Closed Bug 1187005 Opened 9 years ago Closed 9 years ago

Some plugins (Silverlight, Lync Web App, Java, ...) are not recognized as installed with Firefox 64-bit build on Win64

Categories

(Core Graveyard :: Plug-ins, defect)

Product:
Core Graveyard
Component:
Plug-ins
Version:
41 Branch
Platform:
x86_64
Windows
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
blocker

Tracking

(firefox39 unaffected, firefox40 ?, firefox41 affected, firefox42+ affected)

Status:
VERIFIED WONTFIX
Tracking Flags:
Tracking Status
firefox39 --- unaffected
firefox40 --- ?
firefox41 --- affected
firefox42 + affected

People

(Reporter: the009, Unassigned)

References

Details

(Keywords: regression) 

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0
Build ID: 20150722030205

Steps to reproduce:

42.0a1 (2015-07-22)

Going to any page that uses Microsoft Silverlight will say that Silverlight is not installed. ( Netflix, Amazon Video ) Chekcing in the addons manager it is not listed as installed.

I have tried to reinstall many times and it will not recognize it.
It worked just fine on the previous build.



Actual results:

Silverlight is no where to be found inside of Firefox.


Expected results:

Firefox should recognize that Microsoft Silverlight is installed and allow it to run.
I tried this SL demo with FF42 with e10s on/off, no issue.
https://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/new-controls/demo/

Could you retest with a fresh profile, please.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles
Component: Untriaged → Plug-ins
Flags: needinfo?(the009)
Product: Firefox → Core
[Tracking Requested - why for this release]:
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
status-firefox42: --- → affected
tracking-firefox42: --- → ?
Ever confirmed: true
Keywords: regression
Hardware: Unspecified → x86_64
Summary: Microsoft Silverlight is not recognized as installed. → Microsoft Silverlight is not recognized as installed on Win64; x64 build
Pushlog:
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=a6b93cceaf4e&tochange=1875a5584e5f

Suspect:
	6dce320d14bb	Kyle Machulis — Bug 1165981 - Only allow flash as a plugin on Windows 64-bit builds; r=bsmedberg
Blocks: 1165981
See bug 1186746 about the rationale for Win64 Silverlight support.
(In reply to Loic from comment #1)
> I tried this SL demo with FF42 with e10s on/off, no issue.
> https://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/new-controls/demo/
> 
> Could you retest with a fresh profile, please.
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-
> firefox-profiles

A clean profile dose not fix the issue.

It appears that all the other other plugins are disabled as well. 
The only listed plugins are:
Open H264
Prime Content Decryption
Shockwave Flash
Flags: needinfo?(the009)
Netflix does not work on a nightly. I have to revert to a release build.

Please fix this before uplifting bug 1186746. There is no way to force Silverlight to run and I have to revert either to release or another browser. Do we have a plan to fix Silverlight? Thanks!
Severity: normal → blocker
Flags: needinfo?(kyle)
I am just the NPAPI plumber here. I've at least notified the proper channels of this bug, but it's really not my decision to make.
Flags: needinfo?(kyle)
Who would be the proper owner for this? Thanks!
Flags: needinfo?(lmandel)
Flags: needinfo?(kyle)
Aaron or Maire, maybe you know who we should talk with here.
Flags: needinfo?(mreavy)
Flags: needinfo?(lmandel)
Flags: needinfo?(aklotz)
Flags: needinfo?(jst)
(In reply to Liz Henry (:lizzard) from comment #10)
> Aaron or Maire, maybe you know who we should talk with here.

This is out of my area.  Anthony, Benjamin -- Do you know who should answer this?
Flags: needinfo?(mreavy)
Flags: needinfo?(benjamin)
Flags: needinfo?(ajones)
Javaun is our Win64 product manager and should be able to help out on this.
Flags: needinfo?(jmoradi)
Flags: needinfo?(kyle)
Flash is the only NPAPI plugin that Mozilla supports in Firefox's Win64 builds. Silverlight still works in 32-bit Firefox builds running on a 64-bit Windows OS.

Microsoft's Silverlight download page says 64-bit Silverlight only (officially) supports IE 8+:

https://www.microsoft.com/getsilverlight/Get-Started/Install/Default.aspx
status-firefox39: --- → unaffected
status-firefox40: --- → ?
status-firefox41: --- → affected
Flags: needinfo?(jst)
Flags: needinfo?(jmoradi)
Flags: needinfo?(benjamin)
Flags: needinfo?(aklotz)
Flags: needinfo?(ajones)
OS: Unspecified → Windows
Well, they couldn't support a Firefox 64-bit version because there was none, until now (officially).

The point is, with the decision in bug 1165981 to throw out Silverlight (against the original plans, obviously) Firefox 64-bit will not work with a yet unknown number of high profile streaming and VOD sites worldwide, and users will blame neither the sites nor Microsoft but Firefox 64-bit itself, because the sites will tell them to just use some other browser.

Don't get me wrong, making the NPAPI more secure is a good thing long-term (even though it's a question of how secure it really is as long as you're still supporting Flash, the by far biggest attack vector), but medium and short term this will be deadly for Firefox 64-bit. It looks like an ivory tower decision that is just not user-friendly in the real world.
(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #13)
> Flash is the only NPAPI plugin that Mozilla supports in Firefox's Win64
> builds. Silverlight still works in 32-bit Firefox builds running on a 64-bit
> Windows OS.
> 
> Microsoft's Silverlight download page says 64-bit Silverlight only
> (officially) supports IE 8+:
> 
> https://www.microsoft.com/getsilverlight/Get-Started/Install/Default.aspx

This seems bad... We really can't break sites like Netflix and expect that we won't lose lots of users. At worst case, could we whitelist Silverlight for specific sites? Googling, I see that we're suppossed to be able to use Netflix without Silverlight (http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/12/firefox-38/). Do you know the story about that?

Going to Mozilla's download page on mozilla.com, I see that we by default send out the 32 bit build. Do users explicitly have to download the 64 bit build somewhere else? Or how do we distribute 64 bit release builds now? Thanks!
Flags: needinfo?(cpeterson)
(In reply to Mason Chang [:mchang] from comment #15)
> (In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #13)
> > Flash is the only NPAPI plugin that Mozilla supports in Firefox's Win64
> > builds. Silverlight still works in 32-bit Firefox builds running on a 64-bit
> > Windows OS.
> > 
> > Microsoft's Silverlight download page says 64-bit Silverlight only
> > (officially) supports IE 8+:
> > 
> > https://www.microsoft.com/getsilverlight/Get-Started/Install/Default.aspx
> 
> This seems bad... We really can't break sites like Netflix and expect that
> we won't lose lots of users. At worst case, could we whitelist Silverlight
> for specific sites? Googling, I see that we're suppossed to be able to use
> Netflix without Silverlight
> (http://www.engadget.com/2015/05/12/firefox-38/). Do you know the story
> about that?
> 
> Going to Mozilla's download page on mozilla.com, I see that we by default
> send out the 32 bit build. Do users explicitly have to download the 64 bit
> build somewhere else? Or how do we distribute 64 bit release builds now?
> Thanks!

A whitelist?
There are hundreds of pages all over the world which people use on a regular basis.
This would not work.

Furthermore not only Silverlight is not working Java is missing completely, too.
This has a huge impact, too.

The changes made have to be undone for now and another idea has to be thought of.
Tracking because regression with significant user impact.
tracking-firefox42: ? → +
I'm not sure if this is the most reliable source (http://www.ghacks.net/2015/07/30/mozilla-to-launch-64-bit-firefox-41-to-stable-channel/), but it says Mozilla will ship 64 bit Firefox in Gecko 41. If that's the case, we're going to lose many users due to lack of Silverlight support. Can we re-evaluate if we can whitelist Silverlight please? Or at least why we believe we should only support Flash instead of Flash and Silverlight. Thanks!
Flags: needinfo?(cpeterson) → needinfo?(jmoradi)
Firefox 32-bit still supports Silverlight. Silverlight will no longer work only if the user switched to 64-bit explicitly. Why the user will switch to another browser instead of switching back to 32-bit?
Moreover, Chrome 45 will be already released when Firefox 41 is shipped. So users can't switch to Chrome because Chrome 45+ will drop the support for NPAPI plugins. Same applies to Microsoft Edge.
Why do you think users switch to 64-bit Firefox in the first place? Because they want to use a 64-bit browser, maybe? And if 64-bit Firefox doesn't work for them on some important sites, they might look elsewhere?

With Chrome the situation is much different than with Firefox. There won't be a 32-bit version to fall back to for NPAPI support, so if those sites want to keep Chrome users, they _must_ offer an HTML5 access for Chrome. Edge puts a similar pressure on them, because it's the standard browser in Windows 10. With Firefox 64-bit most of them won't invest any time and money, because there's still the 32-bit version that works.

Note that some of those sites already do offer an HTML5 access for Chrome, but not for Firefox, so I wouldn't expect Firefox 64-bit to suddenly and miraculously work when Chrome 45 and Edge gain user share.

In the end we have a chicken-and-egg problem here: fewer people than possible will adopt Firefox 64-bit because it doesn't work on sites important to them, and those sites won't adapt to Firefox 64-bit because too few people use it. A damn shame, isn't it?
I do not get this at all:
First of all, why does it only apply for the 64bit currently?
Why do you whitelist only a single plugin without enabling the user to modify the whitelist?
Why is one of the worst, most insecure and most problematic plugins the one on the whitelist?
Why is it completely blocking plugins, instead of having unknown/none-whitelisted plugins as "disabled" by default instead?

Seems to me like these rather random experiments with plugins shouldn't be in the aurora builds at all...
(In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #19)
> Firefox 32-bit still supports Silverlight. Silverlight will no longer work
> only if the user switched to 64-bit explicitly. Why the user will switch to
> another browser instead of switching back to 32-bit?
> Moreover, Chrome 45 will be already released when Firefox 41 is shipped. So
> users can't switch to Chrome because Chrome 45+ will drop the support for
> NPAPI plugins. Same applies to Microsoft Edge.

Chrome doesn't require Silverlight for Netflix. Firefox does. Removing Silverlight puts Firefox at a disadvantage.
(In reply to Adam Frisby from comment #22)
> Chrome doesn't require Silverlight for Netflix. Firefox does. Removing
> Silverlight puts Firefox at a disadvantage.

Nobody is being forced into using 64 bit builds on Windows.
(In reply to laszlo from comment #20)
> Why do you think users switch to 64-bit Firefox in the first place? Because
> they want to use a 64-bit browser, maybe? And if 64-bit Firefox doesn't work
> for them on some important sites, they might look elsewhere?

There is no need, yes, but customers want to.
And furthermore: why develop a not working x64 version?
If you want to give people **** like that, one could just kill the x64 development
That was for Anthony
(In reply to Anthony Jones (:kentuckyfriedtakahe, :k17e) from comment #23)
> (In reply to Adam Frisby from comment #22)
> > Chrome doesn't require Silverlight for Netflix. Firefox does. Removing
> > Silverlight puts Firefox at a disadvantage.
> 
> Nobody is being forced into using 64 bit builds on Windows.

Why should 64bit differ from the 32bit in the first place, aside from the usual differences (memory limits, 32/64 bit-compatibility, etc). This intentional different and crippling behaviour is confusing and counterproductive.

Why alienate people who were happily using 64bit for years, forcing them to switch to 32bit, or worse, a completely different browser.
(In reply to Anthony Jones (:kentuckyfriedtakahe, :k17e) from comment #23)
> (In reply to Adam Frisby from comment #22)
> > Chrome doesn't require Silverlight for Netflix. Firefox does. Removing
> > Silverlight puts Firefox at a disadvantage.
> 
> Nobody is being forced into using 64 bit builds on Windows.

Except by circumstance, common sense. Memory usage can run away quite quickly these days. Pages are heavy, addons are heavy, you have html5 videos, some pages are designed to be left open, you can open several tabs if you search info on something, etc, etc. On 32bit it means a lot more crashes.
If I remember correctly 32bit ff crashed at around 2 gig memory usage. That can easily be reached.
What websites will be broken if 64-bit Firefox does not support Silverlight? The only streaming video sites that use Silverlight I know of are Netflix (which will be able to use EME) and Amazon Instant Video (which seamlessly falls back to Flash if Silverlight is not available).
(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #28)
> What websites will be broken if 64-bit Firefox does not support Silverlight?
> The only streaming video sites that use Silverlight I know of are Netflix
> (which will be able to use EME) and Amazon Instant Video (which seamlessly
> falls back to Flash if Silverlight is not available).

In Europe, i.e.: Eurosport Player and streaming services from Canal+. Those are other than Nflx examples of premium paid services not working currently under x64 42.0a1.
I work at a company that relies on the Silverlight plugin. The application in question even benefits when running in 64bit due to the memory constraints of 32bit when handling large projects. I do not think that said application will be replaced anytime soon, as it is very complex and not as simple to port as a streaming implementation.

