Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:10% is a lot? (Score 1) 132

As a standalone statistic, 10% isn't very useful, because it's not 10% across the board for everyone. In some ways, it's less impressive than that, and in others, it's much more impressive.

The situation being addressed here is that certain graphics card drivers are notoriously buggy, such that processes that use normal accelerated graphics APIs will randomly crash for certain OS/driver/chipset combinations. Historically, Firefox has had to play whack-a-mole by finding patterns in reported crash data that says, for example, "ATI graphics driver x.y.z, with chipset Foo, under Windows 8, is showing an unusual number of graphics-related crashes, so don't use graphics acceleration on those machines." This results in slower rendering for those users in general; and, for those troublesome combinations that have not yet been blacklisted, you end up with users who see Firefox crash a lot (see, e.g., drinkypoo's comment below).

If you're not one of the people with a magically horrible combination of graphics card, graphics driver, and operating system, then this will make absolutely no difference for you. But for those poor users who have found this sweet spot of graphics card misery, performance will improve immensely (for those on the blacklist) and crash rates will plummet (for those who are not). And these users crash *so* *often* that just providing this workaround for their bad graphics card drivers will make *overall* Firefox crash rates go down 10%.

Hard data on *early* experimentation here the final numbers look even better: https://ashughes.com/?p=374

Comment Re:You know.. (Score 3, Interesting) 115

If you've been to Holland, you'll notice that the drivers are extremely careful -- it would be hard to get hit by a car. I'm certain these light-lines are to keep pedestrians from getting run over by bicycles. In Holland, I think bikes actually earn points, Deathrace-2000-style, for aiming at pedestrians.

Comment Re: Why isn't Mozilla doing more?! (Score 1) 88

What's interesting about a lot of these fingerprinting metrics is that they aren't the result of just asking something like "navigator.getCoreCount()" -- these are sophisticated techniques that run very carefully crafted bits of code, and then measure the time certain operations take in order to deduce the number of effective cores. There's really no way to "lie" other than to intentionally be slow.

Comment Re:Why isn't Mozilla doing more?! (Score 1) 88

Mozilla is; there's just not much marketing around it.

To be clear, the level of de-featuring you're asking for makes for pretty good privacy, but a shitty modern browser. However, Mozilla is strongly committed to the prospect that the trade-off between features and privacy should remain in users' hands, which is why we work very closely with the Tor project to produce a browser that does exactly what you're proposing. The reason Firefox doesn't do this out of the box is that a browser that has been de-featured in this way does not come close to fitting the average user's needs. But you have choices, and Mozilla is committed to supporting Tor Browser to give people like you exactly what you're asking for.

In case you missed it, Mozilla recently started taking Tor's modifications in as part of core Firefox code, both to make thing easier for the team that maintains Tor Browser, and to allow users to turn certain Tor-provided privacy-focused features on in base Firefox.

Comment Self inflicted wounds (Score 0) 218

...and before that, it was Game of Thrones. Media companies don't seem to get that this isn't yesteryear where they could corral people into paying for a very broad service with exclusive content. Meanwhile, online sales of television series remain brisk, even at prices around $30 to $50 for a single show season. Sure, consumers aren't acting rationally here -- you can get the entire prime video catalog for the same price as two to three shows -- but that's how economies *actually* work. It blows my mind that the people selling these shows and services still can't see that. I really have very little sympathy for those content owners who choose not to sell their shows free-and-clear of other services. They get exactly the piracy they're asking for.

Comment Re:for a minute there i thought i had freedom. (Score 1) 236

While literally true, that's hardly an honest assessment. It's impractical for all but 0.01% of the userbase. The rest are just stuck with whatever mozilla decides.

Or you could click here: http://archive.mozilla.org/pub...

You aren't as locked out as you're claiming to be.

Comment Re:Whoops (Score 1) 236

Right. What you want is horrifically insecure, which is why everyone is moving to disallow it. Chrome beat Firefox to the punch, but this change has been desperately needed for a long time. As long as you have a product used by millions of users, it's a giant blinking target for malware. Signing is entirely about being able to pull that malware out of the field after it is discovered -- and there's some really skanky add-on based malware out there.

As has been mentioned, if you don't like it, you have options -- unbranded builds and ESR releases let you do exactly what you want to do. And, again, that's far more than you can say for Chrome.

So, really, your complaint resolves to "Firefox will now be secure by default when it comes to add-ons, and I'll have to go through the inhumane and grueling task of downloading my Firefox from a different location on the web if I want to keep doing what I'm doing." That's a little hard to take seriously.

Comment Re:can we please (Score 3, Informative) 236

Alternately, you can grab the add-on and push it to the add-ons server for signing yourself -- it's all automated. The point of signing is that it allows Mozilla to shut off malicious add-ons when they arise. As mentioned elsewhere, all add-ons hosted on Mozilla's servers have already been signed, so you'd only have to do this if you found some unmaintained add-on lying around elsewhere on the web. To be honest, that sounds kind of fishy, so I'd proceed with caution.

Slashdot Top Deals

I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere.

Working...