Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #13287 > unrolled thread

Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper?

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.firefox

Contents

  Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2025-05-03 11:14 -0700
    Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-05-03 17:26 -0400
      Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-05-04 00:24 +0200
      Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2025-05-03 19:27 -0700
        Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-05-04 08:11 -0400
          Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2025-05-04 11:13 -0700
            Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 20:28 +0200
              Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2025-05-04 13:16 -0700
                Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 23:04 +0200
                Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-05 08:39 +1000
                Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-05-08 03:12 -0400
              Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Rob Nolan <robert@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-04 19:50 +0000
                Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 23:01 +0200
              Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-05-04 20:05 -0400
              Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-05-05 09:55 -0500
                Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-05-05 16:12 +0100
                  Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-05-05 13:17 -0500
                    Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-05-08 03:22 -0400
                Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-05-05 08:47 -0700
                Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-05 23:45 +0200
                  Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-05-06 09:43 -0500
                Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-05-08 03:17 -0400
          Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-05-08 03:09 -0400
            Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-05-08 06:58 -0400
    Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-03 18:56 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#13287 — Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper?

REF: 
https://www.theverge.com/news/660548/firefox-google-search-revenue-share-doj-antitrust-remedies

[excerpt quote=\"
Firefox could be put out of business should a court implement all the 
Justice Department’s proposals to restrict Google’s search monopoly, an 
executive for the browser owner Mozilla testified Friday. “It’s very 
frightening,” Mozilla CFO Eric Muhlheim said.

...

Firefox makes up about 90 percent of Mozilla’s revenue, according to 
Muhlheim, the finance chief for the organization’s for-profit arm — 
which in turn helps fund the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. About 85 
percent of that revenue comes from its deal with Google, he added.
\" /]

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13289

On 5/3/2025 2:14 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> REF: 
> https://www.theverge.com/news/660548/firefox-google-search-revenue-share-doj-antitrust-remedies 
> 
> 
> [excerpt quote=\"
> Firefox could be put out of business should a court implement all the 
> Justice Department’s proposals to restrict Google’s search monopoly, an 
> executive for the browser owner Mozilla testified Friday. “It’s very 
> frightening,” Mozilla CFO Eric Muhlheim said.
> 
> ...
> 
> Firefox makes up about 90 percent of Mozilla’s revenue, according to 
> Muhlheim, the finance chief for the organization’s for-profit arm — 
> which in turn helps fund the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. About 85 
> percent of that revenue comes from its deal with Google, he added.
> \" /]
> 

   I think it'd be great. They'd have to slim down, stop paying the CEO
$7 million, and stop releasing versions every 10 days. As you may recall,
FF survived before Google started with the payouts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13290

Newyana2 wrote:
> On 5/3/2025 2:14 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>> REF: 
>> https://www.theverge.com/news/660548/firefox-google-search-revenue-share-doj-antitrust-remedies 
>> 
>> 
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> Firefox could be put out of business should a court implement all the 
>> Justice Department’s proposals to restrict Google’s search monopoly, an 
>> executive for the browser owner Mozilla testified Friday. “It’s very 
>> frightening,” Mozilla CFO Eric Muhlheim said.
[..snip..]
>    I think it'd be great. They'd have to slim down, stop paying the CEO
> $7 million, and stop releasing versions every 10 days. As you may recall,
> FF survived before Google started with the payouts.

That's the risk if you get yourself a rich sugar daddy for living in
luxury without having to work. Maybe one day your sugar daddy goes to
jail and you'd have to work again, harder than ever, just to get a bed
and daily meals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13296

Newyana2 graced us with on 5/3/2025 2:26 PM:
> On 5/3/2025 2:14 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>> REF: 
>> https://www.theverge.com/news/660548/firefox-google-search-revenue-share-doj-antitrust-remedies 
>>
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> Firefox could be put out of business should a court implement all the 
>> Justice Department’s proposals to restrict Google’s search monopoly, 
>> an executive for the browser owner Mozilla testified Friday. “It’s 
>> very frightening,” Mozilla CFO Eric Muhlheim said.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Firefox makes up about 90 percent of Mozilla’s revenue, according to 
>> Muhlheim, the finance chief for the organization’s for-profit arm — 
>> which in turn helps fund the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. About 85 
>> percent of that revenue comes from its deal with Google, he added.
>> \" /]
>>
> 
>   I think it'd be great. They'd have to slim down, stop paying the CEO
> $7 million, and stop releasing versions every 10 days. As you may recall,
> FF survived before Google started with the payouts.

