Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Quietly Releases Safari 3.2

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the new-shinies dept.

Software 129

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "Yesterday Apple quietly slipped out an update to their Safari Web browser to version 3.2. The notable feature is that it finally adds anti-phishing technology, an area where Safari has lagged behind competitors. Aside from that, it provides some security fixes, improved JavaScript performance, and a slightly newer version of Webkit, pulling their Acid3 score up to 77." Apple forums across the Net are reporting frequent crashes in Safari 3.2, some possibly caused by 3rd-party add-ons, others perhaps related to the anti-phishing feature.

cancel ×

129 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wat (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25776867)

first

frist psot (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25776889)

frist psot

Update of Windows version too? (1)

vanilla_face (1369183) | more than 5 years ago | (#25776897)

TFA doesn't call this out at all - does this update the Mac version only or is Windows also at 3.2?

Re:Update of Windows version too? (1, Interesting)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777861)

I didn't even know there was a Windows version of Safari.

But for that matter, this would have passed me by in any case, since even on my MacBook I still prefer to use Firefox...

Re:Update of Windows version too? (5, Informative)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778155)

Windows version is there too and it is a serious sounding security update.

The actual release notes are at http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3298 [apple.com]

You should subscribe to Apple Security Updates mailing list for non PR infested update announcements.
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/security-announce [apple.com]

Re:Update of Windows version too? (3, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778441)

TFA doesn't call this out at all - does this update the Mac version only or is Windows also at 3.2?

TFA provides a link to download the Windows version.

And? (2, Interesting)

jrothwell97 (968062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25776911)

New version of Safari. Does this mean /. is turning into a slightly more fleshed-out VersionTracker? I don't see how this is newsworthy: maybe the addition of anti-phishing capabilities would be worth mentioning in passing, but a minor update which causes a few crashes is nothing new.

Re:And? (1, Informative)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 5 years ago | (#25776993)

An update addressing one of the most important shortcomings of one of the most important web browsers; I fail to fail to find this noteworthy.

Re:And? (5, Funny)

neuromanc3r (1119631) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777001)

An update addressing one of the most important shortcomings of one of the most important web browsers;

We really need sarcasm tags.

Re:And? (0, Flamebait)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777055)

shortcoming yes, important web browser? Dude Im a mac users, a claimed Apple zealot, and all that and even I dont see the importance in Safari.

Re:And? (3, Insightful)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777137)

It's the most important for mac users. Mac users may not be the majority but I don't think it's contentious to say they're an important minority.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777187)

Ehm, he just said he *is* a mac user, and still didn't see the importance...

Re:And? (1)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777267)

Oh, well then, QED!

Re:And? (5, Insightful)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777239)

What's more, Safari is playing a great role in creating an "arms race of web standards". All in all, I'd say Safari, though not as much as Firefox, is more *important* than IE.

Re:And? (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777281)

> All in all, I'd say Safari, though not as much as Firefox, is more *important* than IE.

Why? If a site doesn't work in IE then it doesn't matter if it works in Safari - unless it's a Mac only site. If there is stuff which only works in Safari then it doesn't make any difference. Likewise, if it only breaks in Safari it doesn't make any difference. There's not many people who pay web designers to do sites for them who say 'wait - it does work properly on Safari 3.2 on Macs, doesn't it?`.

Re:And? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777987)

Why?

I guess it doesn't really matter that much. [sarcasm] Does anyone actually use IE? OK, maybe a few Windows users do. [/sarcasm] And I guess things sort of work in Opera too. Big deal. If we disregard ideologies, in my experience, pretty much anything that works in one browser will more or less work in another, at least well enough to be understood. If it doesn't, it's probably not worth looking at at all.

Re:And? (3, Insightful)

vhogemann (797994) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780011)

I have one word for you:

iPhone

See now how important Safari is? Oh, and WebKit is used on Nokia phones too, and it's becoming a major player on the embedded browser market.

Re:And? (3, Funny)

dwarg (1352059) | more than 5 years ago | (#25781787)

"iPhone Bitch!" [youtube.com]

Re:And? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25779129)

Apple certainly like to believe so, as they push it onto users with iTunes and QuickTime updates. Arms race? For eyeballs maybe but not for anything else.

