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!

cancel ×

220 comments

Honestly? (-1, Troll)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522337)

It still only feels like Firefox 17 was just released last week.
When will the insanity stop? It's getting incredibly tiring.

Re:Honestly? (1, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522409)

Google Chrome is on version 23, so I suspect Firefox won't rest until they've at least achieved parity with Chrome in the "Browser Version Number Wars".

Re:Honestly? (1, Insightful)

Malc (1751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522435)

And still a tired old monolithic app. I switched to Chrome eight months ago, and although it uses a lot of memory it does give me the ability to properly manage its memory and CPU usage: it's so much easier to identify pages to kill when they're running in their own process space. Not only does this allow me to selectively reduce the app's memory footprint, but I can conserve battery life on my laptop by easily culling busy pages.

Re:Honestly? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522599)

There's no way Firefox needs a built-in PDF viewer. I'd be pissed, if I hadn't already switched to Konqueror.

Re:Honestly? (1, Interesting)

gregmac (629064) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522969)

I've been using Chrome for well over a year, and have had this discussion many times. Yes, Chrome uses more ram. But I can close a bunch of tabs, and it frees it up. Firefox, every time I try it and despite that it's memory management is "getting better", still eventually uses several GB of ram and requires that I completely exit and restart before it's freed.

My browser is one of the first things I start up when I turn on my PC, and generally stays open until my PC has to reboot for some reason (which may be anywhere from a week to a month). This is really only possible now because I use Chrome.

Re:Honestly? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523263)

I do the same with Firefox with no problem.

Use whatever you like, but no modern browser has significantly poor performance with general use.

Re:Honestly? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523739)

I do the same with Firefox with no problem.

That's nice for you, but it does not invalidate the point of the person you're replying to. I have the same problem he does: Firefox (and ONLY firefox, out of all the things I run) eventually grows to several GB and starts my system into swapping paralysis. Killing firefox instantly makes the system come back to its senses again. None of the other apps I run show this runaway-ram-usage behavior. My only add-on is adblock plus.

Why is that every time in Linux land that someone reports a bug, a million other people jump all over him and say, "but ... but.. but ***I*** don't see it! It must not exist!" Sheesh - there are hundreds upon hundreds of people reporting this same behavior. YOU are not the whole world.

Re:Honestly? (1)

GNious (953874) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523271)

My solution to the "restart firefox" - use the Aurora build: There is a new build every day, so you're suggested to restart daily :) ..and yes - my mac becomes noticable faster every time I restart FF.

Re:Honestly? (2)

dogsbreath (730413) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523291)

My browser is one of the first things I start up when I turn on my PC, and generally stays open until my PC has to reboot for some reason (which may be anywhere from a week to a month). This is really only possible now because I use Chrome.

I call shenanigans. "[rebooting monthly] is ... only possible now [because of Chrome]" is just not true.

I'm running Win7-64bit on a laptop with 6G ram and I use Firefox. FF is always running and I very very seldom kill the process. Like almost never. I reboot about once a month and usually because of something non-related to Windows or FF crashing/hanging. Usually just a Win security update.

I run some heavy memory usage video editing apps and usually have a LOT of terminal windows open, along with multiple desktops. FF has not been an issue.

eh, your mileage may vary but that is my experience.

Re:Honestly? (4, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522479)

Feel free to use the LTR and only upgrade once a year if you like. Nobody's forcing you to upgrade with every release.

Re:Honestly? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523033)

ESR, not LTR. Not that it matters all that much.

And the ESR does change with the regular line as they backport any security fixes.

I did just grab ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/17.0.2esr and ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/thunderbird/releases/17.0.2esr.

Re:Honestly? (-1, Offtopic)

eartsidi (2811219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523595)

http://www.cloud65.com/ [cloud65.com] my co-worker's step-mother makes $73/hr on the computer. She has been fired for six months but last month her pay was $17811 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here

Quit whining (5, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522499)

Honestly, your whining is counterproductive.

