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 17 Launches With Click-to-Play Plugin Blocks

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the primed-with-new-features dept.

Firefox 137

An anonymous reader writes "As expected, Mozilla on Tuesday officially launched Firefox 17 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. The biggest addition in this release is click-to-play plugins, announced back in October. In short, the addition means Mozilla will now prompt Firefox users on Windows with old versions of Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, and Microsoft Silverlight (more will be added eventually)." The release notes are available, as is a list of changes for devs. Firefox for Android got a new release as well (notes).

cancel ×

137 comments

Still no Retina support for OS X (5, Interesting)

TheoCryst (975577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045543)

Apparently they have it in nightly builds now, but it hasn't trickled down to the main release channel quite yet. Bummer.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42045619)

It's okay, the whole point of their fast release cycle is that you'll probably see that feature within the next 6 weeks rather than in 6 months from now. Idiots who don't understand the version system will whine about it, but that's a very tangible benefit of releasing more often.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1, Troll)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045675)

17? Seventeen?

WTF.

Last time I checked (I think it was last week) it was 4 or 5.

This Internet thingy is way too fast for me. Getting old. Slowing down.

(And, back on subject, the only way I can tell when FF has a new version is WHEN SOMETHING ELSE BREAKS. Stop that, please.)

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045751)

They changed it up a while ago.
They moved from the more traditional X.Y.Z versioning to basically make it all just X.

When it was announced I think justified it by having it come off as a PR deal, people thinking FF is old and outdated because it's on V4, while Chrome is on v10.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046465)

Also, if you're rolling out your new features on a six week schedule as they are implemented... What is the difference between a major and a minor release?
If there's no difference it's just confusing... IMO Firefox major releases lost their significance after the jump from 3.0 to 3.5, but so what... if PR thinks it's good let them have it...

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42045837)

Just grab 10.0.11 ESR [mozilla.org] and relax.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045919)

Just grab 10.0.11 ESR [mozilla.org] and relax.

Or 17.0 ESR which is also out now and that will replace 10.0 ESR over the two upcoming releases. So if you want to roll out Firefox in your organization, be advised that 10.0 ESR is going out of support in only a couple of months.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046217)

But, uh, didn't 10.0 ESR only come out a couple of months ago?

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (5, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046437)

ESR is only supported for a year. It allows for 2 months in between versions before one version is dropped.

IE is going the same route with annual updates. IE 10 is an exception due to the incompetence of the Windows 8 team forcing WDDM 1.2 and DirectX 11.1 onto it which requires significant backporting.

So this time next year IE 11 will be out or in RC states and the following IE 12 etc. Organizations need to learn to adapt to change more rapidly. It is not like a minor release is anything like the huge rewrite of apps that resulted from IE 6 to IE 7 or even 8. Your browser should always be updated at a regular basis.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42045901)

Uhm, I didn't mention the version number at all. Please, if you hold onto this, every so often these articles will be littered with:

18? Eighteen?

19? WTF.

Last time I checked (I think it was last week) it was 7 or 8, not fucking 20!

This Internet thingy is way too fast for me. Getting old. Slowing down. Can't keep up with 21 versions!

(And, back on subject, the only way I can tell when FF has a new version is WHEN SOMETHING ELSE BREAKS like it did in 21. Stop that at 22, please.)

We get it. I thought that when you're older, you become more wise and realize that some things are just that way, and there's nothing you can do about it so you need to relax. Here, I'll get some of my friends and we'll pretend to play on your lawn so you can yell at us to get off. If it helps, I'm brown and was born from immigrants (legal, but you don't need to know that), so the catharsis will be even more satisfying.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045929)

Last time I checked (I think it was last week) it was 4 or 5.

I've always thought that ever since browsers became as ubiquitous as GNU Emacs once was, they've simply wanted to catch up with its flashy version number. :-)

And, back on subject, the only way I can tell when FF has a new version is WHEN SOMETHING ELSE BREAKS.

So you never notice when something unbreaks after an update? You're a glass-is-half-empty kind of guy, I guess.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046129)

HUR DUR I CHECKED TWO SECONDS AGO IT WAS -12!11!

Grow the fuck up.... if you don't understand how it works, stop shitting your pants and just shut up already.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046291)

A Firefox release is a non-issue for me because the rapid releases annoyed me so much I stopped updating it. At this point I ONLY use FF for a couple very specific websites that don't work well in IE. I've started using Chrome when I want a solid alternate browser that's not IE. I'm surprised FF hasn't seen a significant dropoff in user base since they started the rapid release crap.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (4, Informative)

jopsen (885607) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046417)

You do realize Chrome has the same release cycle?