Re:And? (1)

babyrat (314371) | more than 5 years ago | (#25782439)

I use a mac. Two of them actually. Typing this on my macbook right now.

I can't remember the last time I browsed the web with Safari...well maybe I can. I believe the first and only site I went to was getfirefox.com.

Re:And? (1)

lseltzer (311306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777185)

Ditto. Safari is maybe a couple percent share, and it's not likely to grow much.

The story does seem newsworthy to me though, at least by /. standards.

Re:And? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777389)

The first two things mean you are less likely to reach the third as a conclusion, not more.

Someone who didn't like the way Apple operated would be much more likely to conclude that Safari needs anti-phishing features.

Re:And? (3, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779795)

shortcoming yes, important web browser? Dude Im a mac users, a claimed Apple zealot, and all that and even I dont see the importance in Safari.

There are four major HTML rendering engines right now, two of which are commercial (Microsoft's Trident and Opera's Presto) and two of which are open-source (Mozilla's Gecko and Apple's WebKit). Of these, only WebKit is really growing right now - more and more browsers are being built on it. Safari is the reference implementation for a WebKit-based browser. That's why Safari is important.

In addition to Safari (and the mobile version of Safari used on the iPhone and iPod touch), WebKit is also used by Adobe AIR [wikipedia.org] , Google Chrome [wikipedia.org] , and Nokia's S60 browser [wikipedia.org] . Also, Konqueror [wikipedia.org] is still using their own KHTML, but they're working on switching over to Apple's fork [arstechnica.com] , eventually.

Re:And? (1)

Ofenza (928943) | more than 5 years ago | (#25781379)

I believe the importance resides in WebKit and how Safari made it (KHTML) the new rendering engine. Chrome uses it, I.E. will probably start using it to... I ask other slashdotters to correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25779573)

If you don't like the news story, why do you click Read More, then click Reply, then type out a reply and submit it? Why not just scroll past the story?

Safari still has an annoying bug... (3, Interesting)

Gundamdriver (1288510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25776913)

A bit off-topic: Both Safari 3.1 and 3.2 (@ Tiger) freezes the loading progress randomly, but ping google.com still works. I have tried to reset Safari, but it didn't help.

Re:Safari still has an annoying bug... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25776973)

This is a feature, and works as promised. Such as the feature of Safari using 100% CPU power when its sitting idle viewing google.com or slashdot.com. Mr. Jobs wants us to be more simple.

Please post your windows-loving anti-mac rhetoric somewhere else.

Re:Safari still has an annoying bug... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777985)

Not too surprising. Safari updates have often been problematic. Check out MacFixit. Or just stay with Firefox.

Want to re-login 250 sites? (3, Informative)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778131)

I tell you the real annoying bug. It erases cookies sometimes. Yes, the file itself (~Library/Cookies/Cookies.plist). It was documented by unsanity and said to be fixed at least on Intel but we, poor PPC users who made the mistake of jumping to Leopard still suffer from it.

http://www.unsanity.org/archives/apple/apple_hates_bug_filers.php [unsanity.org]

Ironically, it generally hits you when you report a bug to Apple, that is where the title comes from.

I had to restore 2.2 MB of cookies from Time Machine today.

APPLE STOP HURTING INNOCENT ANIMALS (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25776927)

Apple Computer wants you to "safari" with its beguiling browser, but I would rather take a nice walk in the park and feed sqiuirrels. I don't get what the thing is with apples and their animal-shooting madness, it is probably because they have small penises? Anyway I have a very large penis so I don't need to kill any living things. I am at harmony with the world ooommmmmmmmmm.

Re:APPLE STOP HURTING INNOCENT ANIMALS (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777247)

I would rather take a nice walk in the park and feed sqiuirrels

But 'Safari' sounds a lot cooler than 'Bag of Peanuts' as a name for a browser.

Re:APPLE STOP HURTING INNOCENT ANIMALS (1)

dosun88888 (265953) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777609)

And what better way is there to go meet Nelson Malambe or Chief John Aka Bamba, than on a Safari to their homeland?

Re:APPLE STOP HURTING INNOCENT ANIMALS (1)

Jerry Smith (806480) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778037)

I would rather take a nice walk in the park and feed sqiuirrels

But 'Safari' sounds a lot cooler than 'Bag of Peanuts' as a name for a browser.

