Why, hello there, Foxy... BYE GOOGLE! Mozilla's browser is a video star Firefox 34, just released, adds support for Mozilla’s web-based Skype-competitor, Firefox Hello. Firefox 34 also drops Google as the default search engine for US users, gives Mac fans the ability to play native H.264 video and eliminates a major security vulnerability. Phew! But is it any good? This is the first version of …
34 major releases, really, or is that just 3 major releases and a few minors for each. After some brainstorming and serious butt scratching, I would suggest dividing everything by 10. Let's call it FF 3.4, there now doesn't that sound a little more serious.
Firefox version 35 new feature/change log which states "Changed the font in a hidden T&C s disclaimer".
C'mon guys , let's stop the version number wars. They are not really fooling anyone, if anything it just sounds amateur..
.
sometime shortly after version 4 they switched to the 'rapid release' system - presumably to make their version numbers comparable to chrome in the dubious hope that higher version numbers would increase adoption (which has evidently failed on both accounts: chrome remains the only browser with growing adoption, and still has a higher version number).
That eliminates the headaches that arise if, for example, you've got Skype but your family prefers Facetime and your employer wants everything to happen over Google Hangouts.
Does it? Does it really?
Looks more like this is just yet another wasteground - you can't talk to people on Facetime, you can't talk to people on Skype, you can't talk to people on Google Hangouts.
If all these things were redesigned for WebRTC, then you could use any WebRTC client, of which this is one, to talk to any other client. In reality, none of the people you want to talk to are using WebRTC.
Of the providers I listed, I can only see Hangouts ending up WebRTC enabled. Facetime and Skype are platforms to drive you to purchase related technologies (Apple devices, Windows licenses), you don't drive that by allowing any old client to talk to your platform.
They might be using already skype, but they could also be persuaded to try the thingy built into their version firefox (well, at least once they upgrade).
Those skypicles you communicate with might well be "using" it once you say - "can't do skype atm - try the firefox browser version instead - here's a link".
Sigh....
http://blogs.skype.com/2014/10/27/bringing-interoperable-real-time-communications-to-the-web/
An article about enabling WebRTC using Skype components. So you can call WebRTC from IE.
How does this relate to calling Skype from WebRTC? Do you thin MS will abandon Skype?
Next...
Skype is available on both Apple's OS X and iOS. I Skype with my friends on their Windows machines from my iPad and Mac all the time. Not to mention, use Skype Out to dial phone numbers. Skype is completely platform independent. Facetime only works with Apple devices it's true, but also moot as it sucks so bad there's just no reason ever to use it.
Much as I hate Skype (the interface sucks, and it's made by Microsoft, who I simply don't trust), I keep using it. Why? Because it works on Android, Windows, OSX, Linux and iOS, it can dial out to real phones, and everybody I need to talk to on it has an account.
As a commenter above said though, a simple alternative built into the majority of browsers would be very welcome, and very easy to start using.
Skype is available on both Apple's OS X and iOS. I Skype with my friends on their Windows machines from my iPad and Mac all the time. Not to mention, use Skype Out to dial phone numbers. Skype is completely platform independent.
Yes, Skype is wonderfully multi platform - you can call SKYPE users on windows from SKYPE on your ipad.
You cannot call Facetime from Skype on Windows though can you, which was in fact the point - well done for ignoring it, have you considered a career in politics?
Tom38: you rightly point out the typical chicken-and-egg problem with new apps - many people won't want to use it until there is a large user base.
However, there is a need for a standards-based protocol with GPL apps to use it. Hopefully Firefox will succeed at this without the rollout problems with protocols such as CalDAV.
Telefonica are behind Tokbox, which IIRC is the back-end system which powers Firefox Hello.
Now I'm not usually one to bash Firefox or Mozilla (I use a FxOS phone, FFS!), but IMO this is a stupid thing for Mozilla to embed directly in the web browser. It's effectively siding with one particular WebRTC service provider, and directly competing with all the other providers out there - providers which rely on Mozilla to remain neutral (at least technologically). Unless Telefonica came to them with a big bag of money, I really don't understand what they were thinking.
Not to mention that the feature may well suddenly stop working at some point in the future, once the business deal has run its course.
We've never really seen that play out in court. WebM was the result of further work which was purchased from another company (can't be arsed to look it up right now) and more work done. Even though there were threats from the 264 bullies, I don't really recall that lawsuits were brought against either side for stepping on toes. It would have been interesting to see.
... because of patents?
Not really, because of the lack of hardware support: H264 was already supported in most hardware configurations so there was no battle to fight. Google has indemnified all users and paid the MPEG patent pool what they wanted.
WebM did play a role in keeping H264 free (as in beer) and Google is able to mandate hardware support for it for the next generations (On9 has already been released) for Android. For most of us free to use (both to create and play) is all that really matters but there are also some benefits in competing technologies: H265 and On9 do do some things differently.
This post has been deleted by its author
But they fixed it anyway. Pre FF 34 I could change the search engine from a pull-down, select text, right-click and search using that engine. Now I have to copy the text, paste it in the box (not Paste and Search), then select the search engine. It adds extra steps and gives no improved functionality!
Firefox, I;ve found, is one of those things which used to be nice. But now is not. It has so many things I dislike. I spend my time in either getting rid, or finding how to get back. Like the back button that takes you, willy-nilly to a Google search page. So to go back one page back, it's two pages back and one page forward. Why? Another is the crowding of super-thumb images of old pages on a new tab. Why? . It serves no useful purpose. There are many others. I've not abandoned Firefox. I've merely ditched the latest and gone back to Ver 27, when things were much saner.
I've merely ditched the latest and gone back to Ver 27, when things were much saner.
I installed v 29, and got stung by that Australis crap, and re-install v 28, and plan to stay there.
If FF continues to 'decline' in usability, then it is something else.
"No more security fixes for you. What a relief."
Gotta make your choices. I find the security risk is worth the better functionality (for me anyways) of FF 27/28. Maybe that doesn't work for you, so that's your choice. I expect that some day I'll have to bite the bullet and let FF update, but for now it's not worth it.
.deb packages The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