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047251)

Chrome is silent about its updates. Is Firefox? (Genuine question; haven't used it since 3.5.)

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047527)

As of 15 or 16, it can be.

When installing or updating to that version on Windows, you can opt to include a background updater service.

I think, on fresh installs, as you click through the installer, on step two or three, after you click "Next > Next > Next" when choosing your Windows installation folder, the install process shows you that they've defaulted a checkbox to "Yes, include the automatic background update service". You can disable it if you want.

Even if you install the service, you can control it through the options/preferences applet, and disable it, have it notify you before doing anything, or run completely silent (default), or through the "services.msc" control panel.

Not sure about Apple and Macs, but there's probably something similar baked into recent versions.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047335)

You do realize Chrome has the same release cycle?

Although Mozilla proper seems to feel like whatever Chrome does is worthy of emulation, there are many users who would prefer to use Chrome if they want Chrome's behavior. Nobody's thinking, "damn, I wish I had a browser that looked like Chrome and acted like Chrome and was open source like Chrome, but wasn't actually Chrome."

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (5, Funny)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046461)

Thank goodness Chrome is not updated like Firefox or anything. Then we would have a problem.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (0, Troll)

nmb3000 (741169) | about a year and a half ago | (#42048885)

It's okay, the whole point of their fast release cycle is that you'll probably see that feature within the next 6 weeks rather than in 6 months from now. Idiots who don't understand the version system will whine about it, but that's a very tangible benefit of releasing more often.

And you know, if the rapid updates were just to fix bugs and improve performance, I doubt anyone would really care how fast versions came out. The problem is that with every release they feel the need to dick around with the user interface as well.

Look what's included in 17:

  • Some frakking stupid built-in "Social API" bullshit [mozilla.org] . Why the hell do I need Facebook and Twitter embedded in my browser? I intentionally block both of them on webpages, and now I have to deal with them being an integrated part of the software? I genuinely DO NOT understand this -- I thought the WHOLE POINT of the addon system was for adding things like this. Nowadays the Firefox addon ecosystem seems more focused on removing things from the browser. What. The. Hell.
  • Just what we need: Bigger icons! [mozilla.org] . Let's display less information and take up valuable vertical screen space (which they whine about so much as excuses to get rid of the status and tab bars).

I think Mozilla would face much less resistance to their new update model if they would release fixes and performance updates automatically, but hold off making poorly thought-out UI changes except for on a 6-12 month cycle.

Or, better yet, drop the stupid UI changes all together.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (-1, Offtopic)

nmb3000 (741169) | about a year and a half ago | (#42048921)

Oh that's just beautiful, Slashdot.


#commentlisting li:not(.comment) {
        list-style: none outside none;
        margin: 0 0 11px 22px;
}

Remove the bullets and margin from list elements. What a great idea; makes it much easier to read.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

noobermin (1950642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045631)

It's alright, all the OS X crowd use chrome anyway since it's sleeker and more hip and not as popular.

Paradoxically, because of that, everyone uses it because it's sleeker and more hip and thus is popular.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045691)

Chrome? No way. OS X is into old wood veneer.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045801)

Apparently, not anymore [cultofmac.com] .

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (2)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046555)

I'm just on OSX with Firefox. Chrome is for geek posers.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

noobermin (1950642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050201)

I use w3m without a framebuffer.

Oh wait, this is a OS X hipster superiority argument, not a linux leetness one, my bad.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (-1, Flamebait)

_xeno_ (155264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045913)

So what?

I hate to point out the obvious, but no web site in existence does "retina" anyway. The only thing adding "retina support" to the browser would do is make a very high-DPI UI (I guess) surrounding a webpage designed to be viewed at the same DPI that every single other computer in existence uses.

You're not missing anything, really, and asking Firefox to waste resources on something that maybe a few percent of a percent of Firefox users can even use is just ridiculous.

Almost as ridiculous as the fact that apparently they ARE wasting resources on that (if it's in nightly builds). Firefox doesn't need "retinal support" until real computers and OSes support it.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42045941)

Firefox doesn't need "retinal support" until real computers and OSes support it.

Um, you know them's fightin' words, right?

