> Firefox now verifies and displays Qualified Website Authentication Certificates (QWACs) in accordance with eIDAS regulations.
Interesting that they just buried this in the middle without even a screenshot, considering how hostile Mozilla has been to the proposal in the past[0].
Considering that they previously made quite strong arguments that implementing QWAC would undermine security by completely bypassing the existing CA trust process and violate user's privacy by leaking browsing activity to third parties: what changed?
It does seem to fit into a wider movement, though. Mozilla previously explicitly considered WebUSB, WebHID, and WebMIDI as "harmful" as they lacked an effective mechanism against hostile websites tricking users into permanently compromising their hardware. This switched to "neutral" without addressing the underlying issue, seemingly just to satisfy some users asking for parity with Chrome out of a convenience argument. Same with Firefox happily jumping onto the AI bandwagon, and only backtracking after major public outcry.
Not to be dramatic, but Firefox seems hellbent on rapidly turning into a reimplementation of Chrome, completely ignoring its raison d'être. Will there be any traditional user-serving browsers left a few years from now?
> Will there be any traditional user-serving browsers left a few years from now?
One can hope that by then Ladybird has landed. There was some rumblings about an alpha release come 2027 so "few years" might actually be achievable if the speed remains constant.
I’m waiting for the Gemini people to (re-)discover HTML 3.2 or 4.0. Maybe this then becomes a slightly bigger movement as all current browsers should support it and there are plenty much smaller/more efficient browsers available from back in the time.
> This switched to "neutral" without addressing the underlying issue, seemingly just to satisfy some users asking for parity with Chrome out of a convenience argument.
Well... millions of Chrome users played guinea pigs for WebUSB and the security issues proved to be theoretical in the end, while (particularly in the Arduino/ESP32 community) more and more people were pissed off at the lack of these features in Firefox.
Mozilla’s executives don’t want to get arrested. It’s one thing to tell the Kazakhs to stuff it. Quite another to tell the EU, especially if any of them like overseas vacations.
Which is why these kinds of ultimatums NEED to be fought against, and aggressively. There ought to be NO room for any government to tell an open source project which features they must--or cannot--implement. Allowing this sort of thing is how you kill open source software. (Which may actually be their goal...)
But, if Mozilla wanted to acquiesce, they could release an EU-only version instead of weakening the trust/security of their browser for everyone.
Also, imagine the backlash that would happen if some part of the United States executive branch demanded the same thing the EU is demanding here.
If they are solely doing it for legal reasons, I would expect some form of malicious compliance - like an accompanying blog post explaining how it'll be marked as "Firefox is legally required to tell you the EU considers this page safe. We disagree. [Learn More]" and that the mark will only be shown to EU users.
Complying to the exact letter of a stupid law to avoid getting sued is understandable. Voluntarily complying to the broadest interpretation without any pushback is not.
The problem with QWACs and eSTAZI is a saturation attack by govt. against people. If Mozilla will display that message it will need to do it on all connections with QWACs, and 99.99% will be safe, initially. So govt. can demand them to remove misleading message. And Mozilla can't detect when govt. will use their CA to do a MITM attack on their political opposition and display message only then.
Have you ever heard the phrase "show me the man and I'll show you the crime"? The Europeans have and will not be happy if Mozilla does something like this.
In $DAYJOB-1 we used PDFs as part of the official feedback process for technical documentation: subject-matter experts sent their comments as PDF annotations. Most FOSS viewers can't show them.
Form filling also is a tricky area. Conversion, searching, accessibility tools (screenreaders often can't read PDFs), comments, annotations, editing, all these and more are significant functional weaknesses for the free viewers.
That's setting aside the really fancy stuff, like 3D objects, video, media content, etc.
Even so PDF viewers are big and complicated things so smaller distros pick up tools from alien desktops -- e.g. KDE's Okular, which I find fugly but can handle comments, or GNOME's weird crippled UI in Evince or Papers, with no menu bars etc., but which is Gtk so you find it in many Gtk desktops.