Their former browser was called "CyberDog", and it referred to a dog just strawling around the cyberspace. "Safari" also feels like a nice trip, but in less comfortable places. Just fyi'ing. Back on topic: the anti-phishing thingy was something I was waiting for: Mac-users aren't immune to phishing, whatever they say. I did the Sonicwall Phishing Test http://www.sonicwall.com/phishing/ [sonicwall.com] with my class and none of my students passed. Most of them too gullible. Something Mac-users might or might not recognise. Good test though, absolutely worth taking!

Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (4, Interesting)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25776933)

Personally I don't use Safari (I don't have a Mac, nor do I use MS Windows). I just thought I would take the time to rant about "anti-phishing" things.

I always turn such "features" off on my own computers, and would do so on any computer where I was the "tech support" (after appropriate consultation and education).

Why? Because blacklists don't work. Want to not get phished? Simple instructions that even the most computerphobic person can understand:

When you want to go to the website of your bank, credit union etc., type in what you see on the printed material you have in front of you! (Alternatively, for the more computer literate folks, create a bookmark/favourite after having typed in the address from the printed material from your bank. And only access it via that link.)

Never trust a link via an email, never trust a link from another website, not even if the address looks the same. (Character encoding, bad eyes and other things can make two strings look the same, even when they aren't.)

Simple advice and works for everyone whom I've told it to. (The same with, "don't download files from your email unless you were expecting them, which is a bit over the top, but the slightly more complicated, don't download executable files got reduced somehow.)

End rant.

I did have a look at the article, and to be frank, there isn't anything exciting in there. It seems that the only reason this got to the front page is that Safari crashes a lot. Umm..., I guess I don't care.

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777005)

But anti-phishing is not about blacklists... Some might include that too but it is just a minor addon. Anti-phishing is about browser warning you when link with an anchor text "Your-Bank.com" is about to actually take you to "Your-Bank-fake.com".

Educating users is important but having a backup feature like that is helpful.

IF it was just anbout blacklists (blocking sites absolutely known to be scam) why would you turn it off? What harm would that do to you? :D

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (2, Interesting)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777269)

Yourbank.com [slashdot.org] ...

command.com [example.org] ...

Umm, and I seeing a problem with that idea? Yes I am.

And the reason to turn it off, it doesn't always work (false positives, and false negatives), and it leads to a false sense of security. Like running a virus checker and then not caring about downloading random shit from the web. Better to just not download random shit from the web.

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25778659)

Same AC here again (got to recover my password some day...).

False positives is a valid concern, I admit. But if users have been trained to write their address into the bar instead of clicking the links and follow those instructions this should literally never come up!

False negatives happen only in the case that user is already not following your instructions and nothing worse happens than if the feature didn't exist.

So this feature comes up when user is already not following the instructions and with false positives he just has to write the address by himself (as he should have done in the first place).

In actual risk cases the feature MIGHT save the user or then not. It can't turn anything worse.

So I think I have to go with still disagreeing with you that it should be turned off and user training is better because it comes to play only when users don't do things like they should have. In my experience this happens often and I doubt that added false sense of security does much to increase the rate.

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (2, Insightful)

TriezGamer (861238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779275)

If users could be trained, we could solve a lot of problems. Users don't care about learning, only about function.

I tried that. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777031)

I once put anit-phish [phish.com] ing on someone's computer and they told me to "chill" ans asked if I had any food.

It was such a mellow confrontation that I was drowsy all day.

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777209)

>> create a bookmark/favourite after having typed in the address from the printed material from your bank. And only access it via that link.)

Some thoughts:

* Computer-phobics today don't know how to create a bookmark. Nor type a URL. They just type what they assume is some kind of address in a google bar and click the first or second result.
* Even typing a correct URL you're not free from dns-poisoning
* Sometimes I've tried to explain those issues to a couple of friends (anthropologists for reference) and the most difficult was related to the stupid act of giving your email password to every social network that gives you an invitation. And really they got a bit scared (because in their email accounts most people stores vital information) but in the end the thing is simply too complicated for non-geeks. And it is not their fault, the problem is the design of the security infrastructure (Schneider wrote a lot about that.)