P.S. The silverlight application in question is not available to the public, only to exclusive customers.
(In reply to Daniel from comment #29)
> (In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #28)
> > What websites will be broken if 64-bit Firefox does not support Silverlight?
> > The only streaming video sites that use Silverlight I know of are Netflix
> > (which will be able to use EME) and Amazon Instant Video (which seamlessly
> > falls back to Flash if Silverlight is not available).
> 
> In Europe, i.e.: Eurosport Player and streaming services from Canal+.

About Canal+, it's not true anymore, Canal+ switched the Silverlight player for MyCanal and CanalPlay to a new HTML5/EME/MSE player. They even published the source code on Github: https://github.com/canalplus/rx-player

And Orange Cinema Series (OCS) is working on a new HTML5 player for its OCS Go service.
In Germany, Sweden, Spain: Magine, a popular TV streaming service. In Germany and Austria: Maxdome, one of the biggest local VOD sites.
(In reply to Loic from comment #31)

> About Canal+, it's not true anymore, Canal+ switched the Silverlight player
> for MyCanal and CanalPlay to a new HTML5/EME/MSE player. They even published
> the source code on Github: https://github.com/canalplus/rx-player

Sadly not in Poland, they've outsourced their streaming services here and start-up in charge has no immediate plans to switch to html5.
Thanks for the Silverlight sites. I am compiling a list. Please feel free to email me directly if you know of more sites that would be affected.
btw, how do these Silverlight video services work on Chrome? Do they use HTML5+EME (with Google's Widevine DRM or Microsoft's PlayReady DRM)?
Both Magine and Maxdome serve an HTML5 player to a current Chrome version. I'm sure most of these sites could do the same with Firefox, the question is if they are willing to, since the 32-bit version continues to support Silverlight.
(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #35)
> btw, how do these Silverlight video services work on Chrome? Do they use
> HTML5+EME (with Google's Widevine DRM or Microsoft's PlayReady DRM)?

Some info from netflix, 
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742
http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/06/html5-video-in-ie-11-on-windows-81.html 

Microsoft,
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/apps/dn466732.aspx

Info about Edge and DRM and Silverlight
http://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/07/02/moving-to-html5-premium-media/

EME
https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/
In Japan (Googled briefly except the first two websites),

dTV: http://pc.video.dmkt-sp.jp/device
WOWOW member's on demand: http://www.wowow.co.jp/mod/info/
SHIONOGI.tv: http://www.shionogi.tv/recommend/
Sonpo-Japan (necessary for modifying contractual coverage of the insurance): http://www.sjnk.co.jp/mypage/spec/
DMM FX: http://fx.dmm.com/support/spec/result/
NET-TV: http://www.tp1.jp/mem/memb03_nettv_offer.html
Takarazuka e-tix (necessary for making reservation): https://ent-kageki.e-tix.jp/ticket/environment.html

Looks like some VOD websites and some financial services still use silverlight.

As far as I know, WOWOW stopped supporting Google Chrome due to NPAPI disabled. dTV recommends Google Chrome users to enable NPAPI (http://pc.video.dmkt-sp.jp/news-article/index/id/10001022).
I wouldn't call the switch from Flash to Silverlight "seamless" for Amazon Instant Video.  Flash does work, perhaps even acceptably well enough for the majority of users, but my experience is that this statement from Amazon's Video Issues help page is very true: "We recommend using Silverlight to watch Amazon Instant Video, as it has been optimized to work with our service and typically provides the best playback experience."  

From: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201460940

This same page also says: "Note: At this time, Amazon Instant Video is only available through Adobe Flash Player on Google Chrome. For a better playback experience, we recommend switching to a browser that supports the Silverlight player (Firefox, Safari, or Internet Explorer). See the sections below for more information about Silverlight."

For me, the buffering and video quality experience on Amazon, using Flash, are definitely not as good as on Silverlight.
Another two services in Germany that require Silverlight: Videoload, VOD platform of the largest German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom, and Watchever, the German VOD service of Vivendi SA, the biggest French mass media company.
Flags: needinfo?(jmoradi)
Summary: Microsoft Silverlight is not recognized as installed on Win64; x64 build → Some plugins (Microsoft Silverlight, Java,...) are not recognized as installed with Firefox 64-bit build on Win64
This bug has been a terribly sad read... who cares if it's broke in x64, the user can just use 32bit? Hahahah, good lordy! WHAT A SOLUTION!

The 32bit version constantly slows to a crawl when it approaches 2gigs of memory usage. The x64 one works smooth upwards of 5gigs.

So yeah, let me go racing back to 32bit! 

Seriously, are some of these replies for real? Are you that out of touch with reality?
To say it is "broke" in x64 is incorrect. Mozilla (like Google and Microsoft) is moving away from the ancient and unsecure NPAPI Plugins such as SiverLight and Java in the Win64 Firefox. Microsoft Edge browser (Windows 10) does not support SilverLight or Java and neither will Chrome as of September 2015. However, like the Win64 Firefox, they will all continue to support Flash. There are two issues that arise because of these changes, however neither of which are really relative to this bug:

#1 The Windows 32-Bit Firefox needs a lot of work for better memory management and performance.
#2 The sites that use SilverLight such as NetFlix and Amazon Video need to provide an HTML5 or Flash version for Firefox (as they do for other browsers).


As painful as it is to make this comparison, think of the Win64 Firefox being like Microsoft Edge (or even Google Chrome) and Win32 being like Internet Explorer.
(In reply to ffextensionguru from comment #44)
> as SiverLight and Java in the Win64 Firefox. Microsoft Edge browser (Windows
> 10) does not support SilverLight or Java and neither will Chrome as of
> September 2015. However, like the Win64 Firefox, they will all continue to
> support Flash. 

The big irony in this is that they allow flash is the biggest security threat. Being the most common just makes it an even higher risk.
(In reply to ffextensionguru from comment #44)
> To say it is "broke" in x64 is incorrect. Mozilla (like Google and
> Microsoft) is moving away from the ancient and unsecure NPAPI Plugins such
> as SiverLight and Java in the Win64 Firefox. Microsoft Edge browser (Windows
> 10) does not support SilverLight or Java and neither will Chrome as of
> September 2015.
They should better start with 32-bit Firefox and after that, they should also remove the crapware plugins Adobe Primetime Content Decryption Module and OpenH264-Videocode!
(In reply to SpeciesX from comment #46)

> They should better start with 32-bit Firefox and after that, they should
> also remove the crapware plugins Adobe Primetime Content Decryption Module
> and OpenH264-Videocode!

How is removing HTML5 support going to help?
(In reply to ffextensionguru from comment #47)
> (In reply to SpeciesX from comment #46)
> 
> > They should better start with 32-bit Firefox and after that, they should
> > also remove the crapware plugins Adobe Primetime Content Decryption Module
> > and OpenH264-Videocode!
> 
> How is removing HTML5 support going to help?

This is a closed-source Adobe DRM plugin...
I don't understand what's the difference between x86 and 64 version. Why former can support tons of NPAPI plugins yet the latter only one (flash)? I've used x64 for ages as Waterfox/PaleMoon editions and now when I can finally use native Firefox I just can't. I need Java for site's applications. It's ridiculous and incomprehensible from user perspective.
(In reply to Robert from comment #43)
> Are you that out of touch with reality?

Oh, the Internet, where people can be so harsh.

(In reply to avada from comment #45)
> The big irony in this is that they allow flash is the biggest security
> threat. Being the most common just makes it an even higher risk.

I recommend you use a browser that doesn't bundle it and simply don't install it. Can you substantiate Flash being the biggest security risk?

(In reply to SpeciesX from comment #46)
> They should better start with 32-bit Firefox and after that, they should
> also remove the crapware plugins Adobe Primetime Content Decryption Module
> and OpenH264-Videocode!

Those can be removed by disabling them in about:addons

OpenH264 is free software. http://www.openh264.org/
It wasn't intended to be harsh, merely stating that it's amazing how out there the replies I reading were. It seemed abundantly clear the the people making the decisions and providing guidance on where Mozilla is going don't seem to really care as much about the overall user's experience versus their own priorities. Mozilla choosing to stop supporting the plugins will get some fires lit but until that change happens, your users will jump ship to whatever browser works.

I can totally understand making things idiot proof, I have to deal with that at work daily but to completely remove any way to override it after the fact, knowing fully well that most people are set to automatically update is just inane. It was said that there would be warning in V41... but there wasn't. There was no "warning these won't work in the future" it just completely disabled them and refused to even acknowledge Silverlight existed. It was great to be chugging along with my work only to have Firefox crash and then when it reopened, none of the plugins I needed to get back to where I was two minutes prior were allowed to run anymore. I was lucky enough to find a forum post where someone had mentioned that you could still force Firefox, for at least that current version, to override the forced signature if you dived into the config but that didn't bring back Silverlight.

Breaking the experience for the client/user is a terrible way to try and force developers to update the back end.
(In reply to Robert from comment #51)
> It wasn't intended to be harsh, merely stating that it's amazing how out
> there the replies I reading were. It seemed abundantly clear the the people
> making the decisions and providing guidance on where Mozilla is going don't
> seem to really care as much about the overall user's experience versus their
> own priorities. Mozilla choosing to stop supporting the plugins will get
> some fires lit but until that change happens, your users will jump ship to
> whatever browser works.

32-bit Firefox works and people already have it installed.

> Breaking the experience for the client/user is a terrible way to try and
> force developers to update the back end.

64-bit Firefox has never been released so Silverlight support hasn't been withdrawn, rather it looks like it will never be offered in the first place. The effect of this is that we see a change in pre-release channels. Using pre-release software is a little bit like being in a movie test audience in that you're not looking at the final product and the ending may change.
(In reply to Anthony Jones (:kentuckyfriedtakahe, :k17e) from comment #52)
> (In reply to Robert from comment #51)
> > Breaking the experience for the client/user is a terrible way to try and
> > force developers to update the back end.
> 
> 64-bit Firefox has never been released so Silverlight support hasn't been
> withdrawn, rather it looks like it will never be offered in the first place.
> The effect of this is that we see a change in pre-release channels. Using
> pre-release software is a little bit like being in a movie test audience in
> that you're not looking at the final product and the ending may change.


I still fail to see what the point of this whole change is. Flagging certain plugins as safe to be used (implying flash being safe, lol), while other plugins that are arguably more "secure" are being blocked completely, such as silverlight
). Essentially, taking away the control from the user and restricting it alá Apple products. That is not nice and I highly doubt anyone is gonna appreciate this change.

Having a black/whitelist, which the user can still overrule would be the only feasible and logical step. Like having unknown plugins and "bad plugins" (including outdated versions) disabled from the start, and those that are somewhat trusted as click to play.

P.S. I really don't like the direction mozilla is going. First forced signing extension by a single instance and now highly selective plugin support... What is happening?
Will sites like Netflix be able to use EME if they wanted to?  Looking at Bug 1183338, it doesn't seem like the Adobe CDM is available in 64 bit?
(In reply to alreiten from comment #54)
> Will sites like Netflix be able to use EME if they wanted to?  Looking at
> Bug 1183338, it doesn't seem like the Adobe CDM is available in 64 bit?

The Adobe CDM is currently only available for 32-bit Windows Vista and later. Ports to 64-bit Windows and OS X are actively being worked on. CDM ports for Linux and Window XP will be worked on after that.
(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #55)
> (In reply to alreiten from comment #54)
> > Will sites like Netflix be able to use EME if they wanted to?  Looking at
> > Bug 1183338, it doesn't seem like the Adobe CDM is available in 64 bit?
> 
> The Adobe CDM is currently only available for 32-bit Windows Vista and
> later. Ports to 64-bit Windows and OS X are actively being worked on. CDM
> ports for Linux and Window XP will be worked on after that.

Chris, can you say when the ports to 64-bit Windows and OS X are expected to be released?

On a general note, I'm a bit confused:
As long as the Adobe CDM is not included in 64-bit Firefox, it makes no sense to completely disable Silverlight in 64-bit Firefox. Lots of sites and services, including VoD providers like maxdome and Netflix, would cease to function for users of that architecture. And not all of VoD providers seem to support Adobe Primetime at the moment, regardless of 32 or 64 bit. At maxdome, for example, we're actively working on it.

It would only push users away from Firefox if a hard cut is made here. I would strongly argue for at least a Silverlight whitelist here.
(In reply to Antonio Merker from comment #56)
> (In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #55)
> > (In reply to alreiten from comment #54)
> > > Will sites like Netflix be able to use EME if they wanted to?  Looking at
> > > Bug 1183338, it doesn't seem like the Adobe CDM is available in 64 bit?
> > 
> > The Adobe CDM is currently only available for 32-bit Windows Vista and
> > later. Ports to 64-bit Windows and OS X are actively being worked on. CDM
> > ports for Linux and Window XP will be worked on after that.
> 
> Chris, can you say when the ports to 64-bit Windows and OS X are expected to
> be released?
> 
> On a general note, I'm a bit confused:
> As long as the Adobe CDM is not included in 64-bit Firefox, it makes no
> sense to completely disable Silverlight in 64-bit Firefox. Lots of sites and
> services, including VoD providers like maxdome and Netflix, would cease to
> function for users of that architecture. And not all of VoD providers seem
> to support Adobe Primetime at the moment, regardless of 32 or 64 bit. At
> maxdome, for example, we're actively working on it.
> 
> It would only push users away from Firefox if a hard cut is made here. I
> would strongly argue for at least a Silverlight whitelist here.