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046021)

Except that the UI looks really fuzzy on a Retina display w/o having Retina support. That's one of the larger complaints on non-retina apps. The way around that is to set the MBPr to 2880x1800, but then everything else is small as hell.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046171)

I hate to point out the obvious, but no web site in existence does "retina" anyway

On the contrary, there are quite a few very large pictures on the internet. Even on wikipedia. [wikimedia.org]

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (4, Insightful)

_xeno_ (155264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046521)

Funny, that picture looks just fine to me on my non-"retina" display. It's almost as if you don't need a retina display to see images!

But wait, there's more. When that image is embedded into a webpage, it's embedded at the standard, non-"retinal" resolution. So when displayed on a "retina" display, it will look "blurry."

Except apparently Wikipedia uses Safari's made up extension for "retina" images, so it would work there. (Hopefully Firefox will stick with standards and not make up extensions for non-existent problems.)

But on the vast majority of webpages, all you're going to get is a standard-res image. Making "retina" basically useless.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046603)

Retina support is more than just higher resolution images. It's about the text rendering, too.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1, Interesting)

_xeno_ (155264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046677)

How would text rendering be a problem for the browser? I'm assuming that Mac OS X isn't written by complete idiots, and that non-"retinal" apps get upscaled with proper high-DPI text rendering, meaning that the only thing Firefox has to deal with is scaling images.

This is true, right? Apple wouldn't do something completely stupid like require all apps that want to do "retinal" be completely rewritten to deal with that, would they?

I suppose they would, wouldn't they.

In any case, text rendering is a thing that the OS should be dealing with, not the app, so it shouldn't be a Firefox problem. All Firefox should need to do is provide higher-res images. Which basically don't exist on the vast majority of sites, so they might as well not bother on something that maybe a percent of a percent of users would be able to use.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047247)

You seem to be thinking that "retina support" is only about rendering the webpage at a higher resolution. It's also about the program's UI. And no, Firefox did not automatically use HiDPI rendering of text in webpages or its UI therwise they wouldn't have needed to fix that. That is an issue with Firefox not OS X as you seem to be trying to blame. Your focus solely on the webpage images misses the point entirely.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (4, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047343)

You don't understand. These people paid extra money for Retinal Displays. They demand that their applications come and reassure them that the money was well spent.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (-1, Flamebait)

_xeno_ (155264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047383)

Ah, finally, the first answer from someone that actually makes sense! "I paid a ton of money on a useless feature, everyone drop what they're doing and support it!!!"

Kind of reminds me of Windows 8 and touch screens.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

Smauler (915644) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049561)

Retina support is more than just higher resolution images. It's about the text rendering, too.

Ok... I may be missing something here. What exactly is the advantage of having very high resolution text?

I'm serious... I don't understand why anyone could consider that a feature they'd use, apart from in some specialised jobs.

I'm all for big resolution displays for a multitude of reasons, but reading text has never been one of them for me.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046273)

Rectal support is very important you insensitive clod!

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (4, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046515)

Quite a lot of sites support the full 'retina' resolution. For example, Google Maps or Picassa Web.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (3, Informative)

TheoCryst (975577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047311)

Additionally, any site that renders text will look better. Firefox 17 doesn't render text at the higher DPI supported by new MacBook Pros, causing every site to look blurrier than it would in Chrome or Safari.

For the record, the same is true in Windows: change the scaling factor of the OS, and Firefox simply scales the same low-res text. It's unclear whether the change I mentioned in nightlies will fix Windows as well; I simply haven't tried it yet.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (2)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047517)

There's an unofficial patch for Firefox for Retina support (I'm using it right now to write this message). It works just fine, and it also is going to be integrated into F18.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049861)

I'm waiting for F128 :|
I find this release model as ridiculous as people who don't flush the toilet after going. Major versions are for major changes. As they would say in engineering: change in form, fit and function

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047363)

Do these not work without the support in the browser?

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047551)

Sure, your browser should support getting HiDpi images. Chrome, Safari support it out-of-box on Windows and Mac. Firefox doesn't, but there's a patched version with Retina support.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42048983)

Explain this. An image is an image, if it's JPEG, GIF, or PNG the firefox should support it. HiDpi is an Apple marketing term only, it is not a new image format that needs special decoding.

Now if the problem is that you get tiny images and want them to be scaled up then that is what should be said clearly, not some fuzzy phrase like "support retinal displays".

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (0)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047323)

All they have to do is put the words "Supports the Retina lifestyle" somewhere in the About page and the hipsters will be happy.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046709)

Just use Safari. You're living the Apple dream, yes?

exponential version numbers (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42045679)

I've ran the numbers through our compute cluster here at JPL and have determined that Firefox version numbers are on an exponential climb and will reach critical mass and achieve self awareness around the 20th or 21st of December THIS YEAR with the creation of a singularity on the entire planet's web browser population.

