Guest Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Mozilla is preparing nearly-silent upgrades to get customers stuck on older versions of Firefox onto the newest edition, according to notes on the company's website and its bug-tracking database. View the full article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Ooooh! Undercover infiltrator upgrades, huh? Will you get the Atomic Super-Dooper Shopper tool bar along with those upgrades? That's what I wanna' know. Oh, no. Wait, that's Adobe that does that carp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abarbarian Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Well seeing as FF is a non free not open source browser it comes as no surprise. Unchecked, that contradiction is only going to grow. Mozilla’s DRM code, imported from Adobe as a closed-source binary, will sit in a cordoned sandbox, simultaneously Mozilla’s responsibility but beyond its control. Mozilla will be responsible for updates to the DRM blackbox, which means users will have to navigate browser updates that will either fix security bugs or strip features from their video watching. Mozillians have already been warned of the danger of talking too much about how DRM works (and doesn’t work), lest they trigger the provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that forbid “trafficking” in circumvention knowledge. Mozilla caves in to industry forces behind DRM-in-HTML standard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goretsky Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Hello, Isn't that what Google has been doing with Chrome for years? Regards, Aryeh Goretsky 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Truthfully, I think they saw it as their only move to stay relevant. All main browsers are incorporating Flash to keep the browser updated quickly without intervention from the user. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 I am not saying it is the best move, just that their 'for profit' mozilla.com property feels the need to stay relevant in their mind with the other top browsers. Pale Moon may be the only alternative for users that love their Firefox browsers. I Just hope they make a version available for Linux like IceWeasel in Debian (which I don't care for btw). Here's something Corrine posted elsewhere from Moonchild (Pale Moon's forum): Addressing a few hot topics and general misconceptions To provide some clarity, here's an announcement about a few hot topics and general misconceptions: Pale Moon is in no way affiliated with the (for-profit) Mozilla Corporation or (non-profit) Mozilla Foundation. Pale Moon will continue, now and in the future, to have a familiar set of controls and efficient, intuitive UI. "Australis", the Firefox 29 new interface, will not be adopted in Pale Moon. Pale Moon will not implement DRM, including but not limited to "EME" or Adobe's closed-source encryption module. If you wish to access DRM-protected content, you should use a site-specific, appropriate plugin. Pale Moon will not implement advertisements on its QuickDial page. Pale Moon implements all of the most recent security patches. Don't be fooled by the major version number "24", which is maintained solely for (clarity about) extension compatibility. Pale Moon, including the 64-bit version, is built strictly from release code. Unstable and experimental (nightly) code is never used. Despite what certain people insist on perpetuating, Pale Moon is not a "simple rebuild" of Firefox with some reconfigurations. A lot of work has gone into Pale Moon to create and maintain its current feature set, user interface, stability and performance. It is an alternative, divergent browser project that cannot be directly compared with Firefox anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Nice to know one Firefox based browser will still be available for the nearly 27% of Windows XP users around the globe that need to be without Flash to be safer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abarbarian Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Hello, Isn't that what Google has been doing with Chrome for years? Regards, Aryeh Goretsky They very well may have. I do not use chrome so can not say. however Google are not at the forefront of freedom fighting. I thought HTML5 was supposed to replace flash so why not use that ? The sooner DRM dies the better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Yes, but HTML5 could prove to be as dangerous in the long run as Flash, Java, etc. rolled into one. There was a saying about PHP in when it got started ... "what can it do" ... "anything you want" and HTML5 will be that in spades, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 How timely that you posted that Pale Moon link, Fran. This morning, when I first started up my FF, it did it's usual CPU hogging routine. I'm so getting tire of that. Some say it's an extension causing it. Well, I've run it in Safe Mode with the same CPU hogging issue occurring. Other's say it's a corrupt profile, so I've tested it with a fresh profile; same results. It's really beginning to aggravate me. I decided today to take a fresh look at Chromium (not Chrome) and Opera. I installed the newest versions of both, but they just seem to be a major PITA to set up the way I had my FF. I guess I've just been "married" to FF for so long that breaking up is hard to do. This Pale Moon looks interesting, though. I think I'll go play around with it a bit, if I can get it installed. I'll probably have to compile from source in Slackware unless I can find a pre-made SlackBuild somewhere. Off I go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Thanks