The Mozilla Firefox 118 web browser is now available for download ahead of its official release on September 26th, when it will be rolling out to various of the supported platforms.

I consider Firefox 118 a major release because it finally brings the built-in translation feature for websites. Previously planned for Firefox 117, the new translation feature will let you automatically translate websites from one of the supported languages to another.

The translation feature can be accessed from a new “Translate page” menu entry in the application menu (the hamburger menu on the far right side of the window). When clicked, a pop-up dialog will open in place to let you choose the languages you want to translate from and to.

Read the rest on 9TO5Linux

  • krey@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    this should just be an extension. browsers have so much bloat nowadays. how are people, who can’t afford a new PC, supposed to browse safely, if the updates don’t fit on their system?

    I know old, poor people who have old tablets and can’t afford anything else. even if they could download and install it on their too small SSD, it uses 250 MB RAM doing nothing. They’ll need to switch to Pale Moon, soon.

    I remind you, 20 years ago, Firefox (then Phoenix) was a 50 MB install and would run with 16 MB RAM, showing websites in multiple tabs.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      If 250 MB of ram is an issue then you probably aren’t doing much modern web browsing. I have what I’d think are basic pages that are using 200MB of ram. Same if you don’t have the 300mb of free space, god have mercy on your soul if you’ve got less than a gig free.

      The amount of ram this feature takes up is negligible compared the the bloat of modern webpages. Plus I’m sure there’s an about:config setting to disable it if you want to go crazy.

    • 1984@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Please download that version and run it.

      You will come screaming back for modern versions.

      • krey@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        idk what your point is. the rendering engine can’t do newer HTML, because it didn’t exist back then. however, this old version was awesome and ran insanely fast. Extensions and tabbed browsing were available since 2002 and it had builtin popup and image blocking. You were able to move entire toolbars wherever you want (this feature has been removed lately). The download was 6 MB.

        • stephenc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          It was fast and light because it didn’t have to do what is required of modern HTML. Times change, things evolve, and systems become more capable of running them.

          • krey@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh and what is that? Displaying a webp? Checking a hash against a DB of known attack sites? Yeah, that justifies the need of 4000% more RAM /2

            I remind you, modern HTML is shorter and more optimised. JS and CSS existed back then. Back then animated GIF and complex Framesets were everywhere, too.

            • stephenc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You need to look up the capabilities of modern HTML/JS/CSS. Hell, trying to run old browsers now breaks a huge number of sites that rely on modern browsers to do very simple things and do them effectively. Also, you know, using accelerated graphics to render things makes things a ton faster and smoother than the old days.

              You’re caught up in the “older is better” mentality without any justification as to why certain older things are better. Some things have evolved and rightfully so, like browsers.

              • krey@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, I’m not caught up in this and no, I don’t need to look that up, because I’m a software developer doing mostly web stuff. somewhere earlier in this thread I also mentioned the older version can’t do new HTML. However, most things websites do have earlier been done with less capable, less optimized HTML, CSS and JS (and plugins like flash).

        • 1984@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean sure, it ran fast but the reason is that it couldn’t do what today’s browsers can. Software today is enormous though. But it runs in 4k at 144Hz, so it’s hard to compare.

    • Harvey656@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I agree, I think there’s a pretty large community (like myself) who will use this regularly.

      Though I’m unsure of the statistics on how many would use it. If it’s under 50% for sure should have been an extension.