So we have this nasty anti-phishing thing, sadly necessary as antivirus are in Windows.

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (2, Interesting)

shitzu (931108) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777241)

* Even typing a correct URL you're not free from dns-poisoning

How does a blacklist of urls address that?

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777505)

Maybe blocking the url at start, so the browser never asks anything to the dns server.

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (1)

Lost Race (681080) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779077)

Blocking what URL, "http://www.citibank.com/"? DNS cache poisoning attacks valid domains.

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779461)

Of course a single URL has not enough information. But (for example) if you're in China and the government poisoned the records of citibank, at least in China it is better the browser to deny access to a fake "citibank". BTW I don't imply that it is easy to implement with the current infrastructure.

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (1)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777279)

* Computer-phobics today don't know how to create a bookmark. Nor type a URL. They just type what they assume is some kind of address in a google bar and click the first or second result.

There were two parts, the bookmark was for the slightly more literate types. As to Google, you've interviewed a random sampling of computer-phobes have you? You know what they do do you? You're making shit up aren't you.

* Even typing a correct URL you're not free from dns-poisoning
Yeah, that's why I just type in the IP address...

Etc.

It isn't the person's fault that computers are complicated, but it sure as hell isn't that hard to understand.

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (1)

robo_mojo (997193) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779785)

* Even typing a correct URL you're not free from dns-poisoning

Anti-phishing techniques do not make you safe from dns-poisoning, either.

But that's why you have SSL certificates. Unless one of your CAs has gone bad, nobody will have a certificate for that domain except for the person that owns the domain.

Even if (like me) you don't trust your CAs, you can keep track of certificates by their fingerprints. There are some extensions that will keep track of certificates for you so you can be alerted if your bank's certificate changes. Then you call the bank and ask if they changed their certificate.

but in the end the thing is simply too complicated for non-geeks. And it is not their fault, the problem is the design of the security infrastructure

Then make it easy for them. If you know someone who has trouble with it, set up their browser for them. Make the bookmarks and put them somewhere that can be accessed easily (like the "personal bar" or whatever your browser uses) and tell them they should only use that bookmark to access the site and nothing else. That kind of help will go a lot farther than any anti-* gimmicks will.

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780163)

>> Anti-phishing techniques do not make you safe from dns-poisoning, either.

Totally agreed. The point (bad expressed by me) was that writing literally an URL don't make you safe. Besides, *maybe* a strong anti-phising infrastructure can help when you don't have https, if we could have a list of compromised dns servers, or zones, additionally to suspected domains...

>>But that's why you have SSL certificates. Unless one of your CAs has gone bad, nobody will have a certificate for that domain except for the person that owns the domain.

Bad sadly when the user is redirected to http://www.fake-bank.com/ [fake-bank.com] he is "informed" that is currently in a "secured connection". The user was never trained to check for the ridiculously little lock, nor the weird "https" in the address.

>> Then make it easy for them. If you know someone who has trouble with it, set up their browser for them.

Hey, that means setting the browser from time to time to 99% of my friends/colleagues... I think the overall PC-network security design (if exists) is simply too complicated to people that simply does not have the time to understand software and networks, just need to use them. It is like using little TNT explosions for daily transport power, instead of oil ones... with the adequate care, you can handle the TNT, but...

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778097)

What bugs me is the lack of documentation. Where is the data coming from? Is it offline or online (e.g. every URL submitted), how is the data secured?

1 Password added phishing protection to Safari long before Apple did and while being just a shareware developer, they gave all the details. It is powered by community powered phishtank (opendns).

Now, we gotta run Wireshark here to see where the data comes from, how it acts etc. The "live" online phishing check is a horrible privacy risk since every URL you visit must be sent to a third party for verification. That is why I hate anti phishing and telling non tech users to use 2 step login/ dynamic password generators (even J2ME versions exist) with their bank accounts. If their bank doesn't support it in age of 2008? Well, can move out to another bank.

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25782801)

It's coming from Google. I downloaded Safari 3.2 the other day, then went to PhishTank, found a phising site, clicked on the more info button, and was directed to Google's safe-browsing API. Actually, where the information comes from does not really matter for most end users, though it may interest people like you or me. Of course, if you don't like the idea of using Google's safe-browsing API, then you could use Google Chrome or Firefox, oh wait...