Again: Why block them completely? Disable them by default, ok, but removing the functionality and user control completely is a huge step backwards. It is good and all to push HTML5 technologies, however, this is NOT the way to do it!
(In reply to David H. from comment #57)
> Again: Why block them completely? Disable them by default, ok, but removing
> the functionality and user control completely is a huge step backwards. It
> is good and all to push HTML5 technologies, however, this is NOT the way to
> do it!

And also why only win64?! Or is it just a strategy how to flop win64 release?
(In reply to Antonio Merker from comment #56)
> (In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #55)
> > (In reply to alreiten from comment #54)
> > > Will sites like Netflix be able to use EME if they wanted to?  Looking at
> > > Bug 1183338, it doesn't seem like the Adobe CDM is available in 64 bit?
> > 
> > The Adobe CDM is currently only available for 32-bit Windows Vista and
> > later. Ports to 64-bit Windows and OS X are actively being worked on. CDM
> > ports for Linux and Window XP will be worked on after that.
> 
> Chris, can you say when the ports to 64-bit Windows and OS X are expected to
> be released?

We are actively working on the Primetime CDM for Win64 and OS X now, but Win64 will ship first.


> On a general note, I'm a bit confused:
> As long as the Adobe CDM is not included in 64-bit Firefox, it makes no
> sense to completely disable Silverlight in 64-bit Firefox. Lots of sites and
> services, including VoD providers like maxdome and Netflix, would cease to
> function for users of that architecture. And not all of VoD providers seem
> to support Adobe Primetime at the moment, regardless of 32 or 64 bit. At
> maxdome, for example, we're actively working on it.

We don't want to ship 64-bit Firefox without a solution for Netflix. That will be the 64-bit Adobe CDM. :)
(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #59)
> (In reply to Antonio Merker from comment #56)
> > (In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #55)
> > > (In reply to alreiten from comment #54)
> > > > Will sites like Netflix be able to use EME if they wanted to?  Looking at
> > > > Bug 1183338, it doesn't seem like the Adobe CDM is available in 64 bit?
> > > 
> > > The Adobe CDM is currently only available for 32-bit Windows Vista and
> > > later. Ports to 64-bit Windows and OS X are actively being worked on. CDM
> > > ports for Linux and Window XP will be worked on after that.
> > 
> > Chris, can you say when the ports to 64-bit Windows and OS X are expected to
> > be released?
> 
> We are actively working on the Primetime CDM for Win64 and OS X now, but
> Win64 will ship first.
> 
> 
> > On a general note, I'm a bit confused:
> > As long as the Adobe CDM is not included in 64-bit Firefox, it makes no
> > sense to completely disable Silverlight in 64-bit Firefox. Lots of sites and
> > services, including VoD providers like maxdome and Netflix, would cease to
> > function for users of that architecture. And not all of VoD providers seem
> > to support Adobe Primetime at the moment, regardless of 32 or 64 bit. At
> > maxdome, for example, we're actively working on it.
> 
> We don't want to ship 64-bit Firefox without a solution for Netflix. That
> will be the 64-bit Adobe CDM. :)

EME support does NOT replace proper plugin support or Silverlight for that matter! There is no reason to drop plugin support or to only allow Adobe Flash (which is also the worst plugin to allow), nor makes it any sense to differentiate between 32bit and 64bit. Also, why take away user control of plugins in the first place?
(In reply to David H. from comment #60)
> EME support does NOT replace proper plugin support or Silverlight for that
> matter! There is no reason to drop plugin support or to only allow Adobe
> Flash (which is also the worst plugin to allow), nor makes it any sense to
> differentiate between 32bit and 64bit. Also, why take away user control of
> plugins in the first place?

FWIW I agree. I have been advocating within Mozilla to support 64-bit Silverlight. In the meantime, 32-bit Firefox will continue to be the default version for quite a while, so only users who go out of their way to install 64-bit Firefox will be affected.
How Amazon Prime Instant video users are supposed to watch videos in Firefox 64Bit edition without Silverlight support? If you are looking for a solution for "Netflix" why not for "Amazon Instant video" too?

Just allow Silverlight x64 plug-in to be used in Firefox x64 until you find a better solution for this problem.
(In reply to Aris from comment #62)
> How Amazon Prime Instant video users are supposed to watch videos in Firefox
> 64Bit edition without Silverlight support? If you are looking for a solution
> for "Netflix" why not for "Amazon Instant video" too?

Amazon Instant Video supports both Silverlight and Flash. 64-bit Flash will be available in 64-bit Firefox.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201422810
Alright, thanks for clarification. On the same screen Amazon shows to install Silverlight plug-in there is a tiny "link" to something like "use Flash instead".
You can also set Flash as your default player in the Amazon Instant Video Settings page's PLAYER PREFERENCES section:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/settings?ref_=sv_atv_5
(In reply to SpeciesX from comment #58)
> And also why only win64?! Or is it just a strategy how to flop win64 release?

Untested code paths.
(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #59)
> (In reply to Antonio Merker from comment #56)
> > (In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #55)
> > > (In reply to alreiten from comment #54)
> > > > Will sites like Netflix be able to use EME if they wanted to?  Looking at
> > > > Bug 1183338, it doesn't seem like the Adobe CDM is available in 64 bit?
> > > 
> > > The Adobe CDM is currently only available for 32-bit Windows Vista and
> > > later. Ports to 64-bit Windows and OS X are actively being worked on. CDM
> > > ports for Linux and Window XP will be worked on after that.
> > 
> > Chris, can you say when the ports to 64-bit Windows and OS X are expected to
> > be released?
> 
> We are actively working on the Primetime CDM for Win64 and OS X now, but
> Win64 will ship first.
> 
> 
> > On a general note, I'm a bit confused:
> > As long as the Adobe CDM is not included in 64-bit Firefox, it makes no
> > sense to completely disable Silverlight in 64-bit Firefox. Lots of sites and
> > services, including VoD providers like maxdome and Netflix, would cease to
> > function for users of that architecture. And not all of VoD providers seem
> > to support Adobe Primetime at the moment, regardless of 32 or 64 bit. At
> > maxdome, for example, we're actively working on it.
> 
> We don't want to ship 64-bit Firefox without a solution for Netflix. That
> will be the 64-bit Adobe CDM. :)

Hold on there. Chris, you're saying
a) You don't want to ship Win64 without 64-bit Adobe CDM
b) You're actively working on just that: Adobe CDM for Win64 (& OS X)
c) But Win64 will ship before 64-bit Adobe CDM

Does this seem like circular, contradictory logic to anyone else?
Am I missing something here?

With this, you would have a Win64 in the wild without 64-bit Primetime, period.
Some kind of whitelisting for the Silverlight plugin @ Win64 is needed.

(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #59)
> [...] so only users who go out of their way to install 64-bit Firefox will be affected.

That sounds like 64-bit Windows users won't automatically get updated to Win64 FF, correct?
(In reply to Antonio Merker from comment #67)
> Hold on there. Chris, you're saying
> a) You don't want to ship Win64 without 64-bit Adobe CDM
> b) You're actively working on just that: Adobe CDM for Win64 (& OS X)
> c) But Win64 will ship before 64-bit Adobe CDM
> 
> Does this seem like circular, contradictory logic to anyone else?
> Am I missing something here?
> 
> With this, you would have a Win64 in the wild without 64-bit Primetime,
> period.
> Some kind of whitelisting for the Silverlight plugin @ Win64 is needed.

I see my earlier statement was ambiguous. When I said "Win64 will ship first" in comment 59, I meant Adobe will ship the Win64 CDM before the OS X CDM, not that Win64 Firefox would ship before the CDMs.

> > We are actively working on the Primetime CDM for Win64 and OS X now, but
> > Win64 will ship first.


> (In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #59)
> > [...] so only users who go out of their way to install 64-bit Firefox will be affected.
> 
> That sounds like 64-bit Windows users won't automatically get updated to
> Win64 FF, correct?

That is correct, for now. The initial release of 64-bit Firefox will need to be installed manually. Current 32-bit Firefox users will continue to receive 32-bit updates. After we're happy with the stability of 64-bit (which might take a couple release cycles), we will consider auto-updating eligible 32-bit Firefox users to 64-bit. I think about 50% of Windows Firefox users are running a Win64 OS (which is higher than I expected), so 32-bit Firefox will be available for a long time.
(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #68)
> (In reply to Antonio Merker from comment #67)
> > Hold on there. Chris, you're saying
> > a) You don't want to ship Win64 without 64-bit Adobe CDM
> > b) You're actively working on just that: Adobe CDM for Win64 (& OS X)
> > c) But Win64 will ship before 64-bit Adobe CDM
> > 
> > Does this seem like circular, contradictory logic to anyone else?
> > Am I missing something here?
> > 
> > With this, you would have a Win64 in the wild without 64-bit Primetime,
> > period.
> > Some kind of whitelisting for the Silverlight plugin @ Win64 is needed.
> 
> I see my earlier statement was ambiguous. When I said "Win64 will ship
> first" in comment 59, I meant Adobe will ship the Win64 CDM before the OS X
> CDM, not that Win64 Firefox would ship before the CDMs.
> 
> > > We are actively working on the Primetime CDM for Win64 and OS X now, but
> > > Win64 will ship first.
> 
> 
> > (In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #59)
> > > [...] so only users who go out of their way to install 64-bit Firefox will be affected.
> > 
> > That sounds like 64-bit Windows users won't automatically get updated to
> > Win64 FF, correct?
> 
> That is correct, for now. The initial release of 64-bit Firefox will need to
> be installed manually. Current 32-bit Firefox users will continue to receive
> 32-bit updates. After we're happy with the stability of 64-bit (which might
> take a couple release cycles), we will consider auto-updating eligible
> 32-bit Firefox users to 64-bit. I think about 50% of Windows Firefox users
> are running a Win64 OS (which is higher than I expected), so 32-bit Firefox
> will be available for a long time.

How can blackboxed Adobe CDM possibly replace plugin support?
Why are you doing this to just the 64bit release?
Why are you dropping legacy support for various applications on the internet?
Why is it no longer in the users control, which plugins where to use and when?
What is the gain from limiting Firefox' functionality?
(In reply to David H. from comment #69)
> How can blackboxed Adobe CDM possibly replace plugin support?

asmjs (and WebAssembly) along with a number of other HTML5 features replace plugin support. DRM is outside the scope of asmjs so it is provided separately.
Hello

The Firefox 41b6 64bit  has problems with Silverlight.
I go to Maxdome at look the Film, Firefox tell, silverlight is not installed.
Siverlight is installed on my System Windows 10. I uninstall Silverlght and install Silverlight new.
The same, Firefox tell, Silverlight is not installed. 
The Edge has not Problems, play the Films very best.

What is the Problem?

Regards

AN
(In reply to AN from comment #71)
> The Firefox 41b6 64bit  has problems with Silverlight.
> I go to Maxdome at look the Film, Firefox tell, silverlight is not installed.
> Siverlight is installed on my System Windows 10. I uninstall Silverlght and
> install Silverlight new.
> The same, Firefox tell, Silverlight is not installed. 
> The Edge has not Problems, play the Films very best.
> 
> What is the Problem?

hi AN, 64-bit Firefox Beta does not support Silverlight. You must use 32-bit Firefox to use Silverlight.
(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #72)
> (In reply to AN from comment #71)
> > The Firefox 41b6 64bit  has problems with Silverlight.
> > I go to Maxdome at look the Film, Firefox tell, silverlight is not installed.
> > Siverlight is installed on my System Windows 10. I uninstall Silverlght and
> > install Silverlight new.
> > The same, Firefox tell, Silverlight is not installed. 
> > The Edge has not Problems, play the Films very best.
> > 
> > What is the Problem?
> 
> hi AN, 64-bit Firefox Beta does not support Silverlight. You must use 32-bit
> Firefox to use Silverlight.
Silverlight for 64bit Firefox no longer works (starting with an updated release of v40), because Mozilla not to. Why? Only Mozilla knows. I fail to see what there is to gain from reducing functionality and control...
(In reply to David H. from comment #73)
> I fail to
> see what there is to gain from reducing functionality and control...

For example, for security reasons. Try to open the about:addons page on the Plugins tab in a random Firefox instance and you'll see a lot of random plugins, often installed without users even knowing about that. They all pose security risks. NPAPI is a legacy technology so most browsers move to support only Flash (Chrome & Edge already don't support other plugins) as Flash is still too widespread. Everything else is legacy.
(In reply to Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol] from comment #74)
> (In reply to David H. from comment #73)
> > I fail to
> > see what there is to gain from reducing functionality and control...
> 
> For example, for security reasons. Try to open the about:addons page on the
> Plugins tab in a random Firefox instance and you'll see a lot of random
> plugins, often installed without users even knowing about that. They all
> pose security risks. NPAPI is a legacy technology so most browsers move to
> support only Flash (Chrome & Edge already don't support other plugins) as
> Flash is still too widespread. Everything else is legacy.