Fx's biggest problem is the smallest market share. If Mozilla lose the 
Google revenue then it would be difficult for them to keep up with the 
ever-growing web standards, let alone new enhancement. I suppose, worst 
case would be going the Open Source route. Either way, it'd be 
unfortunate if they closed all together.

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13305

On 5/3/2025 10:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:

>>
>>   I think it'd be great. They'd have to slim down, stop paying the CEO
>> $7 million, and stop releasing versions every 10 days. As you may recall,
>> FF survived before Google started with the payouts.
> 
> Fx's biggest problem is the smallest market share. If Mozilla lose the 
> Google revenue then it would be difficult for them to keep up with the 
> ever-growing web standards, let alone new enhancement. I suppose, worst 
> case would be going the Open Source route. Either way, it'd be 
> unfortunate if they closed all together.
> 
     In theory it's already open source, so the market share
doesn't really matter. What matters is that they get grants
and donations. Their market share now is low single digits,
so it's basically a niche browser for techies. That doesn't stop
them blowing hundreds of millions cranking out pointless
updates on a manic schedule. And the spyware is becoming
a problem. I updated to 138 the other day on one machine and
found "pingsender.exe" was trying to get through my firewall.

   Meanwhile, FF hasn't supported whatever code is being used
on many interactive sites for several years now. It doesn't even
work on my own webhost's control panel. I have to use Chromium.
Every non-tech person who can't get a website to work in FF
is going to be moving to the smooth, optionless Chrome. And
they won't be back.

    In short, Mozilla have been betraying their
primary purpose for years now. I suspect that if we went to
their office building we'd find one very rich CEO, looking for
a private island to buy, and 45 pimply 22-year-olds, arguing
about fixes over a lunch of Twinkies and Pepsi, before retiring
to their cubicles to play GTA... Though the compiling and
packaging crowd must be working. After all, it's no small job
to compile, package and ship the program in 50-odd languages,
each in 5-10 different versions (32/64/MSI/EXE/etc), every
10 days!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13314

Newyana2 graced us with on 5/4/2025 5:11 AM:
> On 5/3/2025 10:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> 
>>>
>>>   I think it'd be great. They'd have to slim down, stop paying the CEO
>>> $7 million, and stop releasing versions every 10 days. As you may 
>>> recall,
>>> FF survived before Google started with the payouts.
>>
>> Fx's biggest problem is the smallest market share. If Mozilla lose the 
>> Google revenue then it would be difficult for them to keep up with the 
>> ever-growing web standards, let alone new enhancement. I suppose, 
>> worst case would be going the Open Source route. Either way, it'd be 
>> unfortunate if they closed all together.
>>
>     In theory it's already open source, so the market share
> doesn't really matter. What matters is that they get grants
> and donations. Their market share now is low single digits,
> so it's basically a niche browser for techies. That doesn't stop
> them blowing hundreds of millions cranking out pointless
> updates on a manic schedule. And the spyware is becoming
> a problem. I updated to 138 the other day on one machine and
> found "pingsender.exe" was trying to get through my firewall.
> 
>   Meanwhile, FF hasn't supported whatever code is being used
> on many interactive sites for several years now. It doesn't even
> work on my own webhost's control panel. I have to use Chromium.
> Every non-tech person who can't get a website to work in FF
> is going to be moving to the smooth, optionless Chrome. And
> they won't be back.
> 
Sadly, you are not wrong. I am finding more sites that Fx doesn't render 
properly. It's a bit easier to vector to Chrome using the "Open in 
Chrome" extension, ref:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-in-chrome-1/
but I feel a bit dirty every time I do it.

