Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Firefox 15 Released: Silent Updates, Compressed Textures, Add-on Memory Leak Fix

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the when-in-chrome dept.

Firefox 393

Mozilla released Firefox 15 today, and it brings a number of interesting changes. First, the browser is finally switching to a "silent" update model, like Chrome. (No doubt in answer to endless complaints about their rapid release cycle.) In addition, Mozilla says they have "now plugged the main cause of memory leaks in Firefox add-ons." Add-ons commonly hold extra copies of sites in memory when they don't need to, and the browser now has a mechanism to detect this and reclaim the memory. Another significant improvement is the addition of native support for compressed textures in WebGL, which is a boost for high-res 3D gaming. Here are release notes for the desktop and mobile versions.

cancel ×

393 comments

Yeah for Memory Leak fix (0, Troll)

alphax45 (675119) | about 2 years ago | (#41154015)

Installing it now; let's hope it works! Oh and FIRST! :)

Old story, or something new? (-1, Offtopic)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 2 years ago | (#41154655)

The Firefox developers have been claiming memory leak fixes since before it was called Firefox.

Firefox is the most unstable program in common use. Open a lot of windows and tabs and see for yourself. Maybe you don't normally do that, but people who do research online often see Firefox instability.

Should software updating be a system service? Suppose you like the Firefox version you have? Should updating be a system service, as with Google's Chrome? Most people don't know how to disable system services. Some manufacturers try to stop disabling by giving their services misleading names.

These are the Google system services I see on one Windows 7 computer:

Google Update Service (gupdate)
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe" /svc

Google Update Service (gupdatem)
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe" /medsvc

Google Updater Service
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Common\Google Updater\GoogleUpdaterService.exe"

Is Google so all-knowing that it can alone decide what should be on user's computers? Or will Google become more and more adversarial and disfunctional eventually go the way of HP and Tektronix?

I like Firefox. I think Mozilla needs a better top manager.

Re:Old story, or something new? (3, Interesting)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#41154901)

I leave Firefox windows with dozens of tabs open for weeks and even months at a time, and haven't noticed any stability issues in a year or so...But I also don't use any add-ons except Firebug.

Re:Old story, or something new? (1)

Leafheart (1120885) | about 2 years ago | (#41155121)

I leave Firefox windows with dozens of tabs open for weeks and even months at a time, and haven't noticed any stability issues in a year or so...But I also don't use any add-ons except Firebug.

You are luck. I use Firefox with firebug for webdevelopment, and although I love it, I have to restart it a couple of times daily, as Firefox easily goes to 1.6GB of memory easy. And that is with 1 window open and about 10-15 tabs only. It is very much dependent on what you are using on the tab that has firebug. Let me give you an example: I'm now developing on top of JS table\tree framework, which tends to have a lot on memory. If firebug is open it starts keeping copies of a bunch of versions of this JS plugin, each taking a couple of MB of memory. So it slows to a crawl.

Re:Old story, or something new? (2)

sapgau (413511) | about 2 years ago | (#41155295)

Please don't tell me you are running windows with 2Gb or some low amount like that.
A development box needs tons of ram. Sounds you are in desperate need for a 64 bit system as well.

Re:Old story, or something new? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41155463)

lol you're so out of touch. 2gb is a low amount of memory? if you're so rich you can afford all this memory, then mail me the 1000 bucks for a new laptop asshole

Re:Old story, or something new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41155567)

12GB costs less than 100 bucks - if you're so rich you can afford to work off of a laptop -oh wait - here's the deal - use a desktop, it's cheaper, and easier to upgrade.

Re:Old story, or something new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41155595)

I'm Sorry but 2gb IS a low amount of memory. $60 for 4gb ddr2 or $25 for ddr3. A far cry from $1000.

Re:Old story, or something new? (5, Informative)

Stalks (802193) | about 2 years ago | (#41154903)

Open a lot of windows and tabs and see for yourself.

