Why in the world has Mozilla decided to be the last in the game when it comes to TLS 1.1 and 1.2? I have read the forums and bug reports where this has been requested, and they either blow off the requests entirely, or come up with some response that indicates there is no really solid plan for getting this done. It seems like TLS 1.1 might be available in NSS in a few more versions, but still nothing at all for TLS 1.2. For goodness sake, they are even behind IE on this!
I have been a loyal Firefox user since almost the very beginning. This might be what finally sends me over to Chrome/Chromium. At least they have a roadmap.
Mozilla is what really got the ball rolling, by breaking the stranglehold Microsoft put on the browser market. It forced IE to start developing to actual web standards, and it was the first exposure to open source for a lot of people, including myself. Plus, I still love some of the Firefox features. It really disappoints me that I will have to switch browsers because they have started ignoring people who want a more secure browsing experience. I guess they forgot that it was this audience who put them on the map.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=480514 - Basically says that TLS 1.1 may show up in Firefox 14 (I don’t think it did) and TLS 1.2 is indefinitely on hold. Last several comments are about what other browsers are doing. By the way, they are incorrect. Internet Explorer fully supports TLS 1.1 and 1.2, and it’s pretty easy to enable.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733647 - I haven’t see this one either. I wish this one had an update since March as well. I wonder if this is still planned for 2012 at all, since it seems like they didn’t reach their “Q2” goal.
On 07/19/2012 05:26 PM, MatthewEhle wrote:
> Mozilla is what really got the ball rolling, by breaking the
> stranglehold Microsoft put on the browser market.
i moved to Firefox’s roots (Netscape Navigator) in (about) '97 when it
exceeded the abilities/speed of my then favorite browser, the IBM
WebExplorer in my OS/2…
i kinda hated to leave that old WebExplorer friend in the dust, but they
were just out gunned…
as has been Firefox of late…
it is now bloated, slow and finicky (compared to the Google offering at
the same price)…
i have moved on…you are free to stay.
BUT, i will go back to the Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox if they can beat
Chrome/Chromium…that is what competition is all about: to make IE
better folks had to go to Firefox, to make Firefox better they have to
see people voting with their feet…
(by the way, i never used IE [did you notice the name ripoff WebExplorer
> Internet Explorer?] so i never cared if it got better or not.)
Hasn’t shown up in Firefox 17.0, and the TLS version UI is still there.
If most servers don’t use it, what benefit would there be if Mozilla did?
So other browsers have implemented it, you still are only as secure as whatever the server implements.
Is anyone complaining about them, and what other servers are you demanding the web sites you go to, to switch to, if there is a server using TLS 1.1 or TLS 1.2.
Me I’m switching to Ubuntu, because that is what Mozilla tests their applications on.
>
>dd@home.dk;2475124 Wrote:
>> On 07/18/2012 07:16 PM, MatthewEhle wrote:
>> >> This
>> >> might be what finally sends me over to Chrome/Chromium.
>> >
>> >why wait? Android and Chrome are the M$ Killer we have been waiting
>> for
>> >since '93…
>> >
>> >i’ve been alternating between Chrome, Chromium and Konqueror for a
>> month
>> >or two…FAST!!
>>
>
>Mozilla is what really got the ball rolling, by breaking the
>stranglehold Microsoft put on the browser market. It forced IE to start
>developing to actual web standards, and it was the first exposure to
>open source for a lot of people, including myself. Plus, I still love
>some of the Firefox features. It really disappoints me that I will have
>to switch browsers because they have started ignoring people who want a
>more secure browsing experience. I guess they forgot that it was this
>audience who put them on the map.