>    In short, Mozilla have been betraying their
> primary purpose for years now. I suspect that if we went to
> their office building we'd find one very rich CEO, looking for
> a private island to buy, and 45 pimply 22-year-olds, arguing
> about fixes over a lunch of Twinkies and Pepsi, before retiring
> to their cubicles to play GTA... Though the compiling and
> packaging crowd must be working. After all, it's no small job
> to compile, package and ship the program in 50-odd languages,
> each in 5-10 different versions (32/64/MSI/EXE/etc), every
> 10 days!

heh, tell us what you really think.

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13316

On 2025-05-04 20:13, Sailfish wrote:
> Newyana2 graced us with on 5/4/2025 5:11 AM:
>> On 5/3/2025 10:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>   I think it'd be great. They'd have to slim down, stop paying the CEO
>>>> $7 million, and stop releasing versions every 10 days. As you may 
>>>> recall,
>>>> FF survived before Google started with the payouts.
>>>
>>> Fx's biggest problem is the smallest market share. If Mozilla lose 
>>> the Google revenue then it would be difficult for them to keep up 
>>> with the ever-growing web standards, let alone new enhancement. I 
>>> suppose, worst case would be going the Open Source route. Either way, 
>>> it'd be unfortunate if they closed all together.
>>>
>>     In theory it's already open source, so the market share
>> doesn't really matter. What matters is that they get grants
>> and donations. Their market share now is low single digits,
>> so it's basically a niche browser for techies. That doesn't stop
>> them blowing hundreds of millions cranking out pointless
>> updates on a manic schedule. And the spyware is becoming
>> a problem. I updated to 138 the other day on one machine and
>> found "pingsender.exe" was trying to get through my firewall.
>>
>>   Meanwhile, FF hasn't supported whatever code is being used
>> on many interactive sites for several years now. It doesn't even
>> work on my own webhost's control panel. I have to use Chromium.
>> Every non-tech person who can't get a website to work in FF
>> is going to be moving to the smooth, optionless Chrome. And
>> they won't be back.
>>
> Sadly, you are not wrong. I am finding more sites that Fx doesn't render 
> properly. It's a bit easier to vector to Chrome using the "Open in 
> Chrome" extension, ref:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-in-chrome-1/
> but I feel a bit dirty every time I do it.

Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have currently 
sites that do not open in it.



-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13317

Carlos E.R. graced us with on 5/4/2025 11:28 AM:
> On 2025-05-04 20:13, Sailfish wrote:
>> Newyana2 graced us with on 5/4/2025 5:11 AM:
>>> On 5/3/2025 10:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   I think it'd be great. They'd have to slim down, stop paying the CEO
>>>>> $7 million, and stop releasing versions every 10 days. As you may 
>>>>> recall,
>>>>> FF survived before Google started with the payouts.
>>>>
>>>> Fx's biggest problem is the smallest market share. If Mozilla lose 
>>>> the Google revenue then it would be difficult for them to keep up 
>>>> with the ever-growing web standards, let alone new enhancement. I 
>>>> suppose, worst case would be going the Open Source route. Either 
>>>> way, it'd be unfortunate if they closed all together.
>>>>
>>>     In theory it's already open source, so the market share
>>> doesn't really matter. What matters is that they get grants
>>> and donations. Their market share now is low single digits,
>>> so it's basically a niche browser for techies. That doesn't stop
>>> them blowing hundreds of millions cranking out pointless
>>> updates on a manic schedule. And the spyware is becoming
>>> a problem. I updated to 138 the other day on one machine and
>>> found "pingsender.exe" was trying to get through my firewall.
>>>
>>>   Meanwhile, FF hasn't supported whatever code is being used
>>> on many interactive sites for several years now. It doesn't even
>>> work on my own webhost's control panel. I have to use Chromium.
>>> Every non-tech person who can't get a website to work in FF
>>> is going to be moving to the smooth, optionless Chrome. And
>>> they won't be back.
>>>
>> Sadly, you are not wrong. I am finding more sites that Fx doesn't 
>> render properly. It's a bit easier to vector to Chrome using the "Open 
>> in Chrome" extension, ref:
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-in-chrome-1/
>> but I feel a bit dirty every time I do it.
> 
> Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have currently 
> sites that do not open in it.
> 
Most times the sites that are problematic open but don't render fully or 
don't display video. I don't happen on these type of sites but they do 
occur enough to where that extension is convenient.