I do. Daily. 100+ tabs open is not uncommon. Firefox hasn't crashed for years. The rest of your comment is OffTopic.

Re:Old story, or something new? (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41155471)

Crash? No. Come to a complete stop for 10 seconds while doing nothing more but scrolling? Yes.

Re:Old story, or something new? (1)

webheaded (997188) | about 2 years ago | (#41155519)

Oh hey, look, it runs great for you. Guess we can ignore everyone else now!

Re:Old story, or something new? (4, Interesting)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41155093)

Firefox is the most unstable program in common use. Open a lot of windows and tabs and see for yourself. Maybe you don't normally do that, but people who do research online often see Firefox instability.

At the moment it's a tie between Firefox and Chrome on that front. I normally run both Firefox and Chrome because both of them will die after some number of days of heavy tab usage (100+ tabs). Chrome has this nasty, nasty habit of forgetting your previously open tabs with no way to recover them, if for some reason it crashes again before you hit the recover button. Which is pretty common actually, for example if you reboot a couple of times. (Embarassing bug! What's up with you smart people who totally own the Chrome project?) Furthermore, if you accidentally hit the "start" button instead of "recover" it's not game over for your Firefox tabs, you can get them back just by renaming a file, or you can archive those tabs just by copying that file if you want. If there's any way to do this in Chrome, I haven't found it. For these reasons, and also Chrome's annoying insistance on forcing you to save content to disk before opening it, Firefox is my primary browser for real work and Chrome is my throwaway browser.

Re:Old story, or something new? (5, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | about 2 years ago | (#41155177)

Having run into memory problems repeatedly for years, Firefox 15 is shockingly better at memory management. They completely change the model they used to help clean up after add-ons that don't clean up after themselves and very few of them have had to be fixed to work with it. Memory usage for me has been cut by more than half.

Mozilla also went out of its way to make the updater service run with as few rights as possible [mozilla.org] with code that revokes rights that it does not need. There were about three dozen permissions explicitly dropped when it was first developed around FF12. That number may have changed slightly but it's still a long list.

Re:Old story, or something new? (1)

sapgau (413511) | about 2 years ago | (#41155223)

Nonsense. I open literally dozens of Firefox windows with no instability at all.
Unless high memory usage is a problem in your system.

Re:Old story, or something new? (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41155625)

My experience with FF is even worse than yours. I could get painful slowdowns just using the browser, without multiple windows, for an hour or two. The Windows task manager shows it using over a gigabyte. The blame has to belong to one of my plugins, but which one? I've tried selective disabling, with no luck.

I gave up on FF a few months ago. I'd resisted the move to Chrome for years (not enough plugins, too much GUI cleverness) but the aggravation of repeated slowdowns, freezes, and crashes was finally too much for me. It didn't help the FF updates included lame GUI changes that were poorly thought out and whose only merit was that they made FF look more like Chrome.

This announcement sort of tempts me. Yeah, fixes to the memory leak nonsense have been announced before, but this is the first time they've claimed to fix leaks in the plugin environment. Still, having made the painful transition to Chrome, I don't feel strongly motivated to move back.

DOM inspector (1)

Kethinov (636034) | about 2 years ago | (#41154069)

Anyone else not able to see live updates to the DOM with the developer tools?

Try this:

1. Right click on the Firefox start page (about:home) around the empty area left of the Firefox logo -> Inspect element.

2. <div id="topSection"> should be selected.

3. Open Tools -> Web Developer -> Web console.

4. Type: document.getElementById('topSection').className = 'hello';

5. Notice the view of the DOM below does not update to reflect the new className you've added.

Additionally, there doesn't seem to be a way to manually edit HTML elements (add attributes, add new HTML, etc) using the DOM inspector like you can in WebKit browsers.

Is this a bug / missing feature or am I doing it wrong?

Re:DOM inspector (4, Funny)

royallthefourth (1564389) | about 2 years ago | (#41154163)

They've got to save memory somehow, you know!

