edu] getting together to dicks produced On baby...don't go find something people playing can say I'm packing Of progress. the developer Megs of ram runs is ingesting Themselves to be a population as weel hanD...don't declined in market move any equipment faster than this or chair, return as the premiere to keep up as of OpenBSD versus Contact to see if one or the other BSD culminated in sanctions, and charnel house. The to stick something [nero-online.org].

Looks Interesting (1, Insightful)

Somebody Is Using My (985418) | about 3 months ago | (#47812415)

This stuff looks interesting. I can't wait until they fold it into Palemoon.

Because coolness of the technology aside, everything else about Firefox is increasingly pissing me off.

Re:Looks Interesting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812579)

This stuff looks interesting. I can't wait until they fold it into Palemoon.

This.

The funny thing is, I've got plenty of RAM. I got more consistent performance out of Firefox 3.6 (without Flash installed, Javashit disabled for 99% of my web browsing, and yes, I know the Javashit engine for 3.x was teh suck) than I have out of recent Firefox builds. Currently on Palemoon 24.x, and noticed it lagging when paging up/down through static text content after about 2-3 days of continuous use. Firefox 3 never had that problem, even though it used relatively more RAM. (24.x is more stable; I can do 300+ tabs and take it right to the 2GB process limit and it doesn't fall over.)

Re:Looks Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813053)

Firefox 3 was fine for the web back then. Try it today. I did, just a day ago. It was a horrible experience. But since all of you Firefox fans have abandoned it for Pale Moon, I think I'll try that next. But the last time I tried PM it was a dismal experience, where I was basically running the not-very-tested Firefox 64-bit nightly Windows builds without more than some spit-shine. They basically tore out a bunch of features, stripped out the test suite like it didn't matter, and called it better than the real thing.

So I think I'll try it out side by side with 32, with new profiles. I sincerely hope that it's not still the same miserably overrated experience, and that you guys aren't just making this shit up to make Mozilla sound bad. All of this "rah rah Pale Moon!" stuff lately has me hoping for something awesome. I have to admit that I'm suspicious, because for all the anti-Mozilla sentiment from self-professed geeks lately, this Pale Moon stuff sounds more like a bunch of Gentoo ricers circa 2006 crying because Mozilla isn't fondling their balls just the way they like it anymore.

CSS position:sticky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812459)

Now that postion:sticky has come out from hiding behind a pref in Firefox 32, it's a "nice to have" CSS feature on webpages that scroll a lot so you can still see the heading [neocities.org] of what you're looking at. Safari supports it behind a -webkit- prefix but for some reason Chrome and Opera have no support for it in Blink yet.

Re:CSS position:sticky (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813699)

Now that postion:sticky has come out from hiding behind a pref in Firefox 32, it's a "nice to have" CSS feature on webpages that scroll a lot so you can still see the heading of what you're looking at. Safari supports it behind a -webkit- prefix but for some reason Chrome and Opera have no support for it in Blink yet.

Ugh. Your preferences may differ from mine, and that's cool, but the last thing I want is something that stays there while I'm paging down or scrolling!

If you use the scroll wheel or are on mobile, it doesn't matter either way (although you'll get carpal tunnel syndrome using the scroll wheel on a long Slashdot thread...) But if you save your wrists by using PgUp/PgDn/Spacebar to page through a long thread, having a sticky header is a bug, not a feature. Every page down must be followed up with three or four arrow-up keypresses to expose the lines that are covered by the header. It's not Page down/down/down, it/s Down-dammit-friggin-logo-in-the-way-upupupup-Downapage-damnyouwebdevbastards-upupupalineortwo... ugh.

I find this behavior so annoying I actually rewrite (where possible; that is, where the CSS isn't delivered via https) CSS to forcibly eliminate the position-fixed behavior. Some websites look a little wonky, but I'd rather they look a little odd than break my ability to skim by paging through them at a rate of one screenful per keypress.

Still having misery with Firefox. (4, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 3 months ago | (#47812753)

I post in EVERY Slashdot firefox article, whining for the same thing.
LESS focus on UI / features, MORE focus on stability / performance.
I've been using FireFox since the name it had before FireFox (I've forgotten it) - I think I used it since version 1 or god knows what.