Also, I see one problem with using 1Password. 1Password relies on an Input Manager. As a result, it's injecting executable code into Safari's memory. Do you realize how bad of an idea that is? Using Input Managers, its incredibly simple to write a "plugin" that could turn even a signed app into a malicious one. Leap-A did just that, actually (though without the signed code part, as Tiger doesn't support signed code).

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (1)

Angostura (703910) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778291)

Yes, simple advice and education works, you should not rely on anti-phishing tools. However people make mistakes.

It is, in my opinion extremely foolish to turn off the advisories, or tell other people to do so. You don't rely on the crumple zones in your car to stop you in traffic lights either, do you? But do you argue against cars with crumple zones?

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25780851)

When you want to go to the website of your bank, credit union etc., type in what you see on the printed material you have in front of you!

Fails to protect against DNS poisoning. Next!

Re:Anto-phishing? Fuck that. (1)

martinX (672498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25781015)

Want to get rid of spam? Hit the delete key.

Or get a spam filter (like the nice one in Mail) which trashes 99% of the spam I get, leaving me to delete one every now and then.

This phishing filter will work for users on the same principle: protect users from a lot of phishing expeditions, leaving them to deal with the few that slip through. This also helps stop people from getting "security fatigue" that comes from being hit by crap every time they log on. Same with spam - if spam filters weren't in place, a lot of people would give up on email altogether.

Anti-phishing tech isn't the be-all and end-all. Education is the key to making it all work.

webkit project (3, Informative)

thanasakis (225405) | more than 5 years ago | (#25776963)

Safari is based on Webkit [webkit.org] , which can achieve an almost perfect acid3 score. Anyone using windows or macosx can easilly try it.

perfect score (2, Informative)

edalytical (671270) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777789)

I thought it was a perfect score. [webkit.org] Not a almost perfect score.

What I really want is some screenshots of what the anti-phishing behavior looks like. For all this talk about Safari 3.2 no one has bothered to try out the new features.

Re:perfect score (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778525)

What I really want is some screenshots of what the anti-phishing behavior looks like. For all this talk about Safari 3.2 no one has bothered to try out the new features.

The hard part is finding known phishing sites that are still up and detected by the phishing detection. I think I did get it to work for one page (http://chaseonline.chase.com.ssl.com.kg/ [ssl.com.kg] ) and it was a simple dialogue box, but I haven't been able to repeat it with any other page to confirm. Using Google to look for a test suite comes up with dozens of links to the same whitepaper about testing Firefox, but without any links to the actual test pages used. Aside from that, lots of commercial products with no verifiable results.

Re:perfect score (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778995)

Just FYI, I can confirm that Safari 3.2 (Mac) does put up a dialog box when I clicked on the link included in the above post.

Re:webkit project (2, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778127)

Anyone using windows can easily try it.

By downloading Chrome (or the open source version Chromium [chromium.org] )

Re:webkit project (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25782839)

Yes, or Safari.

Can't just let you steal this thunder. I myself prefer Safari on Windows to Chromium nightlies, as a regular user of both. For starters, Chrome/Chromium's installation directory madness is far from ideal for multi-user systems. And, HAHAHAHA, GoogleUpdate.exe is just the greatest thing in the world, isn't it, mainline Chrome users? Stick me on the Quartz side of the Quartz vs. ClearType debate, and you'll begin to see why I might prefer Safari by *far*.

Posted using K-Meleon 1.5.1, my second-favorite Windows web browser behind Safari.

Crashes (4, Informative)

Rick Zeman (15628) | more than 5 years ago | (#25776989)

Apple forums across the Net are reporting frequent crashes in Safari 3.2, some possibly caused by 3rd-party add-on

Yep, PithHelmet (anti-ad plug-in) causes 3.2 (Mac, of course) to blow up every time when using multiple tabs. Removing its bundle from /Library/Application Support/SIMBL/Plugins/ made it stable as a rock again (no problems at with about 15 tabs open, with varying kinds of embedded content), but, sadly, I'm buried with ads again.