It wasn't hard for the Firefox viewer to outdo 90-95% of the free viewers because the free viewers only do the dead basic stuff, and that kept Acrobat Reader alive on other OSes -- even though the last Linux one is version 9, from 2008.
Oh yeah. Once or twice a year I have to install Adobe Reader to handle some weird edge case around printing, DRM, or the like. I usually uninstall it right afterward.
But for general document reading, Reader's UI has been awful for years. The amount of unnecessary toolbars, popups, upsell offers, and (recently) AI assistant recommendations pile up and block the one thing I actually want the app to do.
I prefer the Firefox PDF viewer personally, and now that it can do all this I uninstalled the default Ubuntu PDF reader recently. It made me think and I uninstalled the image viewer app too. For both I'd rather use Firefox.
It's better than any of them for random bullshit you've found somewhere on the internet since it provides a far stronger security boundary than any standalone pdf reader. For trusted documents, I agree.
PDF got attached to the browser when the browser needed a printing mechanism that worked in JS. PDF.js was the best approach. Creating PDFs is also part of the same approach. And merging PDFs is part of the same approach. PDF is now a first class child of the web.
No, it's still a weird scope creep. Browsers can view a lot of things (HTML document, various pictures, sounds, videos), but they don't typically include editing functionality.
> they don't typically include editing functionality.
Not true. The original Mozilla Internet Suite was a combined browser, email/newsgroups client, and web-page editor. It was an open-sourced version of Netscape Communicator which did the same things. Seamonkey is the modern fork.
Firefox is the result of a project to cut down the Mozilla suite to something smaller, simpler and more focused, but its parent program and direct ancestor edited text, HTML, and did other read/write stuff like messaging, calendaring, etc.
The first web browser was also an editor (albeit not for PDFs). Accessible editing was a part of was Berners-Lee's vision for the web.
> The first web browser - or browser-editor rather - was called WorldWideWeb as, after all, when it was written in 1990 it was the only way to see the web.[1]
I stand by the statement. Modern browsers typically do not include all that functionality. For instance, consider... well, as you say - Firefox supposedly was the cut down version that didn't include all that stuff. If Mozilla wants to make seamonkey a major part of their product suite, I'd be basically on board with that, but that thing's niche.
Browsers can fill out forms. Many forms are (unfortunately) PDFs, especially for orgs that are struggling to digitize (govts...). PDFs which then need to be filled out.
So this seems to make a lot of sense to me and I'll be glad to have the functionality, especially when PDF functionality is such a mess in the general world (lots of barely-working software).
I think it's a function of the endless tussle between browser-as-an-OS and the OS they run on. For example, I absolutely hate that there's no option in Firefox to only use the OS print dialog. Instead I am force to click print, then click "use system print dialog" every time. I seems to remember reading a bug report where Firefox deemed this intentional and wontfix. After all, if you leave Firefox to print something, maybe you won't ever come back and start using your print dialog to surf the web!
Many URLs start with http(s): and end in .pdf. If we define web browser as http browser rather than html browser, then viewing PDFs fits the concept. My web browser also displays plain text, video, audio, etc., so http browser seems accurate and html browser plainly inadequate.
And regardless of logical fit for geeks (who understand the paragraph above), users clicking a .pdf URL may find it much more convenient if it just opens in their browser like any other http page, rather than downloading, opening in another window, getting lost between the MDI browser and separate SDI of the PDF file, etc. Why not treat PDF as just another web format?
To me, more strange is Firefox adding PDF editing features to its core, rather than as add-ons. Users can't edit HTML or any other media without extra tools. Many pdf reader apps can't do some of these things (afaik). Why invest developer time in PDF editing?
Dev tools are not for 99% of end users and not realistically available to them (even if they stumble across dev tools, they don't know what they've found or how to use them). PDF editing is for end users and is realistically available.