The Mayans knew... the Mayans knew...

Re:exponential version numbers (1)

noobermin (1950642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045915)

Someone please mod this up I'm laughing so hard.

Re:exponential version numbers (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046169)

So did the programmers. I mean, just look at what is happening in that icon?

Re:exponential version numbers (1)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046229)

By an odd coincidence, this morning I was reading Arthur C Clarke's classic SF short story 'The Nine Billion Versions Of Firefox' where the universe comes to an end when they release version 9,000,000,000. I had hoped it wouldn't happen in my lifetime, but it's looking increasingly likely now.

What does the scouter say bout its version number? (1)

jensend (71114) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049863)

There's no way that can be right!

Re:exponential version numbers (3, Insightful)

nickittynickname (2753061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046307)

That's crazy. Last time I heard a firefox version number joke was right after I fell off my dinosaur and into my wooden underwear. Good job, I'm glad to see you spiced up that dead horse with a few other dead horses. That should bring an old joke back to life.

Re:exponential version numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046627)

Typical comment from someone with a 2-AND 3/4-FUCKING-MILLION id...

Re:exponential version numbers (1)

nickittynickname (2753061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046881)

Typical comment from an AC

Re:exponential version numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047841)

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Firefox Nightly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42045699)

Yay, now we have Firefox 20.0a1!

I always wondered why the bug fix list is so huge. (1)

etash (1907284) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045701)

The answer: some bugs seem to be fixed TWICE:

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/17.0/releasenotes/buglist.html
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/16.0/releasenotes/buglist.html

there as it at least one bug ( 786386 ) which has been fixed .. in both versions. ( 3d randomly picked number from version 17.0 )

Re:I always wondered why the bug fix list is so hu (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045869)

I believe the reason is that work actually starts on 17 around the time of 15. There's always three versions being developed in parallel, each one a few weeks ahead of each other. So a bug fix may get into all currently developed versions.

Re:I always wondered why the bug fix list is so hu (1)

etash (1907284) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046179)

true, it may be just that, i uniq-ed them and it's only 206 duplicated fixes ( out of about ~2200 per version ) so that accounts to less than 10% ( per version )

Click to play plugins? (2, Informative)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045775)

As always, Opera did it first.

Re:Click to play plugins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42045873)

Yeah, and about 5 years ago, to boot.

It is rumored that labs.mozilla.org simply redirects to opera.com

Re:Click to play plugins? (2)

gparent (1242548) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046323)

Flashblock did this in 2006, if not earlier. Quit sucking Opera's dick.

Re:Click to play plugins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046463)

Konqueror had it even earlier than that.

Re:Click to play plugins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047357)

ABOUT 5 years ago. So probably 6 or 7 years ago. Opera had it slightly before flashblock.

Re:Click to play plugins? (2)

Archenoth (2592069) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045911)

Yeah, I wonder how long other features like Speed Dial, or Tab stacking will last before someone copies them.

I wish that people knew where all of these fancy features are coming from, that way Opera would have more funding to innovate. They certainly haven't slowed down since they created tabbed browsing eons ago...

Re:Click to play plugins? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about a year and a half ago | (#42045939)

Yeah, I wonder how long other features like Speed Dial, or Tab stacking will last before someone copies them.

Chrome already copied Speed Dial.

Re:Click to play plugins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046051)

I'm pretty sure that was his point :)

Re:Click to play plugins? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046079)

Opera is full of whiny, Eurotrash faggots.

Re:Click to play plugins? (3)

cgt (1976654) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046445)

Opera is actually a decent browser (though I prefer Firefox), but their fanboys are even more annoying than Chrome fanboys.

Re:Click to play plugins? (2)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046529)

I wish that people knew where all of these fancy features are coming from, that way Opera would have more funding to innovate.