YMMV

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13321

On 2025-05-04 22:16, Sailfish wrote:
> Carlos E.R. graced us with on 5/4/2025 11:28 AM:
>> On 2025-05-04 20:13, Sailfish wrote:
>>> Newyana2 graced us with on 5/4/2025 5:11 AM:
>>>> On 5/3/2025 10:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:

...

>>> Sadly, you are not wrong. I am finding more sites that Fx doesn't 
>>> render properly. It's a bit easier to vector to Chrome using the 
>>> "Open in Chrome" extension, ref:
>>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-in-chrome-1/
>>> but I feel a bit dirty every time I do it.
>>
>> Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have 
>> currently sites that do not open in it.
>>
> Most times the sites that are problematic open but don't render fully or 
> don't display video. I don't happen on these type of sites but they do 
> occur enough to where that extension is convenient.
> 
> YMMV

I have video problems when I use FF in private mode with some news site. 
They don't want to respect my privacy setting, they want to flood me 
with comercial shit.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13326

Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@nixcapsunforgettable.com> wrote:
> Carlos E.R. graced us with on 5/4/2025 11:28 AM:
>> Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have currently 
>> sites that do not open in it.
>> 
> Most times the sites that are problematic open but don't render fully or 
> don't display video.

Ahh, that's why I don't have such compatibility problems (usually
the issues I do have are due to my about:config settings). I never
want Firefox displaying video and deliberately disable that. I
always download and watch video with a separate player program, and
if I can't download, I don't watch.

I do have trouble with some sites blocking me or sending me into
captcha hell because they think I'm a "bot". It seems to be more
than just using Firefox behind that though - it's some fatal
combination of IP address, OS, browser, and browser configuration
that changes week by week.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13393

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sun, 04 May 2025 13:16:40 -0700,
Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:

>Carlos E.R. graced us with on 5/4/2025 11:28 AM:
>> On 2025-05-04 20:13, Sailfish wrote:
>>> Newyana2 graced us with on 5/4/2025 5:11 AM:
>>>> On 5/3/2025 10:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   I think it'd be great. They'd have to slim down, stop paying the CEO
>>>>>> $7 million, and stop releasing versions every 10 days. As you may 
>>>>>> recall,
>>>>>> FF survived before Google started with the payouts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fx's biggest problem is the smallest market share. If Mozilla lose 
>>>>> the Google revenue then it would be difficult for them to keep up 
>>>>> with the ever-growing web standards, let alone new enhancement. I 
>>>>> suppose, worst case would be going the Open Source route. Either 
>>>>> way, it'd be unfortunate if they closed all together.
>>>>>
>>>>     In theory it's already open source, so the market share
>>>> doesn't really matter. What matters is that they get grants
>>>> and donations. Their market share now is low single digits,
>>>> so it's basically a niche browser for techies. That doesn't stop
>>>> them blowing hundreds of millions cranking out pointless
>>>> updates on a manic schedule. And the spyware is becoming
>>>> a problem. I updated to 138 the other day on one machine and
>>>> found "pingsender.exe" was trying to get through my firewall.
>>>>
>>>>   Meanwhile, FF hasn't supported whatever code is being used
>>>> on many interactive sites for several years now. It doesn't even
>>>> work on my own webhost's control panel. I have to use Chromium.
>>>> Every non-tech person who can't get a website to work in FF
>>>> is going to be moving to the smooth, optionless Chrome. And
>>>> they won't be back.
>>>>
>>> Sadly, you are not wrong. I am finding more sites that Fx doesn't 
>>> render properly. It's a bit easier to vector to Chrome using the "Open 
>>> in Chrome" extension, ref:
>>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-in-chrome-1/
>>> but I feel a bit dirty every time I do it.
>> 
>> Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have currently 
>> sites that do not open in it.
>> 
>Most times the sites that are problematic open but don't render fully or 
>don't display video. I don't happen on these type of sites but they do 
>occur enough to where that extension is convenient.
>
>YMMV

I use Firefox daily, in windows, and I don't remember any sites that
don't open, don't open fully, or don't display video.  can someone post
a few urls like this so I can see it for myself. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13318

On 04/05/2025 19:28, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux)

Really? Do you have a choice other than to using Firefox in Linux? The 
only browser installed in most Linux distros is Firefox and it is set as 
default. Are people going to install anything else on an operating 
system that is as fringe as Firefox itself.