That seems like all the more reason it's worthwhile. If they're going to invest in the tools for 1% of their users, why wouldn't they invest in tools for 50% of their users?
Both Firefox containers and multi-account container extention described in that link have been around for years. Nothing in that page describes what is new/changed in Firefox 153.
- extremely stupid question but please entertain me here a bit
- why dont any of the modern browsers open and load pages instantaneously anymore, why does it take seconds?
- is this because of backward compatibility support where you are supporting html, css and JS features all the way back to the 90s
- apart from gecko and v8 why dont we have browser engines?
- are you familiar with anyone building an entire browser engine from scratch? how many WhatWG specifications would they have to support
- with all the GPT hype of late, why havent we seen a single GPT yet capable of building a browser engine from scratch supporting the last 20 years of html, css and js specs?
> with all the GPT hype of late, why havent we seen a single GPT yet capable of building a browser engine from scratch supporting the last 20 years of html, css and js specs?
Macsurf is a browser project for Mac OS 9 leveraging LLMs[1] to do this. Tbh it makes sense for this given how time-consuming (absurd? Though the fact it exists tickles me) it'd be otherwise for essentially a single person to support the scope of web tech it does for such an incredibly niche userbase.
> why dont any of the modern browsers open and load pages instantaneously anymore, why does it take seconds?
If we are talking about a blog page, just a static html - it should take some ms. No problem here.
But if we are talking about some heavy pages and fetch requests to other places, well...
Or simply a page with f 10Mb header image.
>apart from gecko and v8 why dont we have browser engines?
gecko (Firefox), blink (chrome and friends), webkit (Safari, Kagi and some other, mostly linux distro browsers) are the only stable ones. Servo and Ladybird are on the way, but it will take quite some time for them to mature.
>are you familiar with anyone building an entire browser engine from scratch?
Ladybird. No idea about specifications.
>with all the GPT hype of late, why havent we seen a single GPT yet capable of building a browser engine from scratch supporting the last 20 years of html, css and js specs?
Chrome (which I don't use) provides a really good profiler that can give you answers down to the milliseconds on what's happening during page load and also actions. Web tech provides so much functionality but web dev often don't bother optimizing their sites. I'm not saying browsers are blameless, but at least you get good tools that'll give you hints.
Yes. Containers will be enabled by default in the regular release without the need to install the extension or flip a preference in about:config.
It's also planned to integrate the ability to assign a website to a specific container. There's no information available on the other extra features from Multi-Account Containers like VPN/Proxy per container for the moment.
It seems so, especially because they explicitly say in the help page[1] that "Multi-Account Containers" brings "a few benefits on top of the native container functionality like site-specific container assignments, syncing across devices, and integration with Mozilla VPN or your own proxy".
> Containers let you keep separate parts of your online life (work, shopping, personal, banking) logged into different accounts in the same browser window, but keep your cookies and ad tracking isolated inside each container.
What's new here? Containers have been an add-on, at least, for a long time? Is it integrated into core Firefox for the first time?
> Quickly pick and copy a color from any page by typing "pick color", "color picker", or "eyedropper" in the address bar and selecting the "Pick a color" quick action.
This seems like add-on or developer tools territory. Maybe that's what quick actions are? Does Firefox really want to add non-essential widgets to maintain, support, and integrate going forward? Maybe this one is necessary for some reason? I have a global color-picker that works in every application; I expect many who need one have the same.
Devtools are built-in on Firefox, and this one is probably useful to more people than want to be looking at the JS console. I can't imagine the maintenance burden is unreasonable, it's just a combination of features that Firefox already has.
> Firefox now verifies and displays Qualified Website Authentication Certificates (QWACs) in accordance with eIDAS regulations.
Interesting that they just buried this in the middle without even a screenshot, considering how hostile Mozilla has been to the proposal in the past[0].