Re:DOM inspector (1)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | about 2 years ago | (#41154393)

Sounds like the DOM Inspector on IE8, completely useless for dynamic content. As an added bonus, I don't think I've ever used it without a crash.

Re:DOM inspector (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41154549)

There's a refresh button in IE's DOM inspector making it slightly less useless.

This isn't a bug tracker (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 2 years ago | (#41154449)

Look, I mean you probably found a bug. The thing to do is to either post on the project mailing list or file a bug report.

Posting a comment on Slashdot is unlikely to result in a solution.

Re:DOM inspector (1)

sapgau (413511) | about 2 years ago | (#41155139)

Why not use Firebug?

Flash freezing (4, Interesting)

Myria (562655) | about 2 years ago | (#41154129)

Did they fix Flash freezing all the time, or is that Adobe's fault?

Re:Flash freezing (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#41154285)

Did they fix Flash freezing all the time, or is that Adobe's fault?

It's Adobe. It's like Acrobat Reader, it freezes everything sometimes. That's life.

Re:Flash freezing (5, Informative)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | about 2 years ago | (#41154637)

Flashblock fixes the problem with Flash freezing. If I could marry it, I would.

Re:Flash freezing (5, Funny)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 2 years ago | (#41154303)

"Fixing" Flash properly is beyond the capability of mere mortals.

Re:Flash freezing (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41154389)

"Fixing" Flash properly is beyond the capability of mere mortals.

The only way to fix Flash is to not install it.

Re:Flash freezing (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#41154927)

That's an Adobe issue, though I haven't seen any problems with it since Flash 11.

Re:Flash freezing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41155097)

It's probably your fault. I haven't had any issues.

Re:Flash freezing (4, Insightful)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41155129)

Did they fix Flash freezing all the time, or is that Adobe's fault?

Adobe fixed it by end-of-lifing Flash. Thanks Adobe.

Re:Flash freezing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41155547)

Check the Adobe knowledgebase or many other online sites. Disable Flash's latest-and-greatest ProtectedMode in the .cfg file will fix the freeze.

Re:Flash freezing (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41155643)

I get Flash freezes in Chrome too.

SILENT updates? (5, Insightful)

courcoul (801052) | about 2 years ago | (#41154151)

Last thing I need is for an idiot in some far and distant place to think it fun to roll out a new version and trigger an update on all my computers that may render all the corporate apps unusable. No, thank you. FF joins Chrome in the sandboxed "use only if indispensable" bin.

Re:SILENT updates? (1, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41154243)

Indeed. Automatic updates are already a very bad idea. Making them silent is the hight of stupidity.

Re:SILENT updates? (2)

rwven (663186) | about 2 years ago | (#41154899)

Chrome has been doing them since, like, forever. I think it's fantastic, personally. I dont want the browser to nag me when it's time to update. Just do it...

Re:SILENT updates? (4, Insightful)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about 2 years ago | (#41155113)

Until an update breaks something, and you don't even know Chrome is what updated.

Re:SILENT updates? (5, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 2 years ago | (#41155167)

Chrome has been doing them since, like, forever. I think it's fantastic, personally. I dont want the browser to nag me when it's time to update. Just do it...

You probably also don't have 100 computer semi-literates using Chrome for mission critical applications that will all call you at the same time when those mission critical apps stop working.

Automatic updates are fine for people who don't care if the program stops working for some unexplained reason, or who can either debug the problem themselves or put off finding a solution until they have some free time. Or for people who make a living off of debugging other people's computer problems.

Automatic updates are dangerous for high reliability systems, mission critical applications, or anything that is supposed to run unattended. Anyone who has worked in IT for any length of time will have memories of when some program decided to update itself and made itself fail. (E.g., "Firefox has detected that the following plugins are incompatible with the current version and disabled them:")

Re:SILENT updates? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41154245)

Uh, turn it off?

If your managing multiple computers, PLEASE tell me you know how to turn these sorts of features off.

Re:SILENT updates? (4, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 2 years ago | (#41154627)

If you are managing multiple computers, PLEASE tell me the end users do not have write access to the browser executables in the first place.