By the way what do you actually do in Linux? Can you run any tax or 
Accounting software or MS Visual Studio to write [good!] programs in C#? 
Linux offerings to program anything using GUI is almost rocket science. 
Even Sunita Williams will have a hard time doing anything useful on it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13320

On 2025-05-04 21:50, Rob Nolan wrote:
> On 04/05/2025 19:28, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux)
> 
> Really? Do you have a choice other than to using Firefox in Linux? The
> only browser installed in most Linux distros is Firefox and it is set as
> default. Are people going to install anything else on an operating
> system that is as fringe as Firefox itself.

I can use Chrome, and there are others, but I am not interested in them.


> By the way what do you actually do in Linux? Can you run any tax or
> Accounting software or MS Visual Studio to write [good!] programs in C#?
> Linux offerings to program anything using GUI is almost rocket science.
> Even Sunita Williams will have a hard time doing anything useful on it.

I do everything I need doing, including the taxes.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13333

On 5/4/2025 2:28 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have currently 
> sites that do not open in it.
> 

  My webhost is Knownhost. Their control panel is broken
in FF, but fine in Ungoogled Chrome. Other sites, if I
remember correctly, include the online "portal" for my
medical test results and such. They're sites generated
from script and JSON.

  I don't have trouble with most sites. Generally, FF is all
I use. But some are simply broken. And now Starz is not
working for me with the current FF.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13348

On Sun, 4 May 2025 20:28:30 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2025-05-04 20:13, Sailfish wrote:
>> Newyana2 graced us with on 5/4/2025 5:11 AM:
>>> On 5/3/2025 10:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   I think it'd be great. They'd have to slim down, stop paying the CEO
>>>>> $7 million, and stop releasing versions every 10 days. As you may 
>>>>> recall,
>>>>> FF survived before Google started with the payouts.
>>>>
>>>> Fx's biggest problem is the smallest market share. If Mozilla lose 
>>>> the Google revenue then it would be difficult for them to keep up 
>>>> with the ever-growing web standards, let alone new enhancement. I 
>>>> suppose, worst case would be going the Open Source route. Either way, 
>>>> it'd be unfortunate if they closed all together.
>>>>
>>>     In theory it's already open source, so the market share
>>> doesn't really matter. What matters is that they get grants
>>> and donations. Their market share now is low single digits,
>>> so it's basically a niche browser for techies. That doesn't stop
>>> them blowing hundreds of millions cranking out pointless
>>> updates on a manic schedule. And the spyware is becoming
>>> a problem. I updated to 138 the other day on one machine and
>>> found "pingsender.exe" was trying to get through my firewall.
>>>
>>>   Meanwhile, FF hasn't supported whatever code is being used
>>> on many interactive sites for several years now. It doesn't even
>>> work on my own webhost's control panel. I have to use Chromium.
>>> Every non-tech person who can't get a website to work in FF
>>> is going to be moving to the smooth, optionless Chrome. And
>>> they won't be back.
>>>
>> Sadly, you are not wrong. I am finding more sites that Fx doesn't render 
>> properly. It's a bit easier to vector to Chrome using the "Open in 
>> Chrome" extension, ref:
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-in-chrome-1/
>> but I feel a bit dirty every time I do it.
>
>Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have currently 
>sites that do not open in it.

Check this link and tell me if you get an "Error in Rendering Player"

https://sports.yahoo.com/article/olivia-dunne-breaks-silence-kentucky-021116740.html

I tried it in Chrome, FF and FF using the "Open in Chrome" extension,
but get the error in all 3.