Considering that they previously made quite strong arguments that implementing QWAC would undermine security by completely bypassing the existing CA trust process and violate user's privacy by leaking browsing activity to third parties: what changed?
It does seem to fit into a wider movement, though. Mozilla previously explicitly considered WebUSB, WebHID, and WebMIDI as "harmful" as they lacked an effective mechanism against hostile websites tricking users into permanently compromising their hardware. This switched to "neutral" without addressing the underlying issue, seemingly just to satisfy some users asking for parity with Chrome out of a convenience argument. Same with Firefox happily jumping onto the AI bandwagon, and only backtracking after major public outcry.
Not to be dramatic, but Firefox seems hellbent on rapidly turning into a reimplementation of Chrome, completely ignoring its raison d'être. Will there be any traditional user-serving browsers left a few years from now?
[0]: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21330628/mozilla.pdf
It seems like Mozilla negotiated with the EU to assuage their security concerns[0].
[0]: https://securityriskahead.eu/
I'm glad to hear that! Someone should probably update the Wikipedia page they link to in the changelog, then.
> Firefox seems hellbent on rapidly turning into a reimplementation of Chrome
You can rest assured that Mozilla will never copy Chrome's updating the mouse coordinates during dragstart, drag and dragend events.
"the spec doesn't specify what the properties should be set to, just that they should be set and we currently set them to 0."
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505521
16 years and no sign of a resolution. I look forward to celebrating the day that bug becomes old enough to split a six pack with me.
Edit: It was first filed on July 21, 2009 so it will soon be 17.
So it's old enough already in Europe.
So that's basically state legalized and enforced MITM and scamming framework (unless I'm mistaken about tech details)? Yay for progress, I guess... :(
> Will there be any traditional user-serving browsers left a few years from now?
One can hope that by then Ladybird has landed. There was some rumblings about an alpha release come 2027 so "few years" might actually be achievable if the speed remains constant.
I’m waiting for the Gemini people to (re-)discover HTML 3.2 or 4.0. Maybe this then becomes a slightly bigger movement as all current browsers should support it and there are plenty much smaller/more efficient browsers available from back in the time.
> This switched to "neutral" without addressing the underlying issue, seemingly just to satisfy some users asking for parity with Chrome out of a convenience argument.
Well... millions of Chrome users played guinea pigs for WebUSB and the security issues proved to be theoretical in the end, while (particularly in the Arduino/ESP32 community) more and more people were pissed off at the lack of these features in Firefox.
Has Firefox not had containers until now????
I've been using containers in Firefox for years
I hope they do the same for the file system access API!
Mozilla’s executives don’t want to get arrested. It’s one thing to tell the Kazakhs to stuff it. Quite another to tell the EU, especially if any of them like overseas vacations.
Which is why these kinds of ultimatums NEED to be fought against, and aggressively. There ought to be NO room for any government to tell an open source project which features they must--or cannot--implement. Allowing this sort of thing is how you kill open source software. (Which may actually be their goal...)
But, if Mozilla wanted to acquiesce, they could release an EU-only version instead of weakening the trust/security of their browser for everyone.
Also, imagine the backlash that would happen if some part of the United States executive branch demanded the same thing the EU is demanding here.
If they are solely doing it for legal reasons, I would expect some form of malicious compliance - like an accompanying blog post explaining how it'll be marked as "Firefox is legally required to tell you the EU considers this page safe. We disagree. [Learn More]" and that the mark will only be shown to EU users.
Complying to the exact letter of a stupid law to avoid getting sued is understandable. Voluntarily complying to the broadest interpretation without any pushback is not.
The problem with QWACs and eSTAZI is a saturation attack by govt. against people. If Mozilla will display that message it will need to do it on all connections with QWACs, and 99.99% will be safe, initially. So govt. can demand them to remove misleading message. And Mozilla can't detect when govt. will use their CA to do a MITM attack on their political opposition and display message only then.