Re:Crashes (5, Informative)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777003)

Yep, PithHelmet (anti-ad plug-in) causes 3.2 (Mac, of course) to blow up every time when using multiple tabs. Removing its bundle from /Library/Application Support/SIMBL/Plugins/ made it stable as a rock again (no problems at with about 15 tabs open, with varying kinds of embedded content), but, sadly, I'm buried with ads again.

Try this: Adblock for Safari [sourceforge.net]

Re:Crashes (1)

Rick Zeman (15628) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777035)

Adblock for Safari

Cool dat. I use Adblock on my Firefox at work; last time I looked around this didn't exist for Safari. Wow...really helpful info on /.--what a concept! :-)

Re:Crashes (1)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778661)

Try this: Adblock for Safari [sourceforge.net]

Hey, great, a OSS Adblock software that requires you have the latest OS. Yeah, I'd pay to use that.

Re:Crashes (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779863)

Try this: Adblock for Safari [sourceforge.net]

Hey, great, a OSS Adblock software that requires you have the latest OS. Yeah, I'd pay to use that.

It's GPL. If you want to make it work on older operating systems, you're welcome to download the code, figure out why it doesn't work, and submit a patch. If they don't like your patch, you can fork it. Don't complain that the work other people are willing to share with you isn't good enough; they don't owe you anything.

Re:Crashes (2, Informative)

earthbound kid (859282) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779803)

It looks like another input manager though. You can't really trust "plugins" (they're not really plugins but elaborate memory hacks) like those to work when a new version of Safari comes out. The simple solution is just to use a custom CSS file that blocks ads, like the one on http://www.floppymoose.com/ [floppymoose.com] .

Re:Crashes (4, Informative)

DavidDK (48129) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777009)

GlimmerBlocker [glimmerblocker.org] is a more stable ad-blocker. It's an http proxy and not an awful InputManager hack, so you can freely upgrade Safari without having Safari going into crash me mode.

Re:Crashes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25778495)

I think you meant Privoxy.

It's still better than Firefox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25780247)

Granted, I'm using Safari on Windows, but I'm not noticing anything weird. But even if it does have its problems, the last update for Firefox made it impossible to run it because the update keeps failing to apply, causing Firefox to restart, after which it tries again to reapply the update, etc... I tried removing it alltogether, but that didn't help - after installing it wanted to update and presto, same problem. I guess I can't test webpages in Firefox anymore. Not trying to make excuses for Safari, I really think Apple shouldn't ship a buggy product, just trying to put things in perspective.

Someone at Apple is getting Lazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25776991)

I thought that updates to browsers that required reboots were the preserve of Microsoft.

Yet this Safari update requires a reboot.
I don't use Safari on my Mac but have to install the b****y thing otherise I'll get nagged from here to kingdom come about installing it...
Sigh.

Quietly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25777043)

I'm sure they attempted to force it on every user with iTunes... hardly quiet.

Re:Quietly? (5, Funny)

ZarathustraDK (1291688) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777069)

I'm sure they attempted to force it on every user with iTunes... hardly quiet.

I hear they're working on iLube to adress this problem.

Re:Quietly? (3, Informative)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777329)

Worse, I downloaded Safari for Windows for testing and they tried to force iTunes on me. They said it was a security update. I've since removed their update 'service' (like servicing a cow) and I guess I'll have to update Safari manually.

Admittedly, this was a while back and maybe they've cleaned up their act. Then again, Firefox 3.0.4 refuses to install because I need to run as an account with more rights than a full administrator. All I need now is Opera to give me grief.

Re:Quietly? (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777799)

Admittedly, this was a while back and maybe they've cleaned up their act

They haven't. Their updater for a few programs I barely use is more intrusive than any other updater on my computer. How does that make any sense?

Re:Quietly? (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778185)

They seperated "Updates" with "New Software" now so you won't be pushed iTunes or other kind of software. So you better re install Apple software update (Safari installer should do it)

This one is indeed a serious security update on Windows (and OS X), check http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3298 [apple.com] for reference.

Re:Quietly? (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779883)

There was an older version of Apple Software Update that tried to install new applications as if they were updates. People (rightly) bitched, and Apple quickly fixed it.

If you're using a recent version of Apple Software Update, and it tries to download an update to iTunes (rather than just offering it as an optional download if you want), it's because you already have an old version of iTunes installed.

