Firefox 115 browser breathes life into old operating systems The latest version of Firefox browser is out and should help keep some older operating systems viable, at least for another year. Firefox 115 is the latest version of Mozilla's open source web browser. It is also the project's newest Extended Support Release - in other words, it's a long-term support version which will get …
All these older operating system are working so well these days compared to all the modern "updated" versions of things that are busy telling users that they are no longer supported. Goodbye Chrome, and Google Drive ... all upgraded with no longer user support.
I've always been happy to upgrade Windows until the "upgrades" started to result in me spending less time working and more time waiting for updates - what's a update these days? Oh, just new bugs most of the time.
I can't think of a feature in Windows 10/11 or MacOS 10.15/11/12/13 that browsers simply must have to the extent of dropping support for older OSes. Firefox shoving everyone on Windows 7/8/8.1 or MacOS 10.12/10.13/10.14 into the ESR branch which will stop getting updates in September 2024 is perhaps not as good news as the article suggests.
If the browser is secure then it probably matters little which OS you run, if the browser is left without security updates then it matters a lot more. Firefox surely out of all browsers should be striving to support older OSes (again, I really can't think of a feature browsers must have on newer OSes) instead of pushing people down the "update until you can't update any more then throw out your old computer and buy a new computer" treadmill beloved of MS, Apple, and Google.
Perhaps if Waterfox carries on supporting older OSes then that would be a reason to go back to it, assuming they maintain profile compatibility (going from Waterfox Classic to Firefox broke passwords and certificates).
The problem is, the old OSes often use depricated APIs that are no longer supported in newer operating systems, newer OSes have, generally, improved security, which means things need to be done differently etc. or new browser features require features only found in newer versions of the OS.
It also means extra testing and extra code to maintain to keep it working on older operating systems. What works on one release might crash another, so extra time is required for an ever diminishing market. At some point it just becomes uneconomical to continue. Even (especially) open source projects have limited resources.
Dropping those older OSes means a slimmer product, because you can get rid of a lot of kludges and workarounds, drop code using old APIs that are depricated or don't exist on more modern versions of the host OS etc.
Have there been any changes to Win32 lately, apart from breakages?
I understand Apple is more of a white-knuckle ride, but even so you can use CoreGraphics to abstract away the differences between Metal and OpenGL.
Ehh.. I highly doubt supporting Windows 7 would need any extra work. It's a business decision not to test any more.
But it could surely be forked, or even better, forked with an automated patch that ignored the OS check in some manner. Manually maintained forks can all too often be dead-ends and security nightmares.
Firefox on Solaris allowed for opening a new tab by clicking with the middle button back in the late aughties.
I have one 2019 MacBook still running Mojave as there is one freeware application that only runs in 32 bit mode. Figure on replacing that with an M2 or M3 MBP or MBA this time next year.
[Author here]
> I even use it on Linux, every day...
Again: you are missing the point too.
The point is the paste-on-middle-click functionality that I wrote about just the previous day. Which is why I linked it in the story.
Here is it again in case you missed it:
https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/05/mouse_button_101/
[Author here]
> Firefox on Solaris allowed for opening a new tab by clicking with the middle button back in the late aughties.
You miss the point.
It is *not* opening a new tab.
It is opening a new tab *with the URL that is the currently-selected text in another window.*
Unfortunately neither is up to date enough to "properly" display a truly depressing (and growing) number of sites.
Add in NoScript to cut out all the crud that causes you to "need" a top-tier Epyc just to scroll the page without the system stuttering, and all too many sites with far too much reliance on unstable third-party widgetry appear to fail to display properly mainly on the basis of "You're not using Chrome".
Hurray for standards. *sigh*
A web translation layer. Whatever code sits behind them, all websites are text or AV content, and I/O (mouse movements or text fields). You can translate any web page into a graphic to fit a screen with players and a box to type stuff in. Then you don't need to upgrade the browser or the OS, just the translation layer. Anything more intrusive that wants to go past your browser into your system is best blocked anyway. Cam footage can be piped through.
In general, doing what Opera used to do for compatibility - false reporting a browser type, will often work, most likely for OSs too. Many of the browser blocks are down to paranoid insurance policies/govt pressure, not tech compatibility. Proprietary stuff such as Google replacements for HTML are best boycotted. [Did they drop that in the end? It messed with accessibility tech.]
I'm a little disappointed that neither the article nor the provided link went on the explain in a little more detail just *why* some domains may be quarantined. It's nice that it can be turned off, but that appears to a be a global change based on the link. Yeah "security" is "one of" the reasons. What about some examples of other reasons? Who decides which sites are on the list? Will some $site I use get on the list and force me to run scripts etc that I'd prefer to block with NoScript? If I visit a site, will some $3rd_party script that site uses silently be allowed to run despite the $1st_party site not being on the list and scripts apparently blocked?
I hope El Reg are looking more closely at the implications of this and will produce a more in depth article in the near future.
Seems a pretty good write-up about the potential problems with this feature.
Also, WHICH sites are "quarantined" and for which extensions?
Ok, this list can (will) change, but if the effects are being seen *now*, does anyone have info about where that is happening?
The piece that Dan 55 links to says, at the time of writing, that list is empty and following the links to bug reports/change requests from the article just indicates the possibility of some test domains, such as badssl.com - not somewhere that is a regular destination for most people.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