Have you ever heard the phrase "show me the man and I'll show you the crime"? The Europeans have and will not be happy if Mozilla does something like this.
> It is now possible to merge multiple PDFs by dragging a PDF into the PDF sidebar.
> It is now possible to add images as new pages within PDFs using the Firefox PDF editor.
I have always found it odd that browsers are also PDF editors increasingly.
It's odd and I'm not sure I love it compared to a nicely-done dedicated viewer (macOS Preview, SumatraPDF, whatever comes with GNOME or KDE).
That said, I'll pick the in-browser tools over Adobe Reader every time.
> nicely-done dedicated viewer
The problem is the edge cases. PDF has lots.
In $DAYJOB-1 we used PDFs as part of the official feedback process for technical documentation: subject-matter experts sent their comments as PDF annotations. Most FOSS viewers can't show them.
Form filling also is a tricky area. Conversion, searching, accessibility tools (screenreaders often can't read PDFs), comments, annotations, editing, all these and more are significant functional weaknesses for the free viewers.
That's setting aside the really fancy stuff, like 3D objects, video, media content, etc.
Even so PDF viewers are big and complicated things so smaller distros pick up tools from alien desktops -- e.g. KDE's Okular, which I find fugly but can handle comments, or GNOME's weird crippled UI in Evince or Papers, with no menu bars etc., but which is Gtk so you find it in many Gtk desktops.
It wasn't hard for the Firefox viewer to outdo 90-95% of the free viewers because the free viewers only do the dead basic stuff, and that kept Acrobat Reader alive on other OSes -- even though the last Linux one is version 9, from 2008.
Oh yeah. Once or twice a year I have to install Adobe Reader to handle some weird edge case around printing, DRM, or the like. I usually uninstall it right afterward.
But for general document reading, Reader's UI has been awful for years. The amount of unnecessary toolbars, popups, upsell offers, and (recently) AI assistant recommendations pile up and block the one thing I actually want the app to do.
That's not a fair comparison. The first one gives you space to stretch your legs, the other once stretches your legs on a medieval rack.
I prefer the Firefox PDF viewer personally, and now that it can do all this I uninstalled the default Ubuntu PDF reader recently. It made me think and I uninstalled the image viewer app too. For both I'd rather use Firefox.
It's better than any of them for random bullshit you've found somewhere on the internet since it provides a far stronger security boundary than any standalone pdf reader. For trusted documents, I agree.
PDF got attached to the browser when the browser needed a printing mechanism that worked in JS. PDF.js was the best approach. Creating PDFs is also part of the same approach. And merging PDFs is part of the same approach. PDF is now a first class child of the web.
I think in case of Firefox it's done purely with JS (https://mozilla.github.io/pdf.js/), no native code.
So that feels fine (assuming it runs in same sandbox like any page), just bundled HTML/JS being changed.
No, it's still a weird scope creep. Browsers can view a lot of things (HTML document, various pictures, sounds, videos), but they don't typically include editing functionality.
<html contenteditable> has existed since IE 5.5, and was standardized in the first version of HTML5.
https://blog.whatwg.org/the-road-to-html-5-contenteditable
> they don't typically include editing functionality.
Not true. The original Mozilla Internet Suite was a combined browser, email/newsgroups client, and web-page editor. It was an open-sourced version of Netscape Communicator which did the same things. Seamonkey is the modern fork.
Firefox is the result of a project to cut down the Mozilla suite to something smaller, simpler and more focused, but its parent program and direct ancestor edited text, HTML, and did other read/write stuff like messaging, calendaring, etc.
The first web browser was also an editor (albeit not for PDFs). Accessible editing was a part of was Berners-Lee's vision for the web.