For about the last 12 months, maybe 18, Firefox has become completely unstable for "extreme" browsers like me. I run anywhere from 30 to 150 tabs open at a time. I'd say a nice average would be around 60 tabs. When I'm researching something (often multiple things) I like to google what I'm reading, middle click open in the background the first 5 results. Then when on a forum, I'll middle click open 5 more results and so on. I like having those tabs queued up in the background for me to read.
You might think "well there's the cause of your stability problem!!" except this never used to happen. 18 months ago you could hit 200 tabs without FF crashing. Now, I'm scared to open more than 60. This is across multiple machines too.

I've even tried switching to WaterFox, no dice - I'm still able to crash FF regularly and I run very few addons either.
It's good to see the http cache changes, so they are working on performance but stability should be the #1 focus.
Oddly enough, I get exactly the same symptoms in Firefox for Android as I do Windows for fucks sake. If I hit enough tabs (about 8 on my Galaxy S3) - FF for Android shits the bed, presumably because it's out of ram and can't page well or something. Worst part is FF for Android doesn't remember my open tabs either. Miserable.

They've fiddled and fucked with the UI, replicating Chrome as much as they can (ugh!) for years, now can they stop? If I wanted ugly goddamn chrome I'd install it.
PLEASE fix the stability, PLEASE make it faster. I don't care how much ram it uses, I just want a modern experience with my browser.

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 3 months ago | (#47812835)

I have a similar amount of tabs as you and have no issues.

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813797)

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF YOU AREN'T EXPERIENCING THESE PROBLEMS! Why do you freaks always insist on denying that very real problems exist just because you haven't personally experienced them? Do you know how bad it makes you and all Mozilla supporters look?

These aren't isolated problems that people are reporting, either. The reports are numerous, widespread, yet still quite consistent. Firefox is slow. Firefox suffers from memory leaks. Firefox has a shitty UI these days.

ALL OF THOSE COMPLAINTS ARE LEGITIMATE, AND ALL ARE FACTUAL!

The more you shitbags deny that these problems exist, the faster users run away from Firefox. Less than 10% of web users are using Firefox these days, and this number keeps decreasing. The fact that cockmongers like you feel the need to belittle anyone who raises these very serious and real concerns will guarantee Chrome, IE and Safari a victory over Firefox.

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (1)

Rob Hostetter (2908585) | about 3 months ago | (#47812877)

If you have that many tabs open you NEED flashblack and adblock+. Flash is super crash happy, and ads are a huge issue too. I similarly open many tabs often a couple hundred before I go through and clear them out (I do news feeds), and with those two things I might get a crash once every 2-3 months.

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (1)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | about 3 months ago | (#47812891)

I have similar browsing habbits and none of these problems. I'm on Linux though.

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812933)

I've noticed them working hard to improve all of the things you complain about in every damn thread that has even the more remotely tangential association with Firefox. I honestly can't tell why you would STILL be using Firefox if you're this upset about it.

I say this because for a lark, I tried to use Firefox 3 the other day, for the full day. It crashed. A lot. It was slow. It used quite a bit more CPU and RAM then Chrome or even the latest Firefox and could barely handle some modern web apps, if at all. It lacked compatibility with a lot of modern web features and looked like crap overall. Flash was a horrible drag until I disabled it in frustration. It was a godawful experience that reminded me why I didn't use Firefox all that time ago.

I sincerely think that a lot of users just can't see or feel it because Mozilla has done such a steady job improving Firefox over the years, so the only things that stand out are the ones that really bother you - new features breaking things, UI changes that you conflate to being "bad" because they look like a browser you dislike, etc.

But there's NEVER any kudos going to Mozilla from you guys. At all. It's almost childish how much you demand from them, without ever noticing how far it's come. Me? I went straight back to Chrome, because I stupidly got hooked on their ecosystem. But I've tried Firefox with every major release for a day or two and I can sincerely say that you've probably got a problem with your profile or addons or plugins, or perhaps you're just seeing the grass as way too green over in Chromeland.

I know that when I find the time to migrate away from Google's services, I'll be happy with Firefox. Especially given how far they've come and how hard they've worked. Chrome hasn't improved anywhere near as much as Firefox has over the years. In fact I'm posting this from a nightly Firefox, which feels just about as snappy to me as Chrome does, despite using less bandwidth, RAM and GPU resources. That's very impressive.