Re:SILENT updates? (5, Insightful)

Kethinov (636034) | about 2 years ago | (#41154321)

It's a default, not a mandate. If it doesn't benefit you, like it benefits the vast majority of Firefox users, then turn it off, FFS.

Re:SILENT updates? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41154945)

I'm ready to blackhole mozilla's domain on my DNS because 3.6 keeps updating to the new craptastic versions, without asking me anything.

If I wanted to update, I would. I don't. Leave me alone.

Re:SILENT updates? (4, Informative)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#41154353)

You know you can disable that on Chrome, right? It's not even complicated. Here is a guide [chromium.org] for the administrators.

I'm sure you can also disable it on Firefox as well.

There's no need to put them in the bin at all, at least not for that reason.

Re:SILENT updates? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41155173)

If you need a guide to do it, it is complicated...

Re:SILENT updates? (4, Insightful)

webheaded (997188) | about 2 years ago | (#41155603)

If needing a small guide on how to do something makes it "complicated" then you shouldn't be an IT administrator.

Re:SILENT updates? (2, Informative)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#41154437)

If only there was some way of disabling automatic updates. Oh wait, there is, problem solved.

Re:SILENT updates? (2)

sinij (911942) | about 2 years ago | (#41154467)

Not only corporate. I have dedicated banking machine running Chrome (decision was made back when it was the only major browser using sand boxing) that is only used couple times a month. Silent updates majorly bog it down. Yes, if I cared enough I'd find a way to block it.

Can someone tell me what the difference between Firefox and Chrome these days? I want my supported 3.6 back.

Re:SILENT updates? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41154889)

If it's a dedicated banking machine, and you "don't care enough" I really hope it's your own company or personal banking you're talking about (i.e. the scope of potential damage is yourself, and you're not actually getting paid to do IT).

Re:SILENT updates? (1)

sinij (911942) | about 2 years ago | (#41155117)

No, it is my personal banking, and I "don't care enough" to disable security feature - auto-update of Chrome because while I see it as unnecessary and inconvenient in my usecase, it is not detrimental to security to keep it on.

While I might not actively remember security benefit, I do remember inconvenience of waiting for it to update. Blame human psychology.

Decision process is following: Inconvenience of slow Chrome startups due to updating Vs. Inconvenience with disabling it and remembering to keep track of necessary updates.

Re:SILENT updates? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#41154477)

you could always use their extended release version that is supported for one year.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/

Re:SILENT updates? (3, Informative)

linebackn (131821) | about 2 years ago | (#41154633)

Last thing I need is for an idiot in some far and distant place to think it fun to roll out a new version and trigger an update on all my computers that may render all the corporate apps unusable.

And that is why you should download and install the Firefox Extended Support Release: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html [mozilla.org] instead of their version-of-the-month.

Hopefully future ESR releases will remain able to manage updates.

Re:SILENT updates? (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | about 2 years ago | (#41155009)

Yea, that is kinda lame. But it won't bother me because all of the Linux versions gut all of the auto update crap, even the new version available nags.

Upgrades wipe out my login cookies! (3, Insightful)

jimwelch (309748) | about 2 years ago | (#41154159)

Every time Firefox upgrades, it wipes out my login cookies. It forces me to re-login to my sites. Is there a way to turn this dictator off?

Works fine for me (2)

Myria (562655) | about 2 years ago | (#41154223)

I just updated Firefox between my "Flash freezing" post above and this post here, and I didn't have to log into Slashdot again.

Re:Upgrades wipe out my login cookies! (3, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41154271)

Install Opera instead. There is a very small number of sites with problems, most work just fine.

Re:Upgrades wipe out my login cookies! (1)

jimwelch (309748) | about 2 years ago | (#41154495)

Maybe it is one of my add-ons: BeefTaco?

Re:Upgrades wipe out my login cookies! (1)

Troy Roberts (4682) | about 2 years ago | (#41155359)

No doubt, you have "Clear history when Firefox closes" checked on the options Privacy tab.