So why not just disable all unknown plugins ("never activate") and have "known" plugins (eg Flash, Java, Silverlight), as "Ask to activate" by default? That way, we only have regularly used plugins available, legacy support for website and tools when we need it, while filtering ****- and shovelware plugins nobody actually needs or uses.

I realize it is a security risk enabling plugins and I agree that Mozilla should minimize the risk for their users. However, I reject the idea of Firefox taking full control over plugin whitelisting, without giving the user a way to overrule! Its not an Apple product after all...
Might as well add, just because two guys are doing it, it is good or okay to do it, too.
Following blindly doesn't help distinguish oneself from the crowd.
Although Silverlight is predominantly used to stream or distribute media assets, there are line of business applications that use Silverlight to deliver sophisticated and involved enterprise applications to millions of users.  

Let's put ourselves in the Firefox user's seat.  Should the user be educated as to the differences between 32 and 64 bit FF v41 - where some plugins work but others don't ?  I hope and strongly suggest that the whitelist approach also extends to include Silverlight for this reason so that the end user can choose what they need.

I am also concerned about Chris's comment #68 where FF may upgrade users from 32 to 64 when mature.  I admire the plan to have the better app in front of the user, however, that action would regress functionality if certain plugins are only made available in 32.
I will stick to firefox 40 beta 9 until Mozilla reconsider to add back Silverlight, Java, etc to the white-list.  

Regress functionality is very very bad idea. 

Why Mozilla make a crippled win 64 bit browser ?
¡Hola The009!

Is this bug why both "Google Talk Plugin" and "Google Talk Plugin Video Renderer" do not work on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 ID:20150909030223 CSet: 01ae99b53561a2c3b40533d8c1c92bd3efc42d00 either which make Google Hangouts not work?

Have you found an about:config change that can correct this?

In any case https://appear.in/ and https://talky.io/ are better than https://hangouts.google.com/ IMHO as they use WebRTC instead of proprietary plugins...
Flags: needinfo?(the009)
(In reply to alex_mayorga from comment #80)
> Is this bug why both "Google Talk Plugin" and "Google Talk Plugin Video
> Renderer" do not work on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:43.0)
> Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 ID:20150909030223 CSet:
> 01ae99b53561a2c3b40533d8c1c92bd3efc42d00 either which make Google Hangouts
> not work?

Yes.

> Have you found an about:config change that can correct this?

There is no about:config flag that can change this behavior.
Flags: needinfo?(the009)
a) Version due to "status-firefox41: --- → affected"
Version: 42 Branch → 41 Branch
(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #34)
> Thanks for the Silverlight sites. I am compiling a list. Please feel free to
> email me directly if you know of more sites that would be affected.

Hi Chris,

if Sky Go is not yet on your list you should add it. In Germany Sky is one of the most if not the most important pay tv platform with much more users than Netflix, Sky is also available in other countries. You need Silverlight to watch Sky on your computer ("Sky Go").
(In reply to Sören Hentzschel from comment #84)
> if Sky Go is not yet on your list you should add it. In Germany Sky is one
> of the most if not the most important pay tv platform with much more users
> than Netflix, Sky is also available in other countries. You need Silverlight
> to watch Sky on your computer ("Sky Go").

Thanks, Sören. I see that Sky Go currently relies on Silverlight exclusively and does not support Chrome or MS Edge:

http://help.sky.com/articles/using-google-chrome-with-sky-go
Yup. 

I registered just to comment on the Silverlight problem here after finding this thread.

I day trade stocks and use a website called freestockcharts.com - many, many traders I know online (world-wide) use this website to chart stocks real-time (it also has a paid premium service). Using freestockcharts.com requires Silverlight.

I got here because I installed a fresh version of Firefox on a new laptop and also installed Silverlight in order to use freestockcharts.com today and after much frustration and googling I figured out it was Firefox not recognizing/blocking Silverlight thus preventing me from accessing freestockcharts.com. 

Bottom line for me is (as a long-time Firefox user) I would very much like a 64 bit Firefox - but NOT if it can't use Silverlight.

This is a deal breaker for me. I will revert to an older version or switch browsers entirely.
(In reply to Brian from comment #86)
> This is a deal breaker for me. I will revert to an older version or switch
> browsers entirely.

Firefox 32-bit is still the default, most supported version.

Nonetheless, to which browser? Neither Chrome nor Edge supports Silverlight now so if you dropped Firefox then on Windows you could only use the no-longer developed IE 11. Not a huge choice. The truth is every browser except Safari (which is not available on Windows) is slowly moving into dropping non-Flash plugin support. Sites need to switch their tech.
@Michal
"Sites need to switch their tech."
If that would be Mozillas real course, Fx 32bit would already have abandoned Silverlight too. For me it sounds like a lame excuse to prevent a large amount of people of using (upcoming) Fx 64bit (its still planned to release it one day, yes?).

And who cares what other browsers do and do not? People are using Mozillas product, because they chose to use it! Removing/dropping essential features just because other browsers do is not a valid explanation nor a good move.

At the end Mozilla probably is going to fork Chromium and put "Firefox" on it to be almost identical to Google Chrome, Opera and Ms Edge.
Hello,
I experience stuttering issues with flash and firefox 32bit (even if the protected mode is disabled).
So I'm waiting for a release version of firefox 64bit because I got no flash problems with it.

Silverlight is not yet supported by this browser, but we have to wait for Microsoft to make a 64bit edition of it.

You can still use firefox 32bit in order to have silverlight. And if firefox blocks it by default, you can change that in about:addons.

Furthermore, you can notice that Microsoft itselft has not integrated Silverlight (made by microsoft) in the browser Edge. I support they want to develop HTML5 content instead of silverlight.
(In reply to Aris from comment #88)
> @Michal
> "Sites need to switch their tech."
> If that would be Mozillas real course, Fx 32bit would already have abandoned
> Silverlight too. For me it sounds like a lame excuse to prevent a large
> amount of people of using (upcoming) Fx 64bit (its still planned to release
> it one day, yes?).
> 
> And who cares what other browsers do and do not? People are using Mozillas
> product, because they chose to use it! Removing/dropping essential features
> just because other browsers do is not a valid explanation nor a good move.
> 
> At the end Mozilla probably is going to fork Chromium and put "Firefox" on
> it to be almost identical to Google Chrome, Opera and Ms Edge.

It's lame that Silverlight is a proprietary plugin made by Microsoft and over which Mozilla has no control and *only* has a 64-bit version on IE? Your argument has about as much logic to it as an argument of why a 32-bit driver doesn't work on a 64-bit OS. Stick to 64-bit IE or 32-bit Firefox  since that's where Microsoft, not Mozilla, supports Silverlight on other browsers.
(In reply to Arthur K. from comment #90)
> (In reply to Aris from comment #88)
> > @Michal
> > "Sites need to switch their tech."
> > If that would be Mozillas real course, Fx 32bit would already have abandoned
> > Silverlight too. For me it sounds like a lame excuse to prevent a large
> > amount of people of using (upcoming) Fx 64bit (its still planned to release
> > it one day, yes?).
> > 
> > And who cares what other browsers do and do not? People are using Mozillas
> > product, because they chose to use it! Removing/dropping essential features
> > just because other browsers do is not a valid explanation nor a good move.
> > 
> > At the end Mozilla probably is going to fork Chromium and put "Firefox" on
> > it to be almost identical to Google Chrome, Opera and Ms Edge.
> 
> It's lame that Silverlight is a proprietary plugin made by Microsoft and
> over which Mozilla has no control and *only* has a 64-bit version on IE?
> Your argument has about as much logic to it as an argument of why a 32-bit
> driver doesn't work on a 64-bit OS. Stick to 64-bit IE or 32-bit Firefox 
> since that's where Microsoft, not Mozilla, supports Silverlight on other
> browsers.

Please get your facts straight:
Microsoft provides a 64bit Silverlight plugin which works with all NPAPI supporting browsers.
However, Firefox 64bit started blocking all plugins except for Adobe Flash and Adobe CDM. This was not the case before, there is no way to disable this regression-feature and there has yet to be a logical explanation as to why:
- only 64bit firefox is affected.
- only Adobe is allowed in the plugin list.
- it is no longer in the users control, which plugins to use where and when.

So the reason, why Silverlight no longer works in 64bit Firefox, is, because of Mozilla and not Microsoft. Yes, Microsoft is not at fault for once! Gotta mark that down in my calendar...
(In reply to David H. from comment #91)
> Please get your facts straight:

You should get your facts straight, too:

> Firefox 64bit started blocking all plugins except for Adobe Flash and Adobe CDM

all NPAPI plugins except for Adobe Flash. The Adobe CDM is a Gecko Media Plugin.

> This was not the case before, there is no way to disable this
> regression-feature

There was never a stable 64 bit release of Firefox for Windows, so neither there is a "before" nor it's a regression. Alpha and beta builds doesn't matter because development builds does not represent a final product.

To be clear: I support the opinion that Silverlight should be supported (for a short transition period, not for ever). But the arguments need to be correct and some of your statements are not correct.
(In reply to Sören Hentzschel from comment #92)
> (In reply to David H. from comment #91)
> > Please get your facts straight:
> 
> You should get your facts straight, too:
> 
> > Firefox 64bit started blocking all plugins except for Adobe Flash and Adobe CDM
> 
> all NPAPI plugins except for Adobe Flash. The Adobe CDM is a Gecko Media
> Plugin.
> 
> > This was not the case before, there is no way to disable this
> > regression-feature
> 
> There was never a stable 64 bit release of Firefox for Windows, so neither
> there is a "before" nor it's a regression. Alpha and beta builds doesn't
> matter because development builds does not represent a final product.
> 
> To be clear: I support the opinion that Silverlight should be supported (for
> a short transition period, not for ever). But the arguments need to be
> correct and some of your statements are not correct.

Well, isn't it even worse now? Just a single optional npapi plugin is now available within FF64.
The lack of plugin and thus legacy support is firefox' new worst feature. I understand the security aspect of this move, however, I reject how its been done:
It is not like NPAPI was dropped (like in Chrome), but instead a NPAPI whitelist (containing only Adobe Flash) was added, without providing the user with a way to add, remove or change the whitelist.
FF already has a control panelm, where you can manage individual plugins (never, ask to activate, always). I fail to understand why this has not been expanded with a preexisting whitelist/blacklist of select plugins. That way, users can still enable plugins selectively, yet remain "secure" with few third party plugins.
Removing the choice is what bugs me the most. Not because a specific plugin is no longer available, but because Mozilla took away the user's control: Security is fine and all, but I still want to have the choice (to take the risk and) enable a plugin.

P.S. Why does FF64 not being stable yet make a difference? It is a regression within the unstable/alpha/beta and soon-to-be stable branch. It did work before.
(In reply to Arthur K. from comment #90)
...
> It's lame that Silverlight is a proprietary plugin made by Microsoft and
> over which Mozilla has no control and *only* has a 64-bit version on IE?
> Your argument has about as much logic to it as an argument of why a 32-bit
> driver doesn't work on a 64-bit OS. Stick to 64-bit IE or 32-bit Firefox 
> since that's where Microsoft, not Mozilla, supports Silverlight on other
> browsers.

1. Of course there are 32bit drivers that work on a 64bit OS. Do you think everything on a 64bit OS runs natively in 64bit?
2. Firefox 40.0 beta 9 x64 allowed Silverlight x64 to run.
(In reply to Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol] from comment #87)
> (In reply to Brian from comment #86)
> > This is a deal breaker for me. I will revert to an older version or switch
> > browsers entirely.
> 
> Firefox 32-bit is still the default, most supported version.
> 
> Nonetheless, to which browser? Neither Chrome nor Edge supports Silverlight
> now so if you dropped Firefox then on Windows you could only use the
> no-longer developed IE 11. Not a huge choice. The truth is every browser
> except Safari (which is not available on Windows) is slowly moving into
> dropping non-Flash plugin support. Sites need to switch their tech.

As per the poster Aris, I have just installed Firefox 40.0 beta 9 x64.

Silverlight working just fine now after allowing for the plugin in the FF plugin control panel.

Why can't Mozilla do this with newer/updated/future stable versions of FF 64bit?
I don't understand why Silverlight doesn't work with FF x64 because It works well with latest Cyberfox x64...
So why Mozilla doesn't allow Silverlight?
(In reply to Julien from comment #96)
> I don't understand why Silverlight doesn't work with FF x64 because It works
> well with latest Cyberfox x64...
> So why Mozilla doesn't allow Silverlight?

Hmmm. 

Didn't know about Cyberfox. Looks good, after some research. 