> The first web browser - or browser-editor rather - was called WorldWideWeb as, after all, when it was written in 1990 it was the only way to see the web.[1]
[1] https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html
I stand by the statement. Modern browsers typically do not include all that functionality. For instance, consider... well, as you say - Firefox supposedly was the cut down version that didn't include all that stuff. If Mozilla wants to make seamonkey a major part of their product suite, I'd be basically on board with that, but that thing's niche.
It's an editor, just one that you can program in JavaScript.
Remember WordPerfect? When you press F12 in Firefox, you have essentially the same thing as the reveal codes pane in WP.
Browsers can fill out forms. Many forms are (unfortunately) PDFs, especially for orgs that are struggling to digitize (govts...). PDFs which then need to be filled out.
So this seems to make a lot of sense to me and I'll be glad to have the functionality, especially when PDF functionality is such a mess in the general world (lots of barely-working software).
This seems like an arbitrary line to draw. Should your photo viewing software also not provide editing tools? If it's useful, why not?
I think it's a function of the endless tussle between browser-as-an-OS and the OS they run on. For example, I absolutely hate that there's no option in Firefox to only use the OS print dialog. Instead I am force to click print, then click "use system print dialog" every time. I seems to remember reading a bug report where Firefox deemed this intentional and wontfix. After all, if you leave Firefox to print something, maybe you won't ever come back and start using your print dialog to surf the web!
print.prefer_system_dialog = true in about:config does what you want, i think.
Ooh, thanks! Will try that out.
Edit: yes it does - perfect!
Not odd until you try to open a PDF in Windows.
[dead]
Does it work with the DRM stuff that can be in a PDF?
I have a PDF that I can't view at all.
Many URLs start with http(s): and end in .pdf. If we define web browser as http browser rather than html browser, then viewing PDFs fits the concept. My web browser also displays plain text, video, audio, etc., so http browser seems accurate and html browser plainly inadequate.
And regardless of logical fit for geeks (who understand the paragraph above), users clicking a .pdf URL may find it much more convenient if it just opens in their browser like any other http page, rather than downloading, opening in another window, getting lost between the MDI browser and separate SDI of the PDF file, etc. Why not treat PDF as just another web format?
To me, more strange is Firefox adding PDF editing features to its core, rather than as add-ons. Users can't edit HTML or any other media without extra tools. Many pdf reader apps can't do some of these things (afaik). Why invest developer time in PDF editing?
Users absolutely can edit HTML/CSS/JS without any other tools. That's what the entire dev-tools section of the browser is about.
Dev tools are not for 99% of end users and not realistically available to them (even if they stumble across dev tools, they don't know what they've found or how to use them). PDF editing is for end users and is realistically available.
That seems like all the more reason it's worthwhile. If they're going to invest in the tools for 1% of their users, why wouldn't they invest in tools for 50% of their users?
I very much appreciate this when working on a computer that’s not mine.
Awesome! JPEG-XL support is here. I enabled it via the new "Firefox Labs" section in the settings, then tested on https://jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page.html without a restart.
Why does this show “Containers” under new? I've used this feature for years and years...
They seem to be different but overlapping: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers#w_common-que...
Both Firefox containers and multi-account container extention described in that link have been around for years. Nothing in that page describes what is new/changed in Firefox 153.
- extremely stupid question but please entertain me here a bit
- why dont any of the modern browsers open and load pages instantaneously anymore, why does it take seconds?
- is this because of backward compatibility support where you are supporting html, css and JS features all the way back to the 90s
- apart from gecko and v8 why dont we have browser engines?
- are you familiar with anyone building an entire browser engine from scratch? how many WhatWG specifications would they have to support
- with all the GPT hype of late, why havent we seen a single GPT yet capable of building a browser engine from scratch supporting the last 20 years of html, css and js specs?
> why dont any of the modern browsers open and load pages instantaneously anymore, why does it take seconds?
Right click > Inspect. Go to the "network" tab, reload the page. Maybe do the same on the "performance" tab.
> are you familiar with anyone building an entire browser engine from scratch?