Next... (2)

indre1 (1422435) | about 2 years ago | (#41154207)

Hope they fix the running process error before going any further, it's the next most annoying thing after WinRAR's evaluation period!

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-already-running-not-responding [mozilla.org]

I don't take this as a solution:
If Firefox did not shut down normally when you last used it, Firefox might still be running in the background, even though it is not visible. Restart your computer to see if the problem goes away.

Re:Next... (1)

sapgau (413511) | about 2 years ago | (#41154961)

Or kill it from the Task Manager.

Or wait until your disk drive light dies down...

Re:Next... (1)

indre1 (1422435) | about 2 years ago | (#41155395)

Or kill it from the Task Manager.

Or wait until your disk drive light dies down...

So it's normal that when stopping your car engine for a minute, you have to go open up the bonnet and turn some large crank or wait until the engine cools down to restart the engine?
I'm just saying that most other Windows applications have managed to bypass this nonsense...

Re:Next... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41155027)

How about learning to use task manager for a change? Or 7zip for that matter? You know that you OUGHT TO PAY for using trialware like WinRar further past evaluation, right? (not justifying the annoying FF bug tho, even tho I havent ran into it for versions now)

Re:Next... (5, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#41155503)

Why are you using WinRar when 7zip exists?

Where is 64-bit version? (4, Interesting)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#41154209)

It's been what, six years since 64-bit OSes became norm? Why can't Firefox devs make a 64-bit version?

32-bit Firefox runs like crap on Win7. I use this ajax grid [dhtmlx.com] in my pages, and it runs smooth as glass on XP. The same page viewed on Win7 Firefox is slow and jerky. There's something wrong with the way Firefox renders javascript when running under a 64-bit OS.

Re:Where is 64-bit version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41154385)

That grid runs fine for me on 64-bit.

Re:Where is 64-bit version? (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#41155187)

That grid runs fine for me on 64-bit.

The demo only has a few lines. Once the grid gets to 50 lines or so, it gets very jerky while scrolling up and down on Win7. On XP it's very smooth even with a thousand lines.

Re:Where is 64-bit version? (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | about 2 years ago | (#41154395)

What is wrong with that grid on your FF? It runs smoothly on my 64 bit Linux on Firefox.

Re:Where is 64-bit version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41154571)

Water Fox. Google it.

Re:Where is 64-bit version? (1)

CritterNYC (190163) | about 2 years ago | (#41154573)

Something is wrong with your computer. That grid works perfectly fine in 32-bit Firefox.

Re:Where is 64-bit version? (4, Interesting)

daremonai (859175) | about 2 years ago | (#41154743)

They do make 64-bit versions for Windows and Linux as part of the nightly builds. There are also a couple of projects which make "optimized" versions of some of these - Pale Moon (palemoon.org) and Waterfox (waterfoxproject.org).

The biggest issue with the 64-bit versions is that they only run 64-bit plugins, unless you use something like nspluginwrapper (nspluginwrapper.org).

Re:Where is 64-bit version? (2)

robmv (855035) | about 2 years ago | (#41154861)

try disabling hardware acceleration on the preferences panel, if it works ok try to update your video drivers, I had problems with old buggy drivers on some pages

Memory leaks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41154411)

Mozilla says they have "now plugged the main cause of memory leaks in Firefox add-ons."
Er, the same memory leaks they assured us weren't happening or weren't their fault?

Re:Memory leaks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41154469)

Quite. What do children, leftards and freetards have in common? It's always someone elses fault.

Re:Memory leaks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41154543)

Especially after being caught raping children. Oh sorry, according to rms one can apparently have a consenual sexual relationship with a 5 year old and the trauma is just due to societal stigma not from the rape.

Re:Memory leaks (0, Flamebait)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 years ago | (#41154765)

Mozilla says they have "now plugged the main cause of memory leaks in Firefox add-ons."
Er, the same memory leaks they assured us weren't happening or weren't their fault?