Perhaps I'll switch from this older FF beta 9 x64 (the only FF 64bit that works with Silverlight, it seems).

Sure wish Mozilla would get it's act together here (hint, hint).
(In reply to Brian from comment #97)
> (In reply to Julien from comment #96)
> > I don't understand why Silverlight doesn't work with FF x64 because It works
> > well with latest Cyberfox x64...
> > So why Mozilla doesn't allow Silverlight?
> 
> Hmmm. 
> 
> Didn't know about Cyberfox. Looks good, after some research. 
> 
> Perhaps I'll switch from this older FF beta 9 x64 (the only FF 64bit that
> works with Silverlight, it seems).
> 
> Sure wish Mozilla would get it's act together here (hint, hint).

Addendum-

After installing Cyberfox and doing some more research via benchmarking both Cyberfox and FF beta 9 x64, Cyberfox is indeed faster than FF beta 9 x64 by a good shot. 

I used http://krakenbenchmark.mozilla.org/kraken-1.1/driver.html (the lower the score, the better) and http://octane-benchmark.googlecode.com/svn/latest/index.html (the higher the score, the better). 

Goodbye, Firefox - until/unless Mozilla gives me some solid reasons/versions to switch back or I have problems with Cyberfox for some reason.

FYI, if anyone intends on switching to Cyberfox and want to keep your FF profiles, you must use Firefox Environment Backup Extension" add-on in Firefox [FEBE for short] to backup your FF profile and then use the same add-on in Cyberfox to restore/import your saved profile to CF.
Now I stick to firefox 40 beta 9 64 bit because this is the most practical 64bit beta version of firefox. 

With firefox 40 64bit, I can control the plugin, not be controlled.
100 comments and still the FF devs appear unwavering in their decision. the "Use the x32 bit version" answer is, simply put, unacceptable. When users go to the trouble of looking for a x64 browser it means the x32 version doesn't work for them. It has been more than a year since Chrome switched to 64 bits for all users and now that a FF version is on the horizon it appears with the caveat that you can have a 64-bit FF but forego functionality that you took for granted.

I fully understand the benefits of the full-slate approach but the reality is that you can't go playing a game of chicken on the backs of your users. Also, the answer "Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol]" gave is completely unacceptable. I am unsure how he meant it (especially if English isn't his mother tongue) but it read like "You can't threaten us of switching browsers since there aren't any others left that do what we USED to do but don't wanna anymore".

And FYI, Cyberbox is based on FF, it has TWO x64 STABLE builds (one Intel, one AMD optimized) and does what your users are asking for out-of-the-box (plus it's faster than stock FF to boot) and they have also released their "Profile Buddy" app which basically transfers the profile from ANY Mozilla-based browser to ANY other so switching over to another FF-derivative is a 5-minute job with uninterrupted work-flow.

After 15 years of using FF and nothing else (since Netscape really) I have finally had enough and switched to Cyberfox and frankly, I don't see me coming back. THEIR developers actually listen to user feedback.
(In reply to Manos from comment #100)
> 100 comments and still the FF devs appear unwavering in their decision. the
> "Use the x32 bit version" answer is, simply put, unacceptable. When users go
> to the trouble of looking for a x64 browser it means the x32 version doesn't
> work for them. It has been more than a year since Chrome switched to 64 bits
> for all users and now that a FF version is on the horizon it appears with
> the caveat that you can have a 64-bit FF but forego functionality that you
> took for granted.
> 
> I fully understand the benefits of the full-slate approach but the reality
> is that you can't go playing a game of chicken on the backs of your users.
> Also, the answer "Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol]" gave is completely
> unacceptable. I am unsure how he meant it (especially if English isn't his
> mother tongue) but it read like "You can't threaten us of switching browsers
> since there aren't any others left that do what we USED to do but don't
> wanna anymore".
> 
> And FYI, Cyberbox is based on FF, it has TWO x64 STABLE builds (one Intel,
> one AMD optimized) and does what your users are asking for out-of-the-box
> (plus it's faster than stock FF to boot) and they have also released their
> "Profile Buddy" app which basically transfers the profile from ANY
> Mozilla-based browser to ANY other so switching over to another
> FF-derivative is a 5-minute job with uninterrupted work-flow.
> 
> After 15 years of using FF and nothing else (since Netscape really) I have
> finally had enough and switched to Cyberfox and frankly, I don't see me
> coming back. THEIR developers actually listen to user feedback.

Chrome is a bad example as Google dropped support for NPAPI plugins including Java and Silverlight at beginning of September 2015. Opera has already or will be doing so shortly. Microsoft Edge (Windows 10) browser all does not support NPAPI plugins. For 'mainstream' browsers your choices are Firefox 32-Bit or Internet Explorer 10.
There exist some 64-bit NPAPI plugins, I have them somewhere under /usr/lib64/ on my openSUSE Linux system. Hopefully those specific to Windows will someday be compiled too. Maybe you should complain to the plugin publishers (and move this bug, or possibly create one new bug per plugin, in the "Tech Evangelism" product).
(In reply to Manos from comment #100)
> 100 comments and still the FF devs appear unwavering in their decision. the
> "Use the x32 bit version" answer is, simply put, unacceptable. When users go
> to the trouble of looking for a x64 browser it means the x32 version doesn't
> work for them. It has been more than a year since Chrome switched to 64 bits
> for all users and now that a FF version is on the horizon it appears with
> the caveat that you can have a 64-bit FF but forego functionality that you
> took for granted.
> 
> I fully understand the benefits of the full-slate approach but the reality
> is that you can't go playing a game of chicken on the backs of your users.
> Also, the answer "Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol]" gave is completely
> unacceptable. I am unsure how he meant it (especially if English isn't his
> mother tongue) but it read like "You can't threaten us of switching browsers
> since there aren't any others left that do what we USED to do but don't
> wanna anymore".
> 
> And FYI, Cyberbox is based on FF, it has TWO x64 STABLE builds (one Intel,
> one AMD optimized) and does what your users are asking for out-of-the-box
> (plus it's faster than stock FF to boot) and they have also released their
> "Profile Buddy" app which basically transfers the profile from ANY
> Mozilla-based browser to ANY other so switching over to another
> FF-derivative is a 5-minute job with uninterrupted work-flow.
> 
> After 15 years of using FF and nothing else (since Netscape really) I have
> finally had enough and switched to Cyberfox and frankly, I don't see me
> coming back. THEIR developers actually listen to user feedback.

Thanks for Manos' information. I shift to Cyberfox 41.0.1 today and found it more practical(Silverlight and JAVA plugin:OK, YA!!!!!!!!) and flexible (interface adjustment).

I will give it a try to use Cyberfox as my default browser.
(In reply to Manos from comment #100)
> It has been more than a year since Chrome switched to 64 bits
> for all users

The 32-bit version is still the default on Windows, isn't it? So few Windows users will be on a 64-bit version.

> Also, the answer "Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol]" gave is completely
> unacceptable. I am unsure how he meant it (especially if English isn't his
> mother tongue) but it read like "You can't threaten us of switching browsers
> since there aren't any others left that do what we USED to do but don't
> wanna anymore".

You're right, English is not my mother tongue, Polish is. Note that I'm not affiliated with Mozilla so it certainly couldn't mean "you can't threaten us" as I have no decisive power here.

I meant that most other browser vendors decided that plugins are insecure and should disappear so if Mozilla continued to support NPAPI plugins Mozilla would be an exception, not other vendors. So if someone says "Mozilla doesn't listen to users, I'll switch to another browser" then the truth is there is no other popular browser on Windows that fits here.

I've seen a lot of people using Firefox having random NPAPI plugins installed because some sites required them. This is making those users insecure and reflects poorly on Firefox. Ditching support for most NPAPI plugins is required to make such problems disappear; whether support is kept only for Flash (like in Edge/Chrome) or some other NPAPI plugins as well is a separate issue but I think sth definitely had to be restricted here.

Of course I wish NPAPI disappeared completely, including Flash but that doesn't sound realistic currently.
(In reply to Manos from comment #100)
> 100 comments and still the FF devs appear unwavering in their decision. the
> "Use the x32 bit version" answer is, simply put, unacceptable. When users go
> to the trouble of looking for a x64 browser it means the x32 version doesn't
> work for them. It has been more than a year since Chrome switched to 64 bits
> for all users and now that a FF version is on the horizon it appears with
> the caveat that you can have a 64-bit FF but forego functionality that you
> took for granted.
> 
> I fully understand the benefits of the full-slate approach but the reality
> is that you can't go playing a game of chicken on the backs of your users.
> Also, the answer "Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol]" gave is completely
> unacceptable. I am unsure how he meant it (especially if English isn't his
> mother tongue) but it read like "You can't threaten us of switching browsers
> since there aren't any others left that do what we USED to do but don't
> wanna anymore".
> 
> And FYI, Cyberbox is based on FF, it has TWO x64 STABLE builds (one Intel,
> one AMD optimized) and does what your users are asking for out-of-the-box
> (plus it's faster than stock FF to boot) and they have also released their
> "Profile Buddy" app which basically transfers the profile from ANY
> Mozilla-based browser to ANY other so switching over to another
> FF-derivative is a 5-minute job with uninterrupted work-flow.
> 
> After 15 years of using FF and nothing else (since Netscape really) I have
> finally had enough and switched to Cyberfox and frankly, I don't see me
> coming back. THEIR developers actually listen to user feedback.

WORD.

Any other excuses are just that: excuses. 

BTW, Cyberfox is working beautifully for me -  Silverlight, Java etc work just fine after allowing them in the plugin control panel. 

I no longer need any more FF shenanigans at this point. Good job, Mozilla devs....
(In reply to Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol] from comment #104)
> (In reply to Manos from comment #100)
> > It has been more than a year since Chrome switched to 64 bits
> > for all users
> 
> The 32-bit version is still the default on Windows, isn't it? So few Windows
> users will be on a 64-bit version.
> 
> > Also, the answer "Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol]" gave is completely
> > unacceptable. I am unsure how he meant it (especially if English isn't his
> > mother tongue) but it read like "You can't threaten us of switching browsers
> > since there aren't any others left that do what we USED to do but don't
> > wanna anymore".
> 
> You're right, English is not my mother tongue, Polish is. Note that I'm not
> affiliated with Mozilla so it certainly couldn't mean "you can't threaten
> us" as I have no decisive power here.
> 
> I meant that most other browser vendors decided that plugins are insecure
> and should disappear so if Mozilla continued to support NPAPI plugins
> Mozilla would be an exception, not other vendors. So if someone says
> "Mozilla doesn't listen to users, I'll switch to another browser" then the
> truth is there is no other popular browser on Windows that fits here.
> 
> I've seen a lot of people using Firefox having random NPAPI plugins
> installed because some sites required them. This is making those users
> insecure and reflects poorly on Firefox. Ditching support for most NPAPI
> plugins is required to make such problems disappear; whether support is kept
> only for Flash (like in Edge/Chrome) or some other NPAPI plugins as well is
> a separate issue but I think sth definitely had to be restricted here.
> 
> Of course I wish NPAPI disappeared completely, including Flash but that
> doesn't sound realistic currently.

This explanation is fishy.

Who cares, if other verdors drop support for something? As long Mozila supports more than others, its products are superior. If web standards go or plugins like Silverlight die or all video portals stop supporting them, Mozilla can still stop supporting them then. Just because Chrome and Edge do not support something, does not mean Firefox shouldn't. In fact supporting more than others could persuade more users to switch to Firefox, because it offers more!

"I've seen a lot of people using Firefox having random NPAPI plugins installed"
Who cares? And whitelisting Silverlight would not harm anyone as this seems to be the most popular plugin request. You can blacklist all **** plugins, but not the ones still used by major/big online portals.

Yes, Firefox x64 is not officially released, but wouldn't it be better to solve these kind of issues with power users and the ones who care before unleashing a possible sh!tstorm once Fx x64 goes live for the public?
(In reply to Aris from comment #106)
> Who cares, if other verdors drop support for something? As long Mozila
> supports more than others, its products are superior. If web standards go or
> plugins like Silverlight die or all video portals stop supporting them,
> Mozilla can still stop supporting them then.

That's not really how reality works. No VOD would switch from Silverlight just because the alternative is more secure, they don't care. They started dropping Silverlight in favor of EME only because Chrome dropped Silverlight and they had to do it.

> Just because Chrome and Edge do
> not support something, does not mean Firefox shouldn't. In fact supporting
> more than others could persuade more users to switch to Firefox, because it
> offers more!

More security bugs related to plugins, you mean? Because that's one consequence.

> "I've seen a lot of people using Firefox having random NPAPI plugins
> installed"
> Who cares?

If you don't care about users security then I wouldn't want your views to influence Mozilla devs. Security is important.

> And whitelisting Silverlight would not harm anyone as this seems
> to be the most popular plugin request. You can blacklist all **** plugins,
> but not the ones still used by major/big online portals.
> 
> Yes, Firefox x64 is not officially released, but wouldn't it be better to
> solve these kind of issues with power users and the ones who care before
> unleashing a possible sh!tstorm once Fx x64 goes live for the public?

