4 ms·

The release notes for 98.0.1[0] are more clear: > Yandex and Mail.ru have been removed as optional search providers in the drop-down search menu in Firefox. [

by nix0n 5y ago

The release notes for 98.0.1[0] are more clear: > Yandex and Mail.ru have been removed as optional search providers in the drop-down search menu in Firefox. [0]https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/98.0.1/releasenotes/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/98.0.1/releasenotes/

ogurechny 5y ago
Note that is the first ever straightforward announcement of the removal accessible to the end user, and it wasn't even available when release happened (about 12 hours ago). It's like giving a hard hat to a man that has already got to the emergency room.
- saghm 5y ago
  That seems a bit overdramatic; it's not like people couldn't still access those search engines at all in Firefox; they just would have to go directly to the website instead of using the dropdown menu. I'd imagine that typing the name of one of them into Google or DuckDuckGo would lead to their site pretty easily
  - ogurechny 5y ago
    It's easy to fix. However, Mozilla gets a boatload of money each year for specific handling of those who don't understand that.
    - TremendousJudge 5y ago
      In theory, they get it for that reason. In practice, the actual reasons is that if Mozilla went under, Google would potentially have an anti-monopoly case on their hands. Or at least they think it's cheaper to pay Mozilla than to maybe find out if it's the case.
      - ogurechny 5y ago
        I believe Google knows better than anyone that market dominance is achieved not by “code quality”, or “features”, or “ease of use”, etc., but by attacking the clueless user with ads and press releases, and bundling the browser with crap like Ultimate Super Image Converter 2011, and paying generously for other sources of traffic. (Sorry, Google engineers doing incredible high-tech stuff, you're at most playing the role of exotic animals in the zoo attracting people who then proceed to sad low-tech data swindling.) It might be less noticeable in the West, where Google hasn't really been challenged, but it was different in Russia. When Yandex had to switch to “defend the user share” mode, it stopped announcing interesting things (it used to please the public with nice stuff here and cool stuff there, and implemented some of that long before Google), and double downed on all that dumb crap (having the browser you fully control, having three ads to install it on a single page, pushing it into everything, and so on).
- throwmeariver1 5y ago
  You know that the exact same thing happened in 2009 and 2012 because of monetary reasons?
dataflow 5y ago
Off-topic, but Firefox is on 98 already? isn't Chrome on 99 too? Was their goal to "catch up" or something?
- behnamoh 5y ago
  I remember Mozilla were pretty pissed off at Chrome’s inaccurate versioning that induced a feeling of “chrome is 60 but ff is still on 3.5 so chrome has to be better “.
  - philliphaydon 5y ago
    That's definitely the impression non-techy people seem to get from the numbering.
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      IME non-techy people don't even know the name of their browser (or that it's called a browser, "oh you mean The Internet") nevermind the version number.
    - rightbyte 5y ago
      What non tech user even care about the version number of the browser. I have no clue what version I use.
- AnonC 5y ago
  Yes, when Google Chrome started doing more frequent releases with new major version numbers, there was an impression that Chrome was newer and better while Firefox was still old and lagging with a low (single digit) version number. Then Firefox shifted to doing a release once every six weeks, and over the years, the major version number has closed in on Chrome and will overtake it soon. On a related note, Firefox does have LTS (long term support) releases for enterprises or users who don’t want to move so fast. As I recall, Chrome was late to the LTS party, and before that it was forcing upgrades (because they happen periodically, behind the scenes) on users.

by nix0n 5y ago

ogurechny 5y ago

Note that is the first ever straightforward announcement of the removal accessible to the end user, and it wasn't even available when release happened (about 12 hours ago). It's like giving a hard hat to a man that has already got to the emergency room.

saghm 5y ago
That seems a bit overdramatic; it's not like people couldn't still access those search engines at all in Firefox; they just would have to go directly to the website instead of using the dropdown menu. I'd imagine that typing the name of one of them into Google or DuckDuckGo would lead to their site pretty easily
- ogurechny 5y ago
  It's easy to fix. However, Mozilla gets a boatload of money each year for specific handling of those who don't understand that.
  - TremendousJudge 5y ago
    In theory, they get it for that reason. In practice, the actual reasons is that if Mozilla went under, Google would potentially have an anti-monopoly case on their hands. Or at least they think it's cheaper to pay Mozilla than to maybe find out if it's the case.
    - ogurechny 5y ago
      I believe Google knows better than anyone that market dominance is achieved not by “code quality”, or “features”, or “ease of use”, etc., but by attacking the clueless user with ads and press releases, and bundling the browser with crap like Ultimate Super Image Converter 2011, and paying generously for other sources of traffic. (Sorry, Google engineers doing incredible high-tech stuff, you're at most playing the role of exotic animals in the zoo attracting people who then proceed to sad low-tech data swindling.) It might be less noticeable in the West, where Google hasn't really been challenged, but it was different in Russia. When Yandex had to switch to “defend the user share” mode, it stopped announcing interesting things (it used to please the public with nice stuff here and cool stuff there, and implemented some of that long before Google), and double downed on all that dumb crap (having the browser you fully control, having three ads to install it on a single page, pushing it into everything, and so on).
throwmeariver1 5y ago
You know that the exact same thing happened in 2009 and 2012 because of monetary reasons?

dataflow 5y ago

Off-topic, but Firefox is on 98 already? isn't Chrome on 99 too? Was their goal to "catch up" or something?

behnamoh 5y ago
I remember Mozilla were pretty pissed off at Chrome’s inaccurate versioning that induced a feeling of “chrome is 60 but ff is still on 3.5 so chrome has to be better “.
- philliphaydon 5y ago
  That's definitely the impression non-techy people seem to get from the numbering.
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    IME non-techy people don't even know the name of their browser (or that it's called a browser, "oh you mean The Internet") nevermind the version number.
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    What non tech user even care about the version number of the browser. I have no clue what version I use.
AnonC 5y ago
Yes, when Google Chrome started doing more frequent releases with new major version numbers, there was an impression that Chrome was newer and better while Firefox was still old and lagging with a low (single digit) version number. Then Firefox shifted to doing a release once every six weeks, and over the years, the major version number has closed in on Chrome and will overtake it soon. On a related note, Firefox does have LTS (long term support) releases for enterprises or users who don’t want to move so fast. As I recall, Chrome was late to the LTS party, and before that it was forcing upgrades (because they happen periodically, behind the scenes) on users.