Not really. They went through the core of Firefox and removed memory leaks a long time ago. Now they are fixing leaks in plugins too.

Re:Memory leaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41154811)

Earlier this year is a 'long time ago'?

Re:Memory leaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41155381)

Gotta love firefan logic.

Firefox doesn't have memory leaks yet somehow every minor update includes "fixed memory leaks" in the change log.

Re:Memory leaks (2, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 2 years ago | (#41154827)

Mozilla says they have "now plugged the main cause of memory leaks in Firefox add-ons."
Er, the same memory leaks they assured us weren't happening or weren't their fault?

I have to give them credit. The Firefox devs have quite a sense of humor.

I remember when they claimed that Firefox's excessive memory usage was a feature not a bug -- i.e., Firefox was caching pages. Which is really great except that it wasn't true.

Re:Memory leaks (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41155037)

Mozilla says they have "now plugged the main cause of memory leaks in Firefox add-ons."
Er, the same memory leaks they assured us weren't happening or weren't their fault?

I just RTFA so I'll answer that for you: "weren't their fault". In TFA they say the memory leaks aren't Mozilla's fault, but it is their problem. The plugins create the memory leaks and there's not much Mozilla can do about that. They've tried working with lots of plugin writers to clean it up and they've got them to make progress, but they can't force every developer to cooperate, and they can't force those that do cooperate to fix it 100%. So instead, they've figured out a way to forcefull rip the memory out of the hands of the plugins so they can free it up. Theoretically this could be problematic (if the plugin later wanted to use that now-gone memory), but apparently they've done it in a way that ends up not causing any problems (though we'll see what happens once everyone is using it).

Re:Memory leaks (1)

jensend (71114) | about 2 years ago | (#41155205)

In a sense, yes, they are fixing problems that weren't their fault. 3rd-party add-ons have been the cause of the most significant FF memory problems for many users, and FF 15 contains changes which should keep even badly written add-ons from leaking anywhere near as much memory as they used to.

High Res 3D Gaming?? (1)

sapgau (413511) | about 2 years ago | (#41154599)

In my browser?

Re:High RI es 3D Gaming?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41154715)

Typical slashdot bullshit summary.

Re:High Res 3D Gaming?? (5, Funny)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 years ago | (#41154835)

Oh please no! High-res 3D "punch the monkey ads" :(

Re:High Res 3D Gaming?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41155537)

1960s:

Computers?? On my desk?

1980s:

Video games?? On my TV?

1990s:

3D graphics?? On my computer?

2000s:

Applications?? On the web?

2010s:

Games?? On the web?

Upgrade fail LOL (1, Redundant)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#41154659)

From one of the links:

"Firefox 15 prevents most memory leaks caused by add-ons, including Firebug. For many users with add-ons installed this will significantly reduce Firefoxâ(TM)s memory consumption, without requiring upgrades to those add-ons."

Yeah, how's the add-on supposed to work without upgrading - Firefox 15 breaks compatibility with all previous add-ons. And to think, the guy who wrote this probably didn't think of it at all...

Re:Upgrade fail LOL (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | about 2 years ago | (#41154859)

firefox 15 breaks no add-ons here, which one is broken at your place?

Brilliant!! (3, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 2 years ago | (#41154707)

the browser is finally switching to a "silent" update model, like Chrome. (No doubt in answer to endless complaints about their rapid release cycle.

So people have been complaining about Firefox's Rapid Release Cycle -- more correctly called Rapid Version Number Inflation -- and so Firefox's solution is to continue doing it and just not tell you about it.

Brilliant.

Re:Brilliant!! (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41154931)

more correctly called Rapid Version Number Inflation

More correctly called "Chrome does it so we have to do it too".

-- comment posted using Firefox 10.0.7ESR [mozilla.org]

WebGL (1)

Chemisor (97276) | about 2 years ago | (#41154711)

So, does Firefox support WebGL on Linux yet?

