Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Firefox Mozilla Linux

Firefox 136 Released With Vertical Tabs, Official ARM64 Linux Binaries (9to5linux.com) 49

Posted by BeauHD from the new-and-improved dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from 9to5Linux: Mozilla published today the final build of the Firefox 136 open-source web browser for all supported platforms ahead of the March 4th, 2025, official release date, so it's time to take a look at the new features and changes. Highlights of Firefox 136 include official Linux binary packages for the AArch64 (ARM64) architecture, hardware video decoding for AMD GPUs on Linux systems, a new HTTPS-First behavior for upgrading page loads to HTTPS, and Smartblock Embeds for selectively unblocking certain social media embeds blocked in the ETP Strict and Private Browsing modes.

Firefox 136 is available for download for 32-bit, 64-bit, and AArch64 (ARM64) Linux systems right now from Mozilla's FTP server. As mentioned before, Mozilla plans to officially release Firefox 136 tomorrow, March 4th, 2025, when it will roll out as an OTA (Over-the-Air) update to macOS and Windows users. Here's a list of the general features available in this release:

- Vertical Tabs Layout
- New Browser Layout Section
- PNG Copy Support
- HTTPS-First Behavior
- Smartblock Embeds
- Solo AI Link
- Expanded Data Collection & Use Settings
- Weather Forecast on New Tab Page
- Address Autofill Expansion

A full list of changes can be found here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 136 Released With Vertical Tabs, Official ARM64 Linux Binaries More

Firefox 136 Released With Vertical Tabs, Official ARM64 Linux Binaries

Comments Filter:

  • the need for new terms are clear now (Score:4, Informative)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Tuesday March 04, 2025 @09:02PM (#65211545)
    "- Expanded Data Collection & Use Settings"

    • Re:the need for new terms are clear now (Score:5, Informative)

      by A little Frenchie ( 715758 ) on Tuesday March 04, 2025 @10:08PM (#65211627)
      can't find this in the release note where is it?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shanen ( 462549 )

        I don't understand this FP thread and it appears to have died without clarification.

        What is clear to me is that I would not have donated any money for any of the features I could understand from their short description. It is possible that longer descriptions would have convinced me to donate for some of them--but that isn't the "business model" Mozilla is using.

        My primary browser is still Firefox. Increasingly difficult for me to say why. The constant new releases have become one of the main reasons why no

        • I started using Netscape 1.0 decades ago. I switched to Firefox after Netscape was murdered by Microsoft. The only reason I'm still using Firefox is that Google is worse now than Microsoft was back in the 90s, so that removes Chrome as a possibility. Opera doesn't have the extensions I want (I'm never surfing the web without script and ad blockers on again). Everything else is too small to get much support from website developers. So, as best I can tell, my best option is to turn of updates and never update

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by shanen ( 462549 )

            Mod parent up and concurrence. But you didn't mention Safari or the MS replacement for MS Explorer. (I'm actually pleased to report that the Microsoft rebranding has failed so badly I cannot even recall what they call it now.)

  • Just in time for the Ublockalypse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Deathlizard ( 115856 ) on Tuesday March 04, 2025 @09:22PM (#65211563) Homepage Journal

    Just uninstalled Chrome because they finally killed off Ublock Origin.

    Now I hope Mozilla fixes their TOS before it's too late.

    • There's always WaterFox, Floorp, and Pale Moon.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by StormReaver ( 59959 )

      Now I hope Mozilla fixes their TOS before it's too late.

      If you're talking about the ToS I think you're talking about, that entire issue was a great big Nothing Burger. The Legalese made it sound ominous, but it did not claim to own your data or to do anything nefarious with it.

      • it literally claimed to have royalty-free, worldwide ownership of your data

        • Re:Just in time for the Ublockalypse (Score:4, Informative)

          by karmawarrior ( 311177 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2025 @10:57AM (#65212539) Journal

          It literally did not.

          It said "When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox."

          That's not "ownership", that's a restricted right to use. Those saying "ownership" were flat out lying, but additionally, a sizable number of people quoted only the middle of the sentence and not the end, which is misleading to the point of being dishonest, because that last part of the sentence actually makes it clear it's not an unlimited license at all. If Mozilla sold your information to advertisers, or handed it over to the government, it would not be helping you "navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox" and would be in violation of the license.