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (2)

kylemonger (686302) | about 3 months ago | (#47812949)

They are fixing your issues, if only incidentally. A number of the latest security fixes have been related to bad code continuing to use objects that were freed, which causes crashes in the best case and enables remote code execution in the worst. As they continue to find and fix these bugs, crash probability is bound to decrease on average

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813175)

Important question: how much RAM do you have?

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813217)

If you have that man tabs open at the same time, you don't need a better browser. You need to learn to focus.

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | about 3 months ago | (#47813321)

Have you tried creating a new profile and comparing speed? There have been a number of Firefox issues caused by certain profile data. How about disabling all addons and trying again? Do both of those things and see how that compares, then narrow down the options.

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 3 months ago | (#47813443)

Yep done the new profile thing, no luck. As for the dude asking about FlashBlock and AdBlock - of course, I only run about 5 addons and that's 2 of them.

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (4, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 months ago | (#47813325)

"extreme" browsers like me. I run anywhere from 30 to 150 tabs open at a time. I'd say a nice average would be around 60 tabs

It's not Firefox and that's not extreme. I was just doing some Javascript profiling this weekend on slow performance with 1630 tabs (Tree Style Tabs, of course), with the winners for CPU eaters being HTTPS Everywhere 4.0's SSLObservatory and SessionRestore.

As much as I appreciate the EFF's efforts, I wound up disabling 4.0. Maybe 4.0.1 will be back with a vengeance.

Anyway, Firefox wasn't crashing, it was slow. Probably one of your in-profile databases got corrupted at some point ('restore from backup' is the most likely "fix"). I'm on Fedora 20, running stock Firefox.

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (1)

chihowa (366380) | about 3 months ago | (#47813593)

Were you doing that for testing purposes or do you actually have that many tabs open on purpose?

Since there's no way you could actually look at all of them in a single day, perhaps you'd be better off with bookmarks than actual open tabs. What benefit do you get from having the actual pages loaded and running their rogue javascript in the background? Have you downloaded the entire web to your hard drive, too, instead of just fetching the relevant pages as you need them?

Genuinely curious... (though that last sentence had some [required] snark.)

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 3 months ago | (#47813743)

Well, I do use the session restore functionality, perhaps that's the problem? Maybe I can manually adjust some settings on the frequency of session saves or the amount of back pages it remembers?

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (1)

_xeno_ (155264) | about 3 months ago | (#47814117)

I never understand how people manage to keep that many tabs open because Firefox regularly corrupts its own session and refuses to restore the previously open tabs. Routinely.

So every couple of weeks I "get" to reset all my tabs back to nothing when Firefox corrupts its own session and refuses to restore the original settings.

And this is on every OS I've used Firefox: Windows, Linux, Mac OS X; it makes no difference, Firefox regularly refuses to restore tabs.

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813471)

Lots of other people use firefox is similar ways and don't have the same trouble you are having. Have you considered doing a memtest or similar? If you have overclocked, have you considered returning to stock for testing purposes?

Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813525)

It was called Firebird.

Still having misery with Firefox. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47814189)

Try Pale Moon, if on Windows.

Version Number (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812761)

Since these updates became more about upping the version number than adding anything really useful and substantive, they should seize this golden opportunity to call it Firefox 100000. Then as the updates roll on from here ...Firefox 100001, Firefox 100010, Firefox 100011, etc.

Re:Version Number (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47812989)

Let's see... they replaced the web page caching subsystem, enabled generational garbage collection, added public key pinning, added several useful web APIs/CSS features, noticeably improved the web developer tools,and fixed text rendering issues with Windows 8.1, among other things. So what exactly makes this an insubstantial update? What would make it substantial to you, short of them just adopting Chrome?

Re:Version Number (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#47813155)

Did they fix the right-click menus randomly stopping working? Because that's the about only thing I really care about in Firefox as it stands.

Every new release seems to come with a new UI and new bugs.

Re:Version Number (5, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 3 months ago | (#47814185)

Did they fix the right-click menus randomly stopping working? Because that's the about only thing I really care about in Firefox as it stands.

That's probably a side effect of the "Javascript always on" thing Mozilla did a few versions ago. When they got rid of the "Enable Javascript" checkbox, they also got rid of the options like "Allow scripts to take right-click" and other options.