I didn't see any drop in Chrome browser usage in the last months:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-201408-201508
even though Chrome dropped Silverlight completely. The fact that Chrome dropped NPAPI made a lot of large sites switch to EME. It worked.
Why should Firefox users care about what Chrome does and does not? If they would care, they would switch to Chrome.

How whitelistening Silverlight for Fx x64 would lower browsers security, if Silverlight for Fx x86 does not?
(In reply to Aris from comment #108)
> Why should Firefox users care about what Chrome does and does not? If they
> would care, they would switch to Chrome.
> 
> How whitelistening Silverlight for Fx x64 would lower browsers security, if
> Silverlight for Fx x86 does not?

Can't agree you anymore!! 

Now I am happily using Cyberfox without any problem.
I've read all comments above, and they make me wondering, why only Silverlight/Java/Flash is mentioned there, what about others?
What about corporate targeted plugins, like integration with MS Sharepoint/Office, Webex, secure file exchange systems like EMC Documentum? Or Mozilla basically saying "For corporate stuff use IE"? I don't think that this is good message.
Second thing I want to ask: what about games? Battlefield 4 uses plugin to communicate between browser and game, currently Chrome x64 is officially supported, Firefox is not, because there is no official release yet, but with one small trick plugin is working fine in Firefox. With current plugin block, Mozilla is saying "If you want our x64 browser, you must use some other browser to play your favorite game". Again, is this a good message to users? They may think: "I want to use the advantages of x64, but with Firefox I need an additional browser with profile for game, but maybe it is better to switch to browser which is able to provide both of above in one instance?". Do you really want this happen?
I expect that there are more cases where plugin block make users unhappy, but they would remain undiscovered until very last moment, when x64 Firefox would be officially promoted, and then "surprisingly" strike, so I propose to reconsider current state, and remove this useless block.
(In reply to Phoenix from comment #111)
> I've read all comments above, and they make me wondering, why only
> Silverlight/Java/Flash is mentioned there, what about others?
> What about corporate targeted plugins, like integration with MS
> Sharepoint/Office

Even Microsoft is punting on those things as Edge doesn't support plugins. Most things can be achieved in another way and plugins are insecure.

If a plugin system allowed plugins to do absolutely everything then you could have even more useful plugins created. But that doesn't mean supporting such a plugin system would be a good idea. Security would suffer.

> Webex, secure file exchange systems like EMC Documentum?
> Or Mozilla basically saying "For corporate stuff use IE"? I don't think that
> this is good message.

No, it's "switch your corporate stuff to a modern web stack" and "use IE temporarily if you have to". Even Microsoft is saying that.

> Second thing I want to ask: what about games? Battlefield 4 uses plugin to
> communicate between browser and game, currently Chrome x64 is officially
> supported, Firefox is not, because there is no official release yet, but
> with one small trick plugin is working fine in Firefox. With current plugin
> block, Mozilla is saying "If you want our x64 browser, you must use some
> other browser to play your favorite game". Again, is this a good message to
> users?

Chrome doesn't support plugins so they surely don't maintain a Chrome plugin but do it in a different way. Why do they have to use a plugin for Firefox?

> They may think: "I want to use the advantages of x64, but with
> Firefox I need an additional browser with profile for game, but maybe it is
> better to switch to browser which is able to provide both of above in one
> instance?". Do you really want this happen?

Which browser? From popular Windows ones only IE remains.

> I expect that there are more cases where plugin block make users unhappy,
> but they would remain undiscovered until very last moment, when x64 Firefox
> would be officially promoted, and then "surprisingly" strike, so I propose
> to reconsider current state, and remove this useless block.

This is not a secret knowledge, you can already Google how people reacted to Chrome dropping plugins. Some were disappointed but most Chrome users remained Chrome users. This shows plugins are not such terribly important to most users.
I stopped support MS browser a while back on my sites. I put a simple message up when the browser is detected to come back when they have a secure browser.

That said it isn't google's, or mozilla's job to hold users hands. 

Silver light is probably one of the worst security holes on the web not surprising since again it belongs to MS.

Companies created plugins because browsers offered a huge cost resource savings when it came to creating an application that could do stuff over the internet.

The ability to use Java in a browser meant not only could games be created with it but tones of business software used around server management and other types. Google was stupid by a long shot when it came to dropping support for java. They did it at a time Java was growing in web development. Java is on more stuff than even chrome is. That in itself should tell you who should be doing the back bending. That doesn't even cover the stuff like science and class room ware that is in use.

If you look at just 1 game runescape you have millions of users who suddenly jump ship. Yet, you don't see those stats reported to the effect. You also don't see the IT groups who used it being reported. They obviously did have to leave it because chrome no longer supported what they needed.

Right now there is a 64 bit version of firefox developer edition. Unfortunately 64bit Java isn't working with it.

My biggest issue right now is with Mozilla and blocking all self signed SSL certificates. It is like they completely forgot about internal networks and so on. Can you image if an IT person has to go around to each and every work station to add a cert CA so their internal stuff works. It isn't like you use a CA and get cert and waste money on it. Just goes to show how much SSL is nothing more than a scam to get money or more it is treated that way. If these people were really concerned about your security SSL certs would be free and every site would be encouraged to get one as easy as possible. Then you wouldn't have stuff like session theft and other issues. But the fact is SSL has been treated a cash cow since it was created. Now we have Mozilla adding to the problem.
(In reply to Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol] from comment #112)
> Even Microsoft is punting on those things as Edge doesn't support plugins.
Currently not supporting, but Edge as other their new stuff is half-baked )

> No, it's "switch your corporate stuff to a modern web stack" and "use IE
> temporarily if you have to". Even Microsoft is saying that.
And Microsoft will pay migration costs for that? No? How sad )
Also Microsoft says that Apps is a future, and there is no place for Firefox in that future, do you also support that? )

> Chrome doesn't support plugins so they surely don't maintain a Chrome plugin
> but do it in a different way.
I always amazed how people make solid statements about things they don't have any idea about )))

> This shows plugins are not such terribly important to most users.
Right, and Firefox user base is so huge, so it can afford throwing away a lot of current and potential users in try to mimic Chrome ))
With such followers I'm optimistic about it's future ))
(In reply to Phoenix from comment #114)
> (In reply to Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol] from comment #112)
> > Even Microsoft is punting on those things as Edge doesn't support plugins.
> Currently not supporting, but Edge as other their new stuff is half-baked )

No, not "Currently", Edge will never support plugins. They plan to add support for extensions.

> > Chrome doesn't support plugins so they surely don't maintain a Chrome plugin
> > but do it in a different way.
> I always amazed how people make solid statements about things they don't
> have any idea about )))

Leave your snarky tone at home and don't write useless sentences when you have nothing to say. Unless this was about yourself. Chrome supports only PPAPI plugins and only ones that come with Chrome. You can't install any plugin in Chrome.

> > This shows plugins are not such terribly important to most users.
> Right, and Firefox user base is so huge, so it can afford throwing away a
> lot of current and potential users in try to mimic Chrome ))

Chrome didn't lose any significant number of users when it dropped plugins. This proves you think they are way more important than they really are.
(In reply to Phoenix from comment #111)
> Second thing I want to ask: what about games?

http://www.gamepix.com/blog/the-big-list-of-html5-3d-games-engines/

(In reply to hayes.gr from comment #113)
> My biggest issue right now is with Mozilla and blocking all self signed SSL
> certificates.

Off topic, but this may be helpful https://letsencrypt.org/
@Michał Gołębiowski

Please stop excusing Firefox regression with bs like "...blablabla but this is what Google Chrome did blablabla...". How many times users have to tell people like you Firefox users do not care about Chrome. If Firefox users would want to use Chrome, they would use it!


Stop this madness and nonsense and just allow plug-ins for Firefox x64 and let users decide what they want to use. An info screen/tab about every new installed plug-in asking whether a user wants to use/accept it or not is secure enough. Your users are not as stupid as you think and can handle themselves. If you think they can not, just tell them to switch to your beloved Chrome or Edge!
(In reply to Aris from comment #117)
> Stop this madness and nonsense and just allow plug-ins for Firefox x64 and
> let users decide what they want to use.

I've already explained why this is not an acceptable solution long term as security suffers because of it but you chose to ignore it.

> Your users are not as stupid as you think and can handle themselves.

You don't have to be stupid to get unwanted plugins installed that harm user security, it's enough to be not deeply technical (and even such users sometimes get harmed by unwanted plugins, it happens). It's very condescending to disregard the interest of these users in such a way. They won't voice it themselves as they won't connect catching malware with security holes in Firefox plugins but that doesn't make it less important.
(In reply to Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol] from comment #118)
> (In reply to Aris from comment #117)
> > Stop this madness and nonsense and just allow plug-ins for Firefox x64 and
> > let users decide what they want to use.
> 
> I've already explained why this is not an acceptable solution long term as
> security suffers because of it but you chose to ignore it.
> 
> > Your users are not as stupid as you think and can handle themselves.
> 
> You don't have to be stupid to get unwanted plugins installed that harm user
> security, it's enough to be not deeply technical (and even such users
> sometimes get harmed by unwanted plugins, it happens). It's very
> condescending to disregard the interest of these users in such a way. They
> won't voice it themselves as they won't connect catching malware with
> security holes in Firefox plugins but that doesn't make it less important.

Is this really your answer again?

If Mozilla would drop plug-in support for all operation systems, for all products and for both editions (x86 and x64) and only then your "security suffers..." answer would make sense. Are you really thinking non-experienced users switch to Firefox x64?

Clear statements would be
1. drop ALL plug-in support everywhere (x64 and x86), because of security issues or
2. keep ALL plug-in support everywhere (x64 and x86), so users can decide what they want.
(In reply to Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol] from comment #118)
> (In reply to Aris from comment #117)
> > Stop this madness and nonsense and just allow plug-ins for Firefox x64 and
> > let users decide what they want to use.
> 
> I've already explained why this is not an acceptable solution long term as
> security suffers because of it but you chose to ignore it.

I understand the reasoning and security aspect of it, however, why is there not an opt-out of this enforced plugin restriction? This is not a Apple product, so please stop deciding for me on what I can and cannot do.

> 
> > Your users are not as stupid as you think and can handle themselves.
> 
> You don't have to be stupid to get unwanted plugins installed that harm user
> security, it's enough to be not deeply technical (and even such users
> sometimes get harmed by unwanted plugins, it happens). It's very
> condescending to disregard the interest of these users in such a way. They
> won't voice it themselves as they won't connect catching malware with
> security holes in Firefox plugins but that doesn't make it less important.

Isn't it already sufficient to just implement a whitelist for known and "often used" plugins, such as Flash or Silverlight. Those on the whitelist are enabled by default (on ask to activate basis), while everything not found on that list will be completely disabled by default?

There. Security without having the drawback of loosing compatibility with plugins and websites completely.
(In reply to Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol] from comment #115)
> (In reply to Phoenix from comment #114)
> > I always amazed how people make solid statements about things they don't
> > have any idea about )))
> 
> Leave your snarky tone at home and don't write useless sentences when you
> have nothing to say.
Don't tell me what to do, and I don't tell you where you should go with such advices ;)
Because you should start from yourself with that

> Chrome didn't lose any significant number of users when it dropped plugins.
> This proves you think they are way more important than they really are.
That proves that you thinking that Chrome and Firefox userbase is the same, reality may surprise you )
But as I said before - your "support" doesn't help make Firefox better )

(In reply to Anthony Jones (:kentuckyfriedtakahe, :k17e) from comment #116)
> (In reply to Phoenix from comment #111)
> > Second thing I want to ask: what about games?
> 
> http://www.gamepix.com/blog/the-big-list-of-html5-3d-games-engines/

I'm talking about real games, not low-performance stuff with graphics from late nineties ;)
(In reply to Phoenix from comment #121)
> > Chrome didn't lose any significant number of users when it dropped plugins.
> > This proves you think they are way more important than they really are.
> That proves that you thinking that Chrome and Firefox userbase is the same,
> reality may surprise you )
> But as I said before - your "support" doesn't help make Firefox better )

Do you have any data to back up the claim Firefox users need plugins more than Chrome users? Firefox is a very popular browser and many of its users are non-technical and don't even know what plugins are. They just like their browser and they don't want malware on their machines.

