Ugh!
Mozilla's 'Tiles' ads debut in new Firefox nightlies
The Mozilla Foundation's controversial plan to bring ads into the Firefox browser has commenced, with new nightlies of the Firefox browser now including the Directory Tiles feature that users hated in its last implementation. Directory Tiles have now morphed into “Sponsored Tiles”, the distinction being that the former are …
COMMENTS
-
-
Tuesday 2nd September 2014 15:35 GMT BillG
I don't see the problem - my FF v3.6.28 (just checked) works brilliantly. Wake me when there's a good reason to upgrade . . .
I have an older laptop running FF 3.6.28. It's the perfect browser for a slower computer. Fast, reliable, never crashes. I have a firewall and an antivirus and never had a problem. I dare anyone to infect it - go ahead, I dare you.
On my more recent laptops I'm running FF27 and FF28. FF28 constantly shows nag screens to upgrade. I laugh maniacally as I close those nag windows.
-
-
-
Friday 29th August 2014 08:28 GMT Vic
How would you do it?
Not like that.
Firefox is Free Software. It can be forked.
This Sponsored Tiles idea is *so* bad that we will see large-scale adoption of IceWeasel. And then Mozilla will get *nothing*.
There will be a U-turn. Mozilla usually comes to its senses eventually (albeit usually way too late...)
Vic.
-
Friday 29th August 2014 09:49 GMT FIA
How would you do it?
Not like that.
But how would you do it? The donations model has proved time and again to be insufficient for funding large scale projects such as this. Also, Opera's move from their own renderer to a fork of another open source backend would suggest the pay model isn't really sustainable either.
Firefox is Free Software. It can be forked.
But any fork would still have to tackle the ongoing development of an up to date web browser, which is probably not feasible on a purely voluntary spare time basis, so would still require some kind of funding for the developer time?
This Sponsored Tiles idea is *so* bad that we will see large-scale adoption of IceWeasel. And then Mozilla will get *nothing*.
But then IceWeasel would have to change from being a modification of an existing codebase to a full on continuation of it.
Also, what is so bad about it? They're not forcing adverts down your throat, it's a tile on a rarely seen page? I've personally been using FF since the 0.6 days, and have never paid them a penny. If the continual development of a browser is conditional on me seeing a link for youtube in a page I barely ever look at then that's a price I'm happy to pay. Is it just some idealisitc objection that I genuinely don't understand? (While I accept I'm technically 'freeloading' I suspect my funding approach mirrors a large amount of FF users).
-
-
-
Tuesday 2nd September 2014 21:41 GMT Michael Wojcik
This Sponsored Tiles idea is *so* bad that we will see large-scale adoption of IceWeasel.
I very much doubt that. People love to complain about changes to Firefox - I've done it more than once myself - but few bother to switch. I haven't; I just beat it about the head and shoulders with extensions until I get something that's more or less what I want, and then I get on to doing other things. The benefits of switching to one of the FF forks aren't compelling enough to get me to spend half an hour downloading and installing it.
Though I've had tiles disabled since they first appear, because I find them obnoxious and unnecessary, so this particular change doesn't bother me.
-
-
Sunday 31st August 2014 19:40 GMT Anonymous Coward
> I'm sure Mozilla would love to pay their employees with hugs and pats on the back
Mozilla Foundation employees: 1598+, $27.5M in assets, $1.5M revenue
Wikisomething Foundation employees: 200+, $45M in assets, $48.5M revenue
Linux Foundation employees: about 30, $15M assets, $17M revenue
KDE Foundation employees: none to my knowledge, no significant assets, €190K revenue
-
-
-
Friday 29th August 2014 03:36 GMT Purple-Stater
Never understood the appeal, nor usefulness, of a very limited number of random "shortcuts" appearing on the new tab page in the first place. I just turned mine on again, just to see what it would display; I have the nine tiles displaying only three different shortcuts. Four of them are a Gmail logon screen.
But I'm still locked on FireFox 27. The last user-friendly version that lets me put my tabs underneath my shortcut bar, and to allow an add-on bar.
-
-
Saturday 30th August 2014 10:31 GMT Purple-Stater
"Or you could update to Firefox 31 and just install the "Classic Theme Restorer" add-on like everyone else... Fixes both your gripes in one."
No, it won't. Because several of the add-ons I use, that display on the add-ons bar, are no longer supported and will not install on versions newer than #27.
-
Friday 29th August 2014 05:37 GMT Zola
I don't have a problem turning off tiles
I don't use them anyway, as my shortcuts are added to the bookmarks toolbar or in a menu and therefore they are precisely where I know they will be, not moving around appearing and disappearing in a randomly organised collection of "shortcut" tiles.
I won't mourn the loss of tiles when I turn them off and will welcome a blank "new tab" page in future.
-
Saturday 30th August 2014 15:54 GMT Michael Habel
Re: I don't have a problem turning off tiles
I won't mourn the loss of tiles when I turn them off and will welcome a blank "new tab" page in future.
Or in about:config -- search for "browser.newtab.url" and then replace "about:newtab" with "http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official"
Same thing with "browser.startup.homepage"
Well thats One problem solved!
-
-
-
-
Friday 29th August 2014 21:48 GMT Havin_it
Re: Konqueror
...or not. Which is a bit of a shame really, as I've always been rather fond of it. Dolphin still can't touch it for versatility and features.
-
-
-
Friday 29th August 2014 07:07 GMT Zap
The last update of Firefox announced itself as a "security update" but was a major change in UI that pissed me off, but this does not worry me.
I never use tiles, I hate them, it is just clutter.
If Mozilla mess up there will be a fork and that will be that, or there will be a plugin to fix it.
I do wish Mozilla would stop copying Chrome, I hate Chrome, it is another example of Goggle's inability to design any decent UI for their software.