          Mozilla replaced the paragraph after the backlash with something that essentially meant exactly the same thing but wasn't the first draft by a lawyer who only speaks lawyerese:

          You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.

          Basically both are standard licenses for what a cloud-based service requires in order to be able to operate the services you would expect it to run. Should Firefox incorporate cloud technology to begin with? Arguably not. But if you're going to take advantages of synced bookmarks, history, passwords, etc, then you need to give Mozilla permission to store that information and use it to provide the service.

          If someone expresses outrage and then only emboldens part of a sentence, be careful not to ignore the rest.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by OhPlz ( 168413 )

            If you look at the original commit that caused the controversy, they did remove the phrase "we don't sell access to your data" from the terms of use (TOU):
            https://github.com/mozilla/bed... [github.com]

            They may have gone back and changed it again, but I think you're naïve if you think it was just bad phrasing and not actual intent to sell people's data. Don't forget that Mozilla is at risk of losing their Google funding which is going to make them desperate for cash. They have huge motivation to find new ways to m

          • it was ownership before they backtracked and change the wording. There is also a clause that says Mozilla can change the terms at any time without you having to agree on them. Also, Firefox has been working for the past two decades without needing this, why do they need it now? I'm guessing they're trying to either develop their own AI stuff or selling the data to some AI company to enshittify the browser

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by allo ( 1728082 )

            nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license is basically the same as ownership, except for you still having the same rights.
            For the nerds: That's basically MIT license without the requirement to name the original author.

          • That's not "ownership", that's a restricted right to use.

            It's a very vaguely restricted right. What they see as help and what I see as help are very likely very different.

            Mozilla replaced the paragraph after the backlash with something that essentially meant exactly the same thing

            And you don't see that as problematic? Say, do they happen to specify a time limit anyplace in there?

    • You can just re-enable the plugin. They turned off my autoplayer blocker as well.

      • As an ifan you already believe safari is the only browser anybody should ever use anyways.

      • Just turning it back on is meaningless in Chrome they gutted the API behind UBlock Origin and similar extensions to the point all the tracking protections are gone.
        You really need to read about the differences between v2 and v3.

        • No they didn't. Manifest V2 is still there, it's just depreciated. Ublock origin has a completely different plugin name for it's V3 plugin. As of right now V2 and Ublock Origin work just as they did in the past. You just have to toggle it back on.

          Its days are numbered, but it is objectively not yet dead.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by allo ( 1728082 )

            If you want a surprise at the end of its days, just toggle it back. Or you migrate now to a browser that still allows full adblocking and you can forget about the deadline.

    • Now I hope Mozilla fixes their TOS before it's too late.

      https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]

    • Just uninstalled Chrome because they finally killed off Ublock Origin.

      They did not. Ublock Origin works just fine, you just have to toggle it back on. Its days are numbered but it has quite objectively not been killed off yet.

  • Wait, did Linux not have ARM64 support prior to this? I'm confused, because I've been using Firefox as my primary browser on my FreeBSD ARM/Aarch64 workstation for years now. If FreeBSD has had support, did Linux not...?

    • Re:ARM64 Linux (Score:5, Informative)

      by caseih ( 160668 ) on Wednesday March 05, 2025 @12:00AM (#65211761)

      Haha. Of course Linux has supported ARM64 from the beginning of the platform. Usually Firefox is installed via the distributions software repository. Now if you desire, you can get binaries directly from mozilla.org, just like they've done with x86 in the past, and x86_64 currently.

  • Been spending time figuring out what I want to switch to since looks like Mozilla is dead set on keeping their TOS.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by fr ( 185735 )

      Can always try LibreWolf, which is basically Firefox with Mozilla's crap removed.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sure sure, bud. Their "TOS" is bad, but you'll keep using all the other services with worse ones that you don't know about because people aren't freaking out about them.

  • what weather API ??

    more details might actually be useful

  • Interesting that Chrome kills ublock and Firefox changes their ToS at the same time.

Slashdot Top Deals

Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.

Close