> (In reply to Anthony Jones (:kentuckyfriedtakahe, :k17e) from comment #116)
> > (In reply to Phoenix from comment #111)
> > > Second thing I want to ask: what about games?
> > 
> > http://www.gamepix.com/blog/the-big-list-of-html5-3d-games-engines/
> 
> I'm talking about real games, not low-performance stuff with graphics from
> late nineties ;)

This is coming. See:
http://blogs.unity3d.com/2015/05/28/web-publishing-following-chrome-npapi-deprecation/
Even benchmarks from a year ago:
http://blogs.unity3d.com/2014/10/07/benchmarking-unity-performance-in-webgl/
show that the gap between WebGL & native is getting smaller. The latter article mentions SIMD penalty in JavaScript but SIMD is coming to JS. The future is bigger than the past.
(In reply to Michał Gołębiowski [:m_gol] from comment #122)
> (In reply to Phoenix from comment #121)
> > > Chrome didn't lose any significant number of users when it dropped plugins.
> > > This proves you think they are way more important than they really are.
> > That proves that you thinking that Chrome and Firefox userbase is the same,
> > reality may surprise you )
> > But as I said before - your "support" doesn't help make Firefox better )
> 
> Do you have any data to back up the claim Firefox users need plugins more
> than Chrome users? Firefox is a very popular browser and many of its users
> are non-technical and don't even know what plugins are. They just like their
> browser and they don't want malware on their machines.
> 
> > (In reply to Anthony Jones (:kentuckyfriedtakahe, :k17e) from comment #116)
> > > (In reply to Phoenix from comment #111)
> > > > Second thing I want to ask: what about games?
> > > 
> > > http://www.gamepix.com/blog/the-big-list-of-html5-3d-games-engines/
> > 
> > I'm talking about real games, not low-performance stuff with graphics from
> > late nineties ;)
> 
> This is coming. See:
> http://blogs.unity3d.com/2015/05/28/web-publishing-following-chrome-npapi-
> deprecation/
> Even benchmarks from a year ago:
> http://blogs.unity3d.com/2014/10/07/benchmarking-unity-performance-in-webgl/
> show that the gap between WebGL & native is getting smaller. The latter
> article mentions SIMD penalty in JavaScript but SIMD is coming to JS. The
> future is bigger than the past.

It is getting smaller. It is not there yet and will probably take quite some time to catch up in all browsers to make this a true viable alternative. There is tons of older content that does not use WebGL yet and probably never will, as it has been abandoned or some other issue has arisen, preventing the move to WebGL.
There is also only a convenient export function to WebGL for Unity3D. There isn't one for Flash, Silverlight, Java and so on.

Also, anybody involved in the development of Firefox has yet to explain as to why the change was implemented the way it has been implemented. You have never justified this or contradicted any of my earlier comments:
Why whitelist only a single plugin?
Why block/hide plugins completely, instead of just disabling shovelware/unknown/insecure plugins and have known plugins (from the whitelist) as "ask to activate"?
Why is it no longer in the users control, which plugins where and when to use?
Why is 64bit treated differently?
Why alienate people who were using 64bit builds for years, forcing them to switch back to 32bit builds, or worse, a completely different browser?
Give me my Java Applets back pleeeease... Or at least make the whitelist disableable from about:config.
(In reply to David H. from comment #123)
> There is also only a convenient export function to WebGL for Unity3D. There
> isn't one for Flash, Silverlight, Java and so on.

There's clearly a market for such a tool now so I'd expect them to show up. Google Ads can auto-convert Flash to HTML5 so it's definitely possible.

I'll punt on if it should have been done the way it's been done, i.e. by limiting only the 64-bit edition. I don't have a definite opinion on that. It was certainly easier for Chrome where they had a PPAPI Flash version so they could have just dropped NPAPI completely. Since Firefox still needs Flash, NPAPI needs to stay and when you keep the code then any limitation seems artificial. Chromium clones won't be able to support NPAPI by themselves as it'd require significant effort now that it's being dumped from the official code base. Since in Firefox the code still exists, others can just flip the switch back like I assume Cyberfox does.
"64-bit Firefox for Windows will launch without plugin support."
from https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/10/08/npapi-plugins-in-firefox/
Except Flash for now.
(In reply to Julien from comment #127)
> "64-bit Firefox for Windows will launch without plugin support."
> from
> https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/10/08/npapi-plugins-in-firefox/
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 9 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
I apologize for the delay in responding to this bug, but we wanted to be able to make a clear statement in conjunction with partners. 64-bit Firefox for Windows will launch without plugin support other than Flash. We're carefully monitoring the availability of an EME component to enable things like Netflix without Silverlight.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
(In reply to David H. from comment #123)
> It is getting smaller. It is not there yet and will probably take quite some
> time to catch up in all browsers to make this a true viable alternative.

Firefox on 64 bit Windows is leading the pack. No co-incidence.

> There is tons of older content that does not use WebGL yet and probably
> never will, as it has been abandoned or some other issue has arisen,
> preventing the move to WebGL.

I'm assuming you're talking about the aforementioned "low-performance stuff with graphics from late nineties".

> There is also only a convenient export function to WebGL for Unity3D. There
> isn't one for Flash, Silverlight, Java and so on.

The plug-ins could be ported to WebAssembly but it seems unlikely that they'll receive significant investment. PNaCl addons such as Flash could conceivably be recompiled to WebAssembly.

Benjamin has answered many of your questions in his blog post and he is most qualified to give you an official answer. I work on media playback so I can't give you an official answer. The decision has been made but I have been doing my best to answer your questions and provide some insight.

Despite our best efforts it is not always clear why Mozilla is making any specific decision. More often that not it comes down to priorities. It follows this pattern:

Q. Why didn't you do X?
A. Because Y was more important

We don't want to maintain NPAPI because it is costly to maintain and plug-in based content is in decline. It has been in decline since Flash was abandoned on mobile. It sounds like a cop-out but other browsers dropping NPAPI support puts it into a faster decline. So we end up with this:

Q. Why aren't you maintaining support for NPAPI?
A. Because web technologies such as WebAssembly, WebAudio, WebGL and EME are more important

> Why is 64bit treated differently?

It has never been released so there is no precedent.

It also doesn't make sense to debug 64 bit NPAPI plug-ins on the eve of their demise. Flash is an exception because it has the lion's share of plug-in based content. There is sufficient Flash content that it is worth expending the effort in the medium term.

> Why alienate people who were using 64bit builds for years, forcing them to
> switch back to 32bit builds, or worse, a completely different browser?

So we can avoid withdrawing features from the release version of 64-bit Firefox on Windows. Only pre-release users will need to switch back to 32 bit builds and these people have by their actions chosen this path.

Whether you realise it or not, by using a pre-release channel you are using choosing to use software which includes features that may not make it to the final release. You might not notice, but it is something that happens all the time.
Has Amazon stopped supporting flash for instant video?  I get this message popup when I try to watch under 64-bit Firefox:

Microsoft Silverlight is not installed
Install the free Silverlight plug-in; it will just take a minute. Please refresh this page when the installation completes.  If you have issues after installing, restart your browser and try again. If the issue persists, try using our new HTML5 video player on Chrome, Internet Explorer 11, Microsoft Edge or Opera.

No mention of Firefox for the HTML5 player.  I've had to revert to 32 bit firefox to watch Amazon videos.
(In reply to Chris S. from comment #132)
> Has Amazon stopped supporting flash for instant video?  I get this message
> popup when I try to watch under 64-bit Firefox:

Thanks for reporting this change in behavior, Chris. I see the same message when I try to play Amazon Instant Video in Firefox (on OS X or 32-bit Windows) without Silverlight.
¡Hola!

Just another data point:

"A plug-in is required for certain Lync Web App features, including computer-based voice, video, sharing, and viewing of ongoing screen sharing. You can install the sharing plug-in either when you join the meeting or when you initiate one of these features"[1]

When joining such meeting on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:44.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/44.0 ID:20151023030245 CSet: 0625c68c0abcfe4d10880d15d8fe7d06df3369c9 LWAPlugin64BitInstaller64.msi is offered and installed but doesn't show in about:plugins

Had to revert to 32 bit Firefox to see the screen sharing for the meeting.

¡Gracias!

1 https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg425820%28v=ocs.15%29.aspx
Summary: Some plugins (Microsoft Silverlight, Java,...) are not recognized as installed with Firefox 64-bit build on Win64 → Some plugins (Silverlight, Lync Web App, Java, ...) are not recognized as installed with Firefox 64-bit build on Win64
Looks like we need Silverlight support for Firefox x64 after all. ;-)

So, could you now consider "white listing" it? It ridiculous having to switch browsers or browser editions just because Firefox x64 offers "incomplete" and "improper" plug-in support. Or is the number of Firefox x64 users that also use Amazon Prime Instant Video not big and important enough?
I am happily using Cyberfox 64 bit 41.0.3 and silverlight is OK.
You just forced me and the entire company away from Firefox.

Since we run on x64 Windows with lots of RAM we surely want to use the best browser available witch would have been Firefox v42 x64.
But without Silverlight support it's unusable to me and all co-workers. 
We also use Lync and that's not available either.
Most customers will have to skip this browser to.

Also privately I can't use it since I mainly use it to watch Netflix and with no Silverlight I have no use for it. Will have to search for a x64 compiled mozilla clone that have all plugins available.

I really can't see why you let Flash stay active and all other like Silverlight and Java completely unavailable. At least allow us to make our own choices. Don't be Apple!
¡Hola Micke!

(In reply to Micke Forsberg from comment #138)
> You just forced me and the entire company away from Firefox.
> 
> Since we run on x64 Windows with lots of RAM we surely want to use the best
> browser available witch would have been Firefox v42 x64.
> But without Silverlight support it's unusable to me and all co-workers. 

Microsoft only supports 64-bit Silverlight on Internet Explorer anyway, see https://www.microsoft.com/getsilverlight/locale/en-us/html/installation-win-SL5.html


> We also use Lync and that's not available either.

I've already reported this on https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1187005#c134

> Also privately I can't use it since I mainly use it to watch Netflix and
> with no Silverlight I have no use for it. Will have to search for a x64
> compiled mozilla clone that have all plugins available.
> 

Netflix works for me sans' plugins, not even Flash, thanks to the Content Decryption Module (CDM) mentioned at https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-rights-management-and-firefox/

¡Gracias!
Alex
(In reply to alex_mayorga from comment #139)

> Microsoft only supports 64-bit Silverlight on Internet Explorer anyway, see
> https://www.microsoft.com/getsilverlight/locale/en-us/html/installation-win-
> SL5.html

Actually that is not true. Firefox 40 x64 beta build worked fine with Silverlight x64.
(In reply to Aris from comment #140)
> (In reply to alex_mayorga from comment #139)
> 
> > Microsoft only supports 64-bit Silverlight on Internet Explorer anyway, see
> > https://www.microsoft.com/getsilverlight/locale/en-us/html/installation-win-
> > SL5.html
> 
> Actually that is not true. Firefox 40 x64 beta build worked fine with
> Silverlight x64.

worked != supported
(In reply to Micke Forsberg from comment #138)
> Also privately I can't use it since I mainly use it to watch Netflix and
> with no Silverlight I have no use for it. Will have to search for a x64
> compiled mozilla clone that have all plugins available.

Palemoon is your friend
(In reply to Phoenix from comment #142)
> (In reply to Micke Forsberg from comment #138)
> > Also privately I can't use it since I mainly use it to watch Netflix and
> > with no Silverlight I have no use for it. Will have to search for a x64
> > compiled mozilla clone that have all plugins available.
> 
> Palemoon is your friend
Please cut the nagging about palemoon, that's not Firefox any more..

" The differences are increasingly significant as time passes. Pale Moon will remain close to Firefox in many parts of the code to ensure compatibility with as many add-ons as possible, but should be considered a "fork" and a totally independent product. "

I want to be able to use x64 Firefox when Mozilla finally has understood that people want a x64 browser.
(In reply to Micke Forsberg from comment #143)
> I want to be able to use x64 Firefox when Mozilla finally has understood
> that people want a x64 browser.

Which doesn't look to happen ;)
(In reply to Phoenix from comment #144)
> (In reply to Micke Forsberg from comment #143)
> > I want to be able to use x64 Firefox when Mozilla finally has understood
> > that people want a x64 browser.
> 
> Which doesn't look to happen ;)
Unfortunately not. :(
My guess is Mozilla want to put down Firefox and force all users to move to IE, Chrome and other small browsers that still have users in their first interest. Sad..:(
One of the reasons so many turned to Mozilla Firefox was the ability to customize it and make it "your own" browser. If they kill that part of it many will turn away. And making this amount of sites inaccessible is just insane. Perhaps the huge movie sites have the money to convert their players to HTML5 and so on but small and medium sized companies that have intranets and so on built on Silverlight, Java, Quicktime and so on probably don't have the money to go out and buy new systems and convert all their sites to new ones. :(
Guys, can you please stop bug-spamming? Bugzilla is no forum. If you want to discuss please use the mailing lists. Thanks. I didn't subscribe to this bug to get troll comments like "My guess is Mozilla want to put down Firefox and force all users to move to IE".
(In reply to Sören Hentzschel from comment #146)
> Guys, can you please stop bug-spamming? 
I am sorry about that, I just got so furious since we finally have a x64 official Firefox.. And just to realize it is broken.
(In reply to Micke Forsberg from comment #147)
> (In reply to Sören Hentzschel from comment #146)
> > Guys, can you please stop bug-spamming? 
> I am sorry about that, I just got so furious since we finally have a x64
> official Firefox.. And just to realize it is broken.