Ladybird [1] is exactly that. Started as browser for the SerenityOS project [2] but ended up being spun off as its own project.
[1] https://ladybird.org/ [2] https://serenityos.org/
> with all the GPT hype of late, why havent we seen a single GPT yet capable of building a browser engine from scratch supporting the last 20 years of html, css and js specs?
Macsurf is a browser project for Mac OS 9 leveraging LLMs[1] to do this. Tbh it makes sense for this given how time-consuming (absurd? Though the fact it exists tickles me) it'd be otherwise for essentially a single person to support the scope of web tech it does for such an incredibly niche userbase.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48339534
> why dont any of the modern browsers open and load pages instantaneously anymore, why does it take seconds?
If we are talking about a blog page, just a static html - it should take some ms. No problem here.
But if we are talking about some heavy pages and fetch requests to other places, well...
Or simply a page with f 10Mb header image.
>apart from gecko and v8 why dont we have browser engines?
gecko (Firefox), blink (chrome and friends), webkit (Safari, Kagi and some other, mostly linux distro browsers) are the only stable ones. Servo and Ladybird are on the way, but it will take quite some time for them to mature.
>are you familiar with anyone building an entire browser engine from scratch?
Ladybird. No idea about specifications.
>with all the GPT hype of late, why havent we seen a single GPT yet capable of building a browser engine from scratch supporting the last 20 years of html, css and js specs?
Well, aside from the fact that this will be a one expensive project - you (someone) will have to test this code anyway. Also this: https://ladybird.org/posts/changing-how-we-develop-ladybird/
> apart from gecko and v8 why dont we have browser engines?
You mean apart from Gecko and Blink (v8 is a JS engine, not a browser engine.)
But we do, for open source engines we also have WebKit and NetSurf and some others.
Ladybird is a has new browser engine and coming along nicely: https://ladybird.org/
if a website's bundle is <14kb, it will load instantly.
https://endtimes.dev/why-your-website-should-be-under-14kb-i...
Chrome (which I don't use) provides a really good profiler that can give you answers down to the milliseconds on what's happening during page load and also actions. Web tech provides so much functionality but web dev often don't bother optimizing their sites. I'm not saying browsers are blameless, but at least you get good tools that'll give you hints.
They note containers as a new feature. Does this mean containers are shipping with the base installation, instead of as an extension?
Yes. Containers will be enabled by default in the regular release without the need to install the extension or flip a preference in about:config.
It's also planned to integrate the ability to assign a website to a specific container. There's no information available on the other extra features from Multi-Account Containers like VPN/Proxy per container for the moment.
You can follow the development on bugzilla https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?component=Container...
It seems so, especially because they explicitly say in the help page[1] that "Multi-Account Containers" brings "a few benefits on top of the native container functionality like site-specific container assignments, syncing across devices, and integration with Mozilla VPN or your own proxy".
[1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-use-firefox-contain...
Did the fixed [ENTER] (or double-click) in 'Save as...' dialog finally?
> Containers let you keep separate parts of your online life (work, shopping, personal, banking) logged into different accounts in the same browser window, but keep your cookies and ad tracking isolated inside each container.
What's new here? Containers have been an add-on, at least, for a long time? Is it integrated into core Firefox for the first time?
> Quickly pick and copy a color from any page by typing "pick color", "color picker", or "eyedropper" in the address bar and selecting the "Pick a color" quick action.
This seems like add-on or developer tools territory. Maybe that's what quick actions are? Does Firefox really want to add non-essential widgets to maintain, support, and integrate going forward? Maybe this one is necessary for some reason? I have a global color-picker that works in every application; I expect many who need one have the same.
Devtools are built-in on Firefox, and this one is probably useful to more people than want to be looking at the JS console. I can't imagine the maintenance burden is unreasonable, it's just a combination of features that Firefox already has.
See this reply to a sibling of your comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48980044