While the cynic may see it as chump change especially in multi-national mega-corp terms, in 2011, Opera Software's net income came in at a comfortable 24.6 million dollars on an operating income of 156.5 million, a substantial increase over the year before. Not quite as much as Mozilla who netted 43 million in 2009 but for a small company of 777 employees just doing their thing making their browser, it's not too bad. Bear in mind too that Mozilla resides in the US while Opera is in Norway so a direct 1:1 comparison of financials can be slightly misleading especially when you take into account social services especially health care the respective companys' employees have access to and the different tax structures they exist under. Financially, Opera Software looks healthy with very low debt, and I think 150 million in cash reserves which, again, for their size is not too shabby. Most of their revenue comes from two places, namely licensing and search deals with licensing bringing in a bit more. Search is huge for them accounting for about a third of their income so they're in pretty deep with Google and to a much lesser extent Yandex and Amazon. While being heavily dependent on one other company that barring contractual obligations could turn the money off at a whim isn't the greatest thing ever, it's obviously better to have it than not have it just bearing in mind that it might not always be there. The bright side is their licensing revenues are not only slightly larger than search but actually appear to be growing faster respectively as well. And since they do offer some unique technology enabling web browsing on very low-end feature phones that otherwise wouldn't have it at all (as far as I know), it's reasonable to think the licensing revenue is fairly stable. If you want the whole story, here's their (warning pdf)2011 annual report [opera.com] . Riveting.

Re:Click to play plugins? (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046253)

As always, Opera did it first.

Oh, did Opera implement a feature in 2010 that Flashblocker for Firefox implemented in 2002? How innovative.

Re:Click to play plugins? (2)

cgt (1976654) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046401)

So what? You want everyone to have permanent patents on everything they “invent”? Also, this feature isn't quite what you think it is—RTFA.

Re:Click to play plugins? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046441)

Yeah opera also did buggy, crapware bundled shit first too.

Whats your point.

For all the firsts opera had.... There are damm good reasons opera didnt end up where firefox is. And most of them are the companys fault.

about time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046123)

about time. this has always been a serious security issue

ClickToPlay sounded good; then I read the summary. (5, Insightful)

jonadab (583620) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046289)

When I read the headline, "Click-to-Play Plugin Blocks", I was thinking that plugin content would be blocked from doing anything unless the user clicks a play button. Just like FlashBlock, in other words. That would actually be a good thing. A good change, in a new version of Firefox: I might've fainted.

But no, what it actually means is this:
> Mozilla will now prompt Firefox users on Windows with old versions of Adobe Reader...

Oh, yes, please.

We need this because Adobe Reader doesn't already prompt every single user who has it installed to the effect that they need to upgrade it, a bare minimum of three per hour. We definitely need our web browser to bug us about this also, otherwise we might not know that three new versions of Adobe Reader were released during the time it took us to download and install the version we currently have. Well, I mean, okay, in theory we'd _know_, but without this extra reminder we might occasionally go up to fifteen minutes at a time without _thinking_ about it. Mozilla must protect us from that horrific fate.

Re:ClickToPlay sounded good; then I read the summa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047259)

Yeah, that's stupid. When I saw "click to play" I was thinking something more about what you said, especially since Opera already has this integrated.

Re:ClickToPlay sounded good; then I read the summa (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047395)

It means they can now kill off Flash and promote their one world domination via HTML5. HTML5 has always been the goal of Mozilla, they don't care about the users they only want their dream to come true.

And I WANT the older versions of Reader. The new Acrobat Reader version are complete crap.

Re:ClickToPlay sounded good; then I read the summa (1)

higuita (129722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049859)

There are OTHER pdf readers, most of then with plugin support ... no need to use a buggy and insecure acrobat reader

Re:ClickToPlay sounded good; then I read the summa (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050007)

Except that I think reader 7 & 8 have the best UI, for things like search, moving forward and back in history, etc. All others I have tried are clumsy. I use Preview on my Mac at work but am not at all happy with it.

The whole thing is stupid because no one ever should have added the possibility of malware in a read-only non-executable format! What next, RTF viruses? Well, I guess I thought the same way about HTML and didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to add features to it to make it dangerous.

Re:ClickToPlay sounded good; then I read the summa (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050127)

Estonian TXT viruses. That politely ask you to forward it to all your contacts and then delete your hard drive contents.

Re:ClickToPlay sounded good; then I read the summa (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42048259)

No, click-to-play does what you think it does. Like FlashBlock. The Acrobat Reader prompts are an additional feature.

Re:ClickToPlay sounded good; then I read the summa (2)

Lennie (16154) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049649)

It supports both, the behaviour is configurable.

Waiting for 18.. (2)

dstyle5 (702493) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046469)

which should release in about 3... 2... 1...

Re:Waiting for 18.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049509)

20 was out today, though it was still missing support for the "comedian" add-on.

If you could spare some time could you sort them out? You seem to be on the ball.
Support is there for joke recycling already but you'll have to implement flogging dead horses yourself.

v17... (1)

sirber (891722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046495)

Is it faster now? It's the only browser where you can feel a delay when you change tabs..