What's likely happening is your website is blocking right-clicks on purpose (usually as a "protection" measure so you can't right-click and activate extensions like Nuke Anything or Save As).

Of course, the default setting of the checkbox was to disallow websites from hijacking right-click. But since it's gone, so is the setting, so websites are free to hijack right-click.

You need to either use NoScript to block the offending Javascript, or hold down shift when you right-click, which bypasses the right-click hijack and shows the Firefox right-click menu and all the extensions.

Re:Version Number (1)

bipbop (1144919) | about 3 months ago | (#47813067)

I wonder why they don't switch to date-based version numbers. It would make it a lot easier to keep track of versions again.

Re:Version Number (1)

whereiswaldo (459052) | about 3 months ago | (#47813349)

Just a guess, but probably would require too many changes to their build infrastructure and associated tooling to be worth the while, since version numbers aren't surfaced that much to the average user anyway.

Re:Version Number (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47814209)

You can trivially see the date of the build already. It's just that the average user doesn't have a clue what to report to Mozilla when a bug happens, so they decided to simplify it to a nice round number.

Haha, sad pi (3, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 3 months ago | (#47812905)

Firefox mobile: Android 2.2 and ARMv6 processor chipset no longer supported

Fix html5 video, plus a few other things (1)

CockMonster (886033) | about 3 months ago | (#47813047)

Youtube Videos still continue to play even when the tab is closed. The video stops rendering sometimes yet the audio continues. The browser itself freezes a lot. I get 'firefox is running but not responding' messages all the time. I don't see the fuss. It's bloated crap IMO

Unsurprisingly an add-on broke. (1)

PsychoSlashDot (207849) | about 3 months ago | (#47813449)

The "new" DownloadStatusBar addon which worked around the changes in (I think) FF29... well, it's broken again. Probably I can go Googling and find an update somewhere.

Re:Unsurprisingly an add-on broke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47814045)

Gmail Manager/NG is also kaput...

New and improved! aka stupid ass shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813465)

From release notes:

"NEW - Easier back, forward, reload, and bookmarking through the context menu"

http://msujaws.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/experimenting-with-context-menus/

If only Mozilla Firefox guys could just stop endlessly fucking around with all the little things that work fine! You guys want to fix broken shit? Okay great! More of that is needed. You want to add stupid new (typically broken) features/API/kitchen sink to the browser?? Okay, not really great, but it's to be expected, and there is typically a way to disable the new shit (if there is no way to disable new stuff at all, then that's another entire rant). Those types of updates are all well and good but here's an example of just plain completely retarded! Right click popup menu for web browsers has been a solved problem for how many years now, yet here goes UI guys going to fuck around with it to justify their jobs.

What is the point of this kind of shit? These guys need to be pulled off the core Firefox team and put into the mobile Firefox OS design team or some shit where they might be relevant. I'm so sick and tired of mobile/smartphone/tablet UI trends infesting everything and anything. Oh yeah, I refuse to seriously use the term "UX". Outside of Apple cultists and design freaks, most people just consider the OS/program interface exactly that - an interface, not an experience.

To hell with all of this shit!

This improves your speed, security, & more (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813553)

Only security that I know of that boosts speed too: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

---

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... [techcrunch.com] )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less "moving parts" complexity

D.) Hosts files yield more:

1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

---

* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

...apk

Ask yourselves these questions... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813561)

Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources

"?"

* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

APK

P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... [techcrunch.com]

So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

... apk

Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813567)

W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

This improves your speed, security, & more (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813657)

Only security that I know of that boosts speed too: My FREE hosts program adds speed, security, reliability, & more, by doing more, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' issues:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

---

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... [techcrunch.com] )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less "moving parts" complexity

D.) Hosts files yield more:

1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs DGA, & Fastflux + dynDNS botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

---

* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

Instead, work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts (An integrated part of the ip stack)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

...apk

Ask yourselves these questions... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813669)

Can adblock do the following things (that custom hosts files can):

1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources

"?"

* Simple YES or NO answers will do for repliers to this - that's all.

APK

P.S.=> Of course, ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above as far as "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) is concerned -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... [techcrunch.com]

So, *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)?

That's illogical, but up to you - I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make them drink!

... apk

Addendum: True story, AdBlock vs. Hosts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47813685)

W. Palant wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

"Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google And Others Reportedly Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by the OS itself also)... apk

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?