The last update would have killed Firefox for me except for a Plugin Called Colorful Tabs which put back the tabs as I like them. I has to piss about putting my icons on the menu bar but they are tiny.
I have no problem with Mozilla trying to earn a few pennies, most of us will disable the feature but idiots will leave it on and that is just who advertisers want.
I already have Better Privacy, adbock, FlashBlock and Ghostery, I expect there to be an option to disable this crap OR ELSE!
-
-
Friday 29th August 2014 14:52 GMT Mark Allen
When I installed Pale Moon it set the Home Page to http://start.palemoon.org/ which is a collection of links to Gmail, Twitter, LinkedIn, BBC, Facebook, etc.
So Pale Moon by default points to a page which links to way MORE than just a few tiles. And has that same "advert" idea to it.
But just like with my copy of Firefox, I just change the Pale Moon home page.
At least with the Firefox Tiles you can turn off the ones you don't want, unlike that Pale Moon start page.
Doesn't every change their home page to what *they* want?
-
Saturday 30th August 2014 15:59 GMT Michael Habel
At least with the Firefox Tiles you can turn off the ones you don't want, unlike that Pale Moon start page.
Again the secret is to bang the Rocks together guys!
about:config -- (search for) "browser.startup.homepage" and change it back to... "http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official"
Same thing with "browser.newtab.url" replace "about:newtab" with "http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official"
Now was that soooo difficult?!
-
-
-
Friday 29th August 2014 07:23 GMT Paul Crawford
Public key pinning?
It appears that web sites will be using some HTTP extension to declare by whom their SSL certificate should be issued, but surely in a MITM attack you would just advertise the 'other' compromised issuer used for the web-access morphing attack?
Have I missed something here?
I applaud the attempt to deal with the mess that is SSL issuing, but it seems to need far more than that to deal with a well-executed MITM attack (along the lines of noticing cert changes and validating with several geographically/politically separate entities that such a change is correct).
-
Tuesday 2nd September 2014 21:53 GMT Michael Wojcik
Re: Public key pinning?
It's not the public key that's "pinned"; it's the server certificate.
There are a couple forms of pinning (that I'm aware of). Sometimes an application - that would be the HTTP User Agent1 in this case - has built-in rules for certain domains. When a server presents a certificate for one of those domains2, the UA takes an additional validation step3 of confirming that the issuer4 matches the hard-coded rule. Google does this with Chrome, so that Chrome will not accept a certificate for any google.com domain that's not been signed by the appropriate root. It doesn't permit the whole set of trusted signers for that purpose.
In the other form of pinning, the first time a client connects to a server and validates the received server certificate, it makes a record of who signed that certificate, and subsequently rejects (or raises an alert) if it gets a new certificate for that server that was issued by someone else. The idea there is to make it harder to mount a MITM attack because the attack has to be in place the first time the client connects to that server. There are various problems (as should be obvious), and it's really mostly useful for users who are comfortable with SSL/TLS PKI5, but it's potentially a useful defense.
1"Browser", for the noobs.
2That is, a certificate that claims to identify an entity that matches one of these rules, whether that's determined by subject DN or subjAltName extension or whatever.
3In addition to all the other ones: signature check, validity-dates check, CRL/OCSP check, blah blah blah.
4That is, the signing entity - a CA or intermediary signing certificate.
5That is, almost no one.
-
-
Friday 29th August 2014 07:37 GMT Dave K
Glad I left Firefox
Not content with ruining the interface and customisability with "Australis", now they're doing this as well. That's why after using Firefox as my main browser since it was Firebird 0.6 I removed it recently and migrated to Pale Moon. FF classic interface, supports FF addons and no Australis or sponsored tiles nonsense!
-
-
Friday 29th August 2014 22:07 GMT Havin_it
Re: But they are wasting money so it doesn't matter
Australis was a third-party theme off AMO, so not much really.
*NB for the nitpickers: Yes, the UI upheaval that arrived at the same time seems to be collectively lumped together as "Australis", but in light of the above that's kinda a misconception.
-
-
Friday 29th August 2014 08:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
Just use another extension....
Never seen any tiles in FireFox as I use "Speed Dial 0.9.6.16" and this allows you to set it as the home page on a new tab. Then you get to add in the links you want and they populate a small "tile" to show the page it links to. Allows for Groups (think tabs in tabs) so that you can set-up a Work page of links, a Home page of links, etc. This new Tile option in FireFox will never see the light of day on my screens.
-
Friday 29th August 2014 09:33 GMT Mark Allen
Confused
So... you open the new Firefox and see a bunch of tiles you don't like the look of. You hit the X on each of these naff tiles until the sponsored ones are gone. And you are then back with your own tiles.
Or am I missing something? Are these sponsored tiles locked and undeletable?
I don't get what the fuss is about. Surely the average user of Firefox can hit an X?
What is more interesting is that the tiles that are being pinned up are ones that Mozilla have chosen. Which implies to me that no one is buying these sponsored tiles yet. That's when it could get interesting. Lets see who Mozilla will take cash from.
-
Friday 29th August 2014 10:33 GMT Silver
Re: Confused
So... you open the new Firefox and see a bunch of tiles you don't like the look of. You hit the X on each of these naff tiles until the sponsored ones are gone. And you are then back with your own tiles.
You don't even have to hit the X, just browse to a bunch of sites and they will start to replace the promotional tiles. After you've visited 9 different websites, they all will be gone. A feat that can probably be achieved in no more than about 30 minutes of normal usage.
If you're upgrading from an existing version then you won't see the sponsored ones at all.
There is the potential for Mozilla to do dodgy things in the future (like with any product from any company since ... well ... ever) but, as it currently stands, it's just lots of people making a mountain out of a molehill...
-