Will it also automatically not blow up extensions? (0)

quixote9 (999874) | about 2 years ago | (#41154759)

Seriously, Mozilla. Wrap your collective mind around the concept of respecting the user. You used to be really good at it. Get back to your roots.

I run LinuxMint Debian. I'm playing with Nemo on my Nokia N900. I wouldn't have a clue how to hack the kernel, but I'm also not a complete idiot. And you know what version of firefox I'm on? Five. Because I got so fracking sick of having my extensions broken and my UI messed with.

Just quit it.

Re:Will it also automatically not blow up extensio (1)

quixote9 (999874) | about 2 years ago | (#41154825)

And I should add that I've already tried 10ESR. It's so corporate-oriented, it's a pain for regular users.

Re:Will it also automatically not blow up extensio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41155431)

I switched to FF 10 using "firefox aero theme for firefox 4+" and a bunch of other things like status for ever and the like. It is close, but not quite the same. Other than things like the right click menu appearing at the head of the pointer instead of the tail (causing for me to click the wrong item for) and general reverse je ne sais quoi that make me hate it.

But just wait until the ESR switches over from 10 to 17(?). Instead of changes slowly trickling in, a bunch will change at once. I can't wait for the shitstorm as that all hits the fan again.

Re:Will it also automatically not blow up extensio (1)

sapgau (413511) | about 2 years ago | (#41155583)

Are you an IE 6 user as well?

The main issue I have noticed with FF seems (1)

gatesstillborg (2633899) | about 2 years ago | (#41154785)

to be due to the plugin-container.exe, which turns into an extreme CPU hog over-time, showing up way-high in the (windows) CPU consuming processes. (I do tend to open a lot of tabs and generate a lot of history.) (I used to have serious memory issues as well, which were greatly improved by doubling+ up to about 4+ Gig.) Is this a related or separate issue? I don't believe I am using an inordinate amount of plugins, just the standard ones.

Re:The main issue I have noticed with FF seems (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#41155019)

In my experience that's pretty ALWAYS Flash. Make sure yours is updated, as I haven't had many problems with that on recent versions, and maybe try Flashblock or something. Whatever they fixed might help as well, I don't really know.

Re:The main issue I have noticed with FF seems (1)

Urza9814 (883915) | about 2 years ago | (#41155049)

ah crap, started with 'pretty much always Flash', then thought about it and realized it was 'ALWAYS Flash'...and ended up with 'pretty ALWAYS Flash'...my bad.

Re:The main issue I have noticed with FF seems (1)

sapgau (413511) | about 2 years ago | (#41155639)

Not to be harsh but 4Gb is the minimum required for regular use on windows machines.
Things improve with a 64bit OS as well.

Great (1)

Spliffster (755587) | about 2 years ago | (#41154937)

It broke my Exchange plugin in Thunderbird (manual update). No company calendar for me for an unspecified time frame.

The summary missed the real headline feature! (5, Interesting)

jensend (71114) | about 2 years ago | (#41154975)

The memory improvements are nice and all, but the support for the Opus audio codec [opus-codec.org] will have a much bigger impact on the Web. Opus is open source, royalty-free, and superior to previous formats in latency, flexibility, and audio quality. It handles speech, music, and general audio well, and scales fluidly from a 6kbps mono narrowband VOIP bandwidth all the way up to perceptually-transparent multichannel music. It's been approved as an IETF standard and should be published as an RFC this week.

Finally having a best-of-breed standardized codec which is universally implementable without patent royalties means that HTML5 audio - especially real-time communications - can finally take off.

Firefox is the second major end-user application to add support [mozilla.org] . (The first was the foobar2k audio player.)

Congratulations on increased instability (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41155079)

So your solution to complaints about how fast you crank out updates and destabilize software that you want people to depend upon is...
Update it without asking

Congratulations, genius. You have cemented your place as my #4 browser out of 4.

How can you expect people to use your browser on a daily basis when they can't even reasonably expect the browser they launch today to be the same one they shut down yesterday?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...