Well, NPAPI plugin technology is still used a lot, but it's no secret that it's going down the hill; and AFAIK these plugins have always been compiled and published by various software manufacturers, not by the browser manufacturers themselves. IMHO it's up to those third parties to publish either 64-bit versions of their plugins, or a source that can be compiled to make them (or, IMHO preferably, both). I am on the x86_64 version of openSUSE Linux, with 64-bit Firefox, SeaMonkey, Konqueror, et al., and I have a number of 64-bit NPAPI plugins which integrate seamlessly with my browsers. It's a pity Windows users can't find the same, but IMHO it isn't Firefox which is broken, it is whatever plugins which aren't available as 64-bit versions now that the current releases of all modern OSes support 64-bit architecture.
Besides the already white-listed and working Adobe Flash x64 plug-in there are x64 plug-ins of Java and Silverlight available for Windows, Mozilla just decided not to allow/support them in official Firefox x64 builds (they worked in Fx40b9). It was not a choice made by NPAPI plug-in developers and it also was not what users wanted. This issue is completely caused by Mozilla or in this case the devs who think they have to follow MS Edge or Google Chrome and its forks just to keep users save from "potential security issues", even if it means losing a part of the user base.

It is simple politics. Nobody cares what people/users want and nobody thinks there are people/users that can handle themselves.
(In reply to Tony Mechelynck [:tonymec] from comment #148)
> (In reply to Micke Forsberg from comment #147)
> > (In reply to Sören Hentzschel from comment #146)
> > > Guys, can you please stop bug-spamming? 
> > I am sorry about that, I just got so furious since we finally have a x64
> > official Firefox.. And just to realize it is broken.
> 
> Well, NPAPI plugin technology is still used a lot, but it's no secret that
> it's going down the hill; and AFAIK these plugins have always been compiled
> and published by various software manufacturers, not by the browser
> manufacturers themselves. IMHO it's up to those third parties to publish
> either 64-bit versions of their plugins, or a source that can be compiled to
> make them (or, IMHO preferably, both). I am on the x86_64 version of
> openSUSE Linux, with 64-bit Firefox, SeaMonkey, Konqueror, et al., and I
> have a number of 64-bit NPAPI plugins which integrate seamlessly with my
> browsers. It's a pity Windows users can't find the same, but IMHO it isn't
> Firefox which is broken, it is whatever plugins which aren't available as
> 64-bit versions now that the current releases of all modern OSes support
> 64-bit architecture.

There are 64-bit versions of Silverlight and Java that have previously worked with 64-bit version of Firefox. This is not a technological problem.
(In reply to Aris from comment #149)
> it also was not what users wanted.

Please don't speak for all users, you are not the representant of the world. I don't share your opinion. As I said in an earlier comment: I support the opinion that Silverlight should be supported, but a) only Silverlight besides Flash, no other plugin and b) only for a short transition period, not in the long term. That's my opinion. And I am a user. My opinion is not better than your opinion, but your opinion is also not better than my opinion, both are just opinions.
(In reply to Sören Hentzschel from comment #151)
> (In reply to Aris from comment #149)
> > it also was not what users wanted.
> 
> Please don't speak for all users, you are not the representant of the world.
> I don't share your opinion. As I said in an earlier comment: I support the
> opinion that Silverlight should be supported, but a) only Silverlight
> besides Flash, no other plugin and b) only for a short transition period,
> not in the long term. That's my opinion. And I am a user. My opinion is not
> better than your opinion, but your opinion is also not better than my
> opinion, both are just opinions.
And we saw just 2 or 3 supporters for your "opinions", and more than 10 for opposite, so he can represent more people than you ;)
You are kidding, right? The point of my comment was that he (or anyone else) can't speak for all users. I don't want represent anyone. I don't care how many people have opinion A and how many people have opinion B. He spoke for all users, I didn't.

By the way, the quotation marks around the word "opinion" are disrespectful…
(In reply to Sören Hentzschel from comment #153)
> You are kidding, right? 
Not really

> The point of my comment was that he (or anyone else)
> can't speak for all users.
Right, but he's speech aligns with more people than yours ;)
That's not the point. I didn't know that my comment was so difficult to understand. It does not matter if one or ten users say that they have the same opinion. Bugzilla comments are in no way representative.
I have no idea what do you want to say, but I won't longer feed a troll, have a nice evening.
Can someone please restrict comments on this bug?
(In reply to Oli from comment #159)
> Can someone please restrict comments on this bug?

This seems to be a reasonable place to let people voice their opinion. People are upset because they want 64 bit Firefox but they aren't prepared to give up their favourite NPAPI plug-in.

Those who want the memory benefits of 64 bit without giving up NPAPI, you can try experimental e10s support using:

browser.tabs.remote.autostart=true
dom.ipc.processCount=16

This will allow up to 16 separate content processes giving you access to many more gigabytes of memory.
I really don't like it when people start to troll each other online, that's not OK!

What I really try to get out to devs and Mozilla here is that allot of their users want to be able to make their own decisions. We don't want devs or corporations doing it for us.

In this case, it's ok to have all plugins disabled and perhaps even hidden to the masses in the official releases but we want to be able to activate them when we want them or need them.

And to say that flash is more needed (will affect more sites) than for say Java or Silverlight is just WRONG and so bad, who are Mozilla or the devs to say that? To decide what's to continue to live or not.

Why not ask us users before making a change to this magnitude? Before making the huge change.

Also totally disabling Silverlight and Java won't just break the huge movie sites as I said before, it will also break lots and lots of corporate intranets and so on. Meaning Mozilla will loose allot of corporate customers from a lot of really huge companies..

I know at least my company strives to use only x64 applications in our Win x64 environment. We really try do move all users from old hogging and unsafe x86 applications to new fast and safer x64 applications.

Thanks Anthony Jones for agreeing with me that this is the best place to air these questions and thoughts. Mailinglist wouldn't be correct and I know of no forum where we can speak directly to Mozilla and devs.
well looks like I can only stay on 41.0a1 until they decided to add support for older plugins for future x64 version. firefox has let me down only this once so i guess not so bad, still though would love to have it.
64-bit Silverlight will be re-enabled in Firefox 44 by bug 1225293. \o/
Depends on: 1225293
(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #165)
> 64-bit Silverlight will be re-enabled in Firefox 44 by bug 1225293. \o/

Chris, can you confirm whether this will take place in the Firefox 43 release?
(In reply to Alice Wyman from comment #166)
> Chris, can you confirm whether this will take place in the Firefox 43
> release?

Yes, 64-bit Silverlight is now enabled in Firefox 43.

One caveat: at the moment, Amazon Video won't play because it still thinks 64-bit Firefox does not support Silverlight. But if you use an extension to change your User-Agent to look like 32-bit Firefox, then Amazon Video will play. I have asked Amazon to unblock 64-bit Firefox.
Has anybody here tried to contact Amazon and tell them to unblock Firefox x64 for Amazon Instand Video?

ATM they neither support Adobe Flash x64 nor MS Silverlight x64, because Fx x64 is being completely blocked by Amazon Instand Video.
(In reply to Aris from comment #169)
> Has anybody here tried to contact Amazon and tell them to unblock Firefox
> x64 for Amazon Instand Video?

Yes. We've contacted Amazon and they promised to unblock 64-bit Firefox in January. In the meantime, you can use an extension like "User Agent Switcher" to tell Amazon your 64-bit Firefox is a 32-bit Firefox.
As of today, Amazon Video no longer blocks 64-bit Firefox. User-Agent trickery is no longer necessary. :)
Hopefully you folks realize that this "WONTFIX bug" in 64bit FF for Windows also affects in-browser PDF reader plugins like Foxit and Adobe Acrobat Reader?

I didn't. Took several hours to figure it out.

Wasn't helped by the fact that the current web documentation for this issue is rather sparse. Now that the Win64 version is officially out there where clueless sysadmins like me can stumble onto it, maybe this lack of NPAPI plugin support in the Win64 version needs to be more widely publicized? Something like an article that would appear in the top-ten hitlist when Googling for something like "Firefox 64bit plugins" would be a great stress-reducer.

Because lack of NPAPI support CAN be a deal-breaker. For some of us, at least.

Guess my even-more-clueless users will (eventually) just have to get used to having PDFs open in another app rather than loading into a browser window. But for now we will stay with the 32bit release(s).

(And yes, I DO know about the built-in PDF reader. Last time I checked, it was decidedly inferior to either Foxit or Adobe for anything other than the simplest documents.)
I created a tool to remove the restriction in the official x64 edition some days ago.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/pcxfirefox/files/Tools/RemoveFx41x64PluginRestrict/

patch4fx41x64-en-20150904.7z is used for 41-44 x64
patch4fx45x64-20151231.7z is used for 45+ x64

The tools are generated with diablo2oo2’s Universal Patcher v2.26.1, and the dup2project source code is in https://sourceforge.net/projects/pcxfirefox/files/Tools/RemoveFx41x64PluginRestrict/dup2project/ . If you are suspicious about the tools' security, you can use diablo2oo2’s Universal Patcher v2.26.1 to use the dup2project source code to generate the tool again yourself.
Wow! You are a real life-saver. Excellent patch, at last I can use only one browser, the way I want and I'm not restricted by a fake blockade. Thank you very much. I don't need to add that all my 64-bit plugins works just OK, of course.
I've got an idea.

Why not making an notice in "about:plugins" and "about:addons" if some plugins are disabled, and then implement a value in "about:config" that would allow the user to bypass this behavior if wanted. 
A bit like e10s that disables itself when a11y is used (and let it knows), while still allosing the user to force e10s with "browser.tabs.remote.force-enable" in "about:config".

Will save some users (like me) wasting hours on the internet to find a solution, filing a bug about this, and then noticing there's already one about that.
(In reply to Charles Milette from comment #177)
> I've got an idea.
> 
> Why not making an notice in "about:plugins" and "about:addons" if some
> plugins are disabled, and then implement a value in "about:config" that
> would allow the user to bypass this behavior if wanted. 
> A bit like e10s that disables itself when a11y is used (and let it knows),
> while still allosing the user to force e10s with
> "browser.tabs.remote.force-enable" in "about:config".
> 
> Will save some users (like me) wasting hours on the internet to find a
> solution, filing a bug about this, and then noticing there's already one
> about that.

Disabled plugins appear with [Never activate|▼] in the Plugins tab of about:addons. If they can be enabled at all in the present browser configuration, the user can do it by setting the rolldown to [Always activate|▼] (or, if plugins.click_to_play is true, to [Ask to activate|▼] for enable-on-request).
When plugins aren't whitelisted, they don't even appear in about:addons or about:plugins. What I asked is a way to disable this whitelist and be able to use all our plugins in 64-bits.
(In reply to avada from comment #27)
> (In reply to Anthony Jones (:kentuckyfriedtakahe, :k17e) from comment #23)
> > (In reply to Adam Frisby from comment #22)
> > > Chrome doesn't require Silverlight for Netflix. Firefox does. Removing
> > > Silverlight puts Firefox at a disadvantage.
> > 
> > Nobody is being forced into using 64 bit builds on Windows.
> 
> Except by circumstance, common sense. Memory usage can run away quite
> quickly these days. Pages are heavy, addons are heavy, you have html5
> videos, some pages are designed to be left open, you can open several tabs
> if you search info on something, etc, etc. On 32bit it means a lot more
> crashes.
> If I remember correctly 32bit ff crashed at around 2 gig memory usage. That
> can easily be reached.


Microsoft Edge better manages that problematic limit of 2 gbits in Firefox 32 bits.
As an alternative, Waterfox doesn't have a whitelist for 64-bits plugins.

Being limited to FF 32-bits or IE (only popular modern browsers still supporting plugins) for my Cisco classes (they require Java) is infuriating. FF 32-bits runs too easily out of memory, and I definitely don't want to use the pile of **** that is IE.

Unity games looks and runs way better than the sheer numbers of HTML5 games.

Also, please don't try to start a flame war with your last sentence.
I was not trying to start a flame war, it's the truth. At the end of the day, they disallowed plugins because they want people to use HTML5, and plugins give HTML5 competition. Plugins are only really a security risk to the type of person who would fall for one of those "virus detected" pages. (Considering you have to give the website permission to use any plugin besides flash)
I think this tread is kind of old, but I have a similar issue with

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0
Linux 4.7.0-1-amd64

and the Google hangouts plugin. It is installed, and it's working just well with Firefox Release; but Nightly doesn't detect it as installed.

As a workarround, I have two Firefox instances running: Release (hangouts only) and Nightly.
(In reply to Mauricio Navarro Miranda from comment #187)
> and the Google hangouts plugin. It is installed, and it's working just well
> with Firefox Release; but Nightly doesn't detect it as installed.

This is expected behavior. Support for NPAPI plugins other than Flash was disabled in Nightly 52 by bug 1269807.

We are talking with the Google Hangouts team. They are porting Hangouts to use WebRTC in Firefox so NPAPI plugins won't be necessary. Their port should be complete by the end of this year, before Firefox 52 drops NPAPI support in the Firefox Release channel.
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.