Re:v17... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047093)

Works for me but I'm not running an old virus ridden windows machine like many people as I know what I'm doing with my computer. That's why I also know Chrome isn't that fast and has many flaws the google fanboys don't want to talk about given that google tracks them and knows all the questionable sites they've been on.

Re:v17... (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047291)

And those flaws are what exactly?

Re:v17... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047431)

Tabs die too quickly and it poorly handles broken HTML which causes it to use up all it's memory and cause the thing to be unsable are the two biggest. The biggest reason I quit using it is because it's performance was just generally much more poor than Firefox.

Its problem is that it's always used more memory and CPU than pretty much any other browser but they focused on making it feel fast which is fine but that little trick seems to be failing. That or I guess they expect me to have a computer more powerful than something that happily plays TF2 or Portal 2 (on faily high settings and resolution) just to browse the web.
And that's without plugins. I'd hate to see what happens if you take full advantage of it. Not that you can. Google's nazi-like controls won't even let me add buttons to the speed dial page (assuming they haven't recently fixed that after years of people asking for it), the UI in general has a too minimal feel and then when you download a file it has that big butt ugly download bar which I have to then close myself. It was a nice UI compared to all the others when they had small view ports but everyone else seems to be excelling at making the most out of the browser space while give people options. Google still gives you very little flexibility which means they think they either know better than me or they're just not good enough to handle it.

+1 (1)

higuita (129722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050025)

Having used all major browser i agree.

for browsing 2-3 pages, chrome is good, startup fast, but start to load more tabs, demand more from it and you will see the cpu and specially the ram going up.
During the last year and half, firefox manage to rebuild its memory usage and today have the best long term memory usage of all.

Re:v17... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047161)

Really? Which tabs? I only feel a delay when switch between non-Firebugged tabs and Firebugged ones. Oh, and sometimes if I switch to a tab that hasn't been loaded or contains a huge image that takes a while to decode.

Re:v17... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42048197)

Is it faster now?

I hope not. The battle between Safari and Firefox for being the slowest browser is just too thrilling to declare a winner yet.

ESR 17 is also available for download (1)

williamyf (227051) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046769)

ESR 17.0 is also available for download (as is ESR 10.0.11), but the autmatic update mechanism is not offering it as an option (at least not yet), only 10.0.11.

I guess they will let the Quality testing phase to be completed before offering it as an automatic update

Re:ESR 17 is also available for download (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049933)

Eric S. Raymond is now up to version 17?

I knew he was into all that Cathedral and Bazaar stuff but hadn't realised he'd open sourced himself!

Version 17 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047037)

Now That's Gangsta.

Sandbox (3, Interesting)

mx+b (2078162) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047361)

What I find more fascinating in TFA is that Firefox has added simple support for HTML5 Sandboxes. You can apparently specify whether the data inside the IFRAME is allowed to access outside domains, etc. (if I am reading it correctly; I am not actively involved in web design at the moment and so am a bit behind the curve; does anyone know how good this sandbox function is compared to other software/browsers?).

ESR (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047761)

Notice that Firefox 17 is also an Extended Support Release, so if you are a fan of a more conservative update cycle, now is a good time to hop on the wagon.

Mozilla Firefox ESR Overview [mozilla.org]

Prompt users for/to do what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42048021)

"In short, the addition means Mozilla will now prompt Firefox users on Windows with old versions of Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, and Microsoft Silverlight (more will be added eventually)."

Prompt them for/to do what?

Sounds much better than it is. (2)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42048215)

I thought from the description that this would require clicking *all* Flash, Java or other plug-in applets before they would run. That would be true security (until the dumb masses find and click one they shouldn't). I thought this would be a relief for when I'm using a fresh copy of Firefox; I could possibly go a bit longer before installing Adblock, NoScript and the rest. But no... it only blocks this crap from loading without a click when an "old" version of a plug-in is used. Yay. Talk about pointless. So, AdBlock and NoScript still do it better, and this is no temporary holdover until the real plug-in can be installed.

Actually, this is possibly even worse. Once people find out that they can "block" annoying moving Flash ads that have sound by simply keeping their plug-ins out of date, they'll probably never want to update again. I know I wouldn't. So then when they do click to run a bad applet, they really are screwed.

Still not as good as Chrome. (1)

slacka (713188) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050531)

As a web developer, I would love to see FF support WebP. As an end user, I wish the UI was responsive and it took advantage of more than 1 of the cores in my multi-core CPU. Do they even make single-core CPUs anymore?

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...