What about WebKit? (2, Insightful)

oreaq (817314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777075)

The WebKit nightly builds have been passing the ACID3 test for months and are still 4 times faster than Safari 3.2 according to the SunSpider Javascript Benchmark. Why is Safari so far behind?

Re:What about WebKit? (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778589)

The WebKit nightly builds have been passing the ACID3 test for months and are still 4 times faster than Safari 3.2 according to the SunSpider Javascript Benchmark. Why is Safari so far behind?

They're probably still working out bugs between Webkit and the applications they have that use it. As I mentioned in the summary, however, most of the javascript improvements seem to have made it in this time. On my machine Safari was getting about 11 on the sunspider test, before this update and is now getting about 3. The nightly of Webkit on the same machine comes in at 1, which is better yet, but not that significantly.

Apple loudly released Safari 3.1 (4, Funny)

toupsie (88295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777081)

Its odd that Apple released this version quietly. Last time a major point release was available, Steve Jobs was walking down the streets of Cupertino firing a shotgun into the air screaming, "Time to download the next motherf*cking version of Safari!" followed by USC Trojan band playing John Philip Sousa marches.

Re:Apple loudly released Safari 3.1 (5, Funny)

Rogue Pat (749565) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777121)

Its odd that Apple released this version quietly. Last time a major point release was available, Steve Jobs was walking down the streets of Cupertino firing a shotgun into the air screaming, [..] followed by USC Trojan band

I guess the anti-phishing feature filtered out the Trojans this time then? ;-)

Re:Apple loudly released Safari 3.1 (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777341)

You can have a lot of fun with a pack of Trojans, but this is Slashdot.

Re:Apple loudly released Safari 3.1 (1)

AceofSpades19 (1107875) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778511)

no, THIS IS SPARTA

That's a lie (2, Funny)

donutello (88309) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778483)

The Trojan marching band only knows how to play one song.

Great. (3, Funny)

danwesnor (896499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777153)

Apple Quietly Releases Safari 3.2

Great, now you've gone and blabbed their secret to everybody.

EV-SSL (4, Informative)

lseltzer (311306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777155)

It also now supports EV-SSL. That and the anti-phishing were two major beefs of companies like PayPal.

Crashes? Did they port the iPhone Safari to OSX? (0, Flamebait)

teshuvah (831969) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777303)

Hopefully next they will port the iPhone draconian DRM and locked down app store to OSX too!

I wonder what really got fixed... (2, Insightful)

ItalianScallion (145653) | more than 5 years ago | (#25777627)

There is something a little odd about this particular update-- Safari on my Mac had been acting very strangely lately-sucking up lots of processor, computer acting a bit odd. This is unusual. This seems to have been fixed by the update. Maybe just a coincidence?

The question is: why is Apple so quiet about rolling this update out and what it fixes, and since when does a minor Safari update require a reboot?!!

Re:I wonder what really got fixed... (1)

zaajats (904507) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778615)

The question is: why is Apple so quiet about rolling this update out and what it fixes, and since when does a minor Safari update require a reboot?!!

I'm not sure (lousy memory etc), but I believe (some) previous Safari updates have required a reboot too. It might have something to do with the Webkit engine being used by apps other than Safari

Re:I wonder what really got fixed... (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778627)

The question is: why is Apple so quiet about rolling this update out and what it fixes, and since when does a minor Safari update require a reboot?!!

It replaces more than the Safari application. It also, slightly, updates Webkit, which is a core library that numerous programs use. You can get by without rebooting if you just kill the update at the end then restart all the programs that use Webkit... but that's a bit advanced for most people and a reboot is easy.

The erratic behavior of Safari could be caused by damaged resources which were replaced in this update, making it more useful to you than the average bloke.

"Quietly"? (4, Insightful)

realinvalidname (529939) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778805)

How does putting Safari 3.2 on Software Update, where by default it will be received by every internet-connected Mac OS X user in the world, count as a release that was "quietly slipped out"?

Granted, they're the new Bad Guy on /., but can we be a little less lazy and more accurate in our snide characterization of Apple's activities?