     >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13349

jetjock wrote:

> Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have currently
>> sites that do not open in it.
> 
> Check this link and tell me if you get an "Error in Rendering Player"
> https://sports.yahoo.com/article/olivia-dunne-breaks-silence-kentucky-021116740.html
Plays fine in FF138 under Win11 (no need to disable uBO or Ghostery)

Gives a message within the browser console "VIDEOJS: WARN: Using the 
tech directly can be dangerous. I hope you know what you're doing."
<https://github.com/videojs/video.js/issues/2617>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13352

On Mon, 5 May 2025 16:12:54 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>jetjock wrote:
>
>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> 
>>> Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have currently
>>> sites that do not open in it.
>> 
>> Check this link and tell me if you get an "Error in Rendering Player"
>> https://sports.yahoo.com/article/olivia-dunne-breaks-silence-kentucky-021116740.html
>Plays fine in FF138 under Win11 (no need to disable uBO or Ghostery)
>
>Gives a message within the browser console "VIDEOJS: WARN: Using the 
>tech directly can be dangerous. I hope you know what you're doing."
><https://github.com/videojs/video.js/issues/2617>

I'm using Win 7 and FF 115.21esr. I have UA Masquerade installed in FF
with options for the default version 115.21esr plus:

 Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:134.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/135.0

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, 
like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.3.

Switching to any of those, as well as using Chrome Version
109.0.5414.120 (Official Build) (64-bit) produces the same error. The
links open with the picture frame filled with whatever is supposed to
be there, but is immediately replaced by a black filled frame with the
error message.

I'll try the links in my wife's Win 10 machine and report back later.

     >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13395

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Mon, 05 May 2025 13:17:52 -0500,
jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 5 May 2025 16:12:54 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>jetjock wrote:
>>
>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have currently
>>>> sites that do not open in it.
>>> 
>>> Check this link and tell me if you get an "Error in Rendering Player"
>>> https://sports.yahoo.com/article/olivia-dunne-breaks-silence-kentucky-021116740.html
>>Plays fine in FF138 under Win11 (no need to disable uBO or Ghostery)
>>
>>Gives a message within the browser console "VIDEOJS: WARN: Using the 
>>tech directly can be dangerous. I hope you know what you're doing."
>><https://github.com/videojs/video.js/issues/2617>
>
>I'm using Win 7 and FF 115.21esr. I have UA Masquerade installed in FF
>with options for the default version 115.21esr plus:

That's old Win and old FF.  
>
I don't know what you mean by Plus the things below, but it better be
good or you really shouldn't have wasted our time by telling us about a
site that doesn't work with old software.

> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:134.0) Gecko/20100101
>Firefox/135.0
>
>Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, 
>like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.3.
>
>Switching to any of those, as well as using Chrome Version
>109.0.5414.120 (Official Build) (64-bit) produces the same error. The
>links open with the picture frame filled with whatever is supposed to
>be there, but is immediately replaced by a black filled frame with the
>error message.
>
>I'll try the links in my wife's Win 10 machine and report back later.
>
>     >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13350

On Mon, 05 May 2025 09:55:31 -0500, jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 4 May 2025 20:28:30 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
><robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

<life slice>

>>Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have currently 
>>sites that do not open in it.
>
>Check this link and tell me if you get an "Error in Rendering Player"
>
>https://sports.yahoo.com/article/olivia-dunne-breaks-silence-kentucky-021116740.html
>
>I tried it in Chrome, FF and FF using the "Open in Chrome" extension,
>but get the error in all 3.

Hmm... Ffox 138.0.1/Win 11 24H2 and I don't experience any obvious
problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13356

On 2025-05-05 16:55, jetjock wrote:
> On Sun, 4 May 2025 20:28:30 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-05-04 20:13, Sailfish wrote:
>>> Newyana2 graced us with on 5/4/2025 5:11 AM:
>>>> On 5/3/2025 10:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:


>> Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have currently
>> sites that do not open in it.
> 
> Check this link and tell me if you get an "Error in Rendering Player"
> 
> https://sports.yahoo.com/article/olivia-dunne-breaks-silence-kentucky-021116740.html

Plays fine.  I tried to find out what type of video it is, but I could not.

FF 128.10.0esr (64-bit)

> 
> I tried it in Chrome, FF and FF using the "Open in Chrome" extension,
> but get the error in all 3.
> 
>       >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.firefox

csiph-web