to Corrine for bringing it up originally. I am so thankful she did. I do not want Flash on my XP computers at all. I only go online with them to get updates to browser and ESET Smart Security and that's it. So it's gonna be Pale Moon for me on XP from now on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 PaleMoon.org has a forum, as well as a migration tool for those who wish to use it (only Windows). I generally just export the .json and import it to Firefox and that should work fine in Pale Moon too then install the extensions I want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Migration tool? C'mon! I don't need no stinkin' migration tool. I just copy/rename my FF profile into the Pale Moon directory and VIOLA! Pale Moon looking nearly exactly like my FF. Seems quicker, too... could just be my imagination, though. Using it now... will test for a few days and report. Screenie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 What version of Firefox were you on before you installed Pale Moon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 24.5 ESR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 (edited) Ah, OK so that might have been why you didn't have trouble moving your profile. It was basically the same version. Less all the incorporated security patches that Pale Moon puts in of course. Edited May 17, 2014 by LilBambi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 http://noctslackv1.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/pale-moon-browser-a-review/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Very cool! I don't know what changes are made between 24.x and 29.x but if you are using a newer version of Firefox, you might want to backup your booksmarks (.json) just in case. I do that frequently anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 My profiles get mirrored onto another drive every Sunday (along with my entire operating system) and saved to DVD on the 1st of every month. My Bookmarks are in Firefox Sync's cloud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Which is great. But not everyone does that stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Very few do, I've found. Phone rings at Eric's house... "Hello?" "Eric, I can't access the My Documents folder. There's some notice that wants me to send money." Eric replies, "Do you have a backup of your data in the My Documents folder?" "Backup? I don't think so. How do yo do that?" Eric, *heavy sigh* "Just bring me the tower. I don't need anything else. The cost to clear up your issue will be $90." "OK, I'll bring it by tomorrow. I sure hope you can help me. My 2/3s completed manuscript biography of Bill Gates is on there." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I am constantly preaching about backups. The common excuses are "I forgot to do it" and "It's a pain" SpiderOak or Carbonite backups solve that problem and encrypt your data before being backed up to the cloud. I prefer SpiderOak because it does the pre-internet encryption by default, and can back up any files accessible to your computer. Carbonite will not back up network drives unless you pay them a lot of money. Adam 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Yep, me too Adam. Sad thing really. Doesn't matter if it's online or off-line, just do it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I've learned that explaining to people the importance of backing up their data is about as useful as explaining to folks how what they're eating is detrimentally affecting their health. May as well be talking to the potted plant on the coffee table. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 An alternative point of view.... Mozilla had no choice but to add DRM to Firefox Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 (edited) Sure it's not the easiest sell at times. But, if you give up saying anything about it, it will just not even cross their radar until it's too late. Even if you talk about it, it may still be too late ... the first time. Edited May 18, 2014 by LilBambi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V.T. Eric Layton Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Don't agree with the strange bedfellow situation between Adobe and Mozilla regarding DRM. Let Mozilla know... From a Free Software Foundation article: Write to Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal and let him know that you oppose DRM. Mozilla made this decision in a misguided appeal to its userbase; it needs to hear in clear and reasoned terms from the users who feel this as a betrayal. Ask Mozilla what it is going to do to actually solve the DRM problem that has created this false forced choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LilBambi Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) An alternative point of view.... Mozilla had no choice but to add DRM to Firefox Adam More like a D***** if you do and D***** if you don't situation is more to the case. The real issues come in because Firefox was the one browser you could use that didn't have plugins built in like Flash and Silverlight for Windows XP users. Well, there is always Opera. And of course Pale Moon! All security updates but based on previous version of Firefox before Australis Edited May 19, 2014 by LilBambi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross549 Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 More like a D***** if you do and D***** if you don't situation is more to the case. Exactly. Compromises must be made sometimes. purity/extremeism may be damaging in the big picture. Adam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.