They released it QUIETLY for a reason... (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25778845)

...now it's been posted on /. everyone's gonna hear about it

*sigh*

Don't pay so much attention to the Acid3 score (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25778989)

pulling their Acid3 score up to 77.

If a browser doesn't score a 100 on the Acid3 test, it fails. Period. A browser that scores an 18 doesn't fail any more (at least officially) than one that scores an 88. They both fail, and that's it. What's more, a browser could theoretically get a 100 and still fail the test. In order to pass, you need a score of 100 and the test page needs to look pixel-for-pixel like the reference rendering (which is a little redundant, but that's what it says on the test page itself). The higher score should raise a footnote perhaps, but you shouldn't be too concerned about it.

Re:Don't pay so much attention to the Acid3 score (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25779043)

Not only that, but you have to use the default settings, and the animation has be "smooth". When does an animation stop being "smooth", anyway? That seems awfully vague for it to be a condition to pass to the test.

Re:Don't pay so much attention to the Acid3 score (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779395)

If a browser doesn't score a 100 on the Acid3 test, it fails. Period. A browser that scores an 18 doesn't fail any more (at least officially) than one that scores an 88.

Then why do they bother with scores instead of just putting up the word "pass" or "fail"? Each part of the test hits a problem area of rendering and the more points a browser gets, the more of those cases they are compliant for. Higher scores do translate into greater standards compliance for the tested set.

In order to pass, you need a score of 100 and the test page needs to look pixel-for-pixel like the reference rendering (which is a little redundant, but that's what it says on the test page itself).

More than that, it has to run the animation smoothly using the specified reference hardware... at least according to the authors of the test.

The higher score should raise a footnote perhaps, but you shouldn't be too concerned about it.

It's more abut how current the version of Webkit they're including is. From the fact that it scores a 77 means htmlcore is likely a version from sometime last summer. Likewise the javascript performance tells you the javascriptcore is probably more recent.

Re:Don't pay so much attention to the Acid3 score (1)

cleatsupkeep (1132585) | more than 5 years ago | (#25781435)

The latest nightlies are at 100 on Acid3, so, yeah.

Reboot (2, Informative)

saunabad (664414) | more than 5 years ago | (#25779289)

And it looks like once again I'll have to reboot my Leopard macbook because of an update in a fucking web browser application. I've been really quite happy with OS X for last five years but lately this all has become really rather pointless. Too many lock-ups, too many bugs, too many reboots. Didn't see any of that with my iBook running Panther before. Looks like Apple tries to compete with price and the quality is gone.

Re:Reboot (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 5 years ago | (#25781473)

Could be worse, you could have to reboot your *server* because of a browser update. I hate that OSX server forces you to update iTunes and Safari and other crap just to get updates for other things.

About 25% faster at jsBalls fight demo benchmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25779961)

Looks good. Seems to be about 25% faster than Safari 3.1 at the jsBalls fight demo bechmark. See here for results: http://www.jsballs.com/benchmark.html [jsballs.com] . Puts Safari back ahead of Firefox as far a release versions go.

Twitter? (1)

cleatsupkeep (1132585) | more than 5 years ago | (#25781397)

Did they really link to a twitter post? Wow.

advertising (-1, Offtopic)

jeffthomson (1408689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25781581)

Play Blackjack and Win a Chance for â1 Million. Celebpoker.com is offering an exclusive Black Jack promotion to giveaway an entry to the â1 Million guaranteed tournament on Dec 14th. Play BlackJack for your chance to win a free entry seat worth â1,050 to the â1 Million GTD tournament on 14th Dec at 19:00 GMT + 2nd and 3rd cash prizes. How To Win Your Free Seat: Itâ(TM)s easy! Just wager â100 or more on Celeb Black Jack between 17th and 30th of November 2008 and if you are unlucky and lose you then donâ(TM)t despair because you will receive an automatic entry to the âoeBlackJack â1Milionâ Freeroll which takes place on Thursday Dec 4th at 19:00 GMT. * 1st place receives a â1,050 Entry to the â1Million GTD Tournament * 2nd place receives â150 in cash * 3rd place receives â100 in cash http://www.celebpoker.com/ [celebpoker.com] ----------------- Bobwilliams Play Blackjack - Win a Chance for â1 Million [celebpoker.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>