Firefox is following a standard open-source style policy of release early, release often [wikipedia.org] and as a vendor following this exact mantra, I see that although I do hear a lot of whining from some of our (typically more backward) customers, we are able to evolve to meet new needs better than our competitors which has allowed us to grow at a sustained rate better than 50% per year for years on end.

Many of our meetings with clients start with whines about how they have trouble keeping up with all the changes, followed up by hours of specifying new changes and additions that they'd like, closing with my pointing out that all the changes that they requested will be released as developed and them having to keep up with them as they are made available.

Perhaps it's necessary for some people to see improvements in a bad light, but if you really don't like it... leave! Go use some product that doesn't update at all if you want. I hear you can still find Firefox 3.6 binaries if you look hard enough. Even Chrome updates constantly.

Re:Quit whining (1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522715)

Honestly, your whining is counterproductive.

And your narrow-mindedness is annoying. Do you know why Microsoft only releases patches once a month for its operating systems? Because corporate environments can become violently ill when something is updated without it being tested first. You call it whining and say your customers are backward, but I see customers that prefer to not jump in head first into a pool they can't see the bottom of. That's why Chrome, Firefox, etc., aren't the most-used browsers.

Hell, even Linux has a stable and development branch. With Firefox, the stable branch might as well be the development branch. Plugins become outdated with every new release because they changed something in the API, or the way this feature works, or what that variable contains.

And for the record, a product that doesn't need to be updated is something some programmers strive for: It means they've made something that does its job so well there's no need to change it. That's not whining: That's damn good engineering.

Re:Quit whining (5, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522869)

And your narrow-mindedness is annoying. Do you know why Microsoft only releases patches once a month for its operating systems?

And your complaining about the mainstream version of Firefox while ignoring the existence of the enterprise version of Firefox makes your argument disingenuous.

Here let me get you started: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/ [mozilla.org]

Re:Quit whining (1, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522959)

And your complaining about the mainstream version of Firefox while ignoring the existence of the enterprise version of Firefox makes your argument disingenuous.

I'm well aware of it. It has support for all of... 1 year [mozilla.org] . Also, to quote directly from the same page: "Backports of any functional enhancements and/or stability fixes are not in scope."

So, who's being more disingenuous here... the person who makes the argument that "release early, release often" may not be suitable for all applications, or the guy that handwaves the argument, claims a lie of omission, and then makes a lie of omission of his own? Stupid facts, getting in the way of a good internet roasting...

Re:Quit whining (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523539)

Actually your admission that you knew about the enterprise version yet railed against the consumer version of firefox makes your argument even more disingenuous.

Re:Quit whining (0)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523715)

If you are going to accuse me of making a lie of omission, you need to not base that accusation on another "lie of omission". Let me quote the whole paragraph below with the omitted portion in bold:

"Maintenance of each ESR, through point releases, is limited to high-risk/high-impact security vulnerabilities and in rare cases may also include off-schedule releases that address live security vulnerabilities. Backports of any functional enhancements and/or stability fixes are not in scope."

The above policy seems reasonable and addresses the concerns of the enterprise users.

I still don't understand how pointing out that your argument completely ignores the existence of the ESR is a "lie of omission". I'll throw it in the "grasping at straws" bin.

Re:Quit whining (3, Insightful)

Lucky75 (1265142) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522903)

Firefox has a version that releases less often for corporate users. Also, Chrome does the exact same thing, sans the alternate version.

Re:Quit whining (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523907)

Chrome can't even handle roaming profiles without violent crashes and bugs. Please don't suggest that it's corporate/enterprise friendly. There are many threads which will testify otherwise and regardless how much Google claims the issue is fixed, it's not.

Re:Quit whining (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523051)

Because corporate environments can become violently ill when something is updated without it being tested first.

That is why Firefox ESR releases exists.

Plugins become outdated with every new release because they changed something in the API

You meant extensions, not plug-ins. Your information is outdated. Except in rare cases, most extensions are compatible by default now.

And for the record, a product that doesn't need to be updated is something some programmers strive for: It means they've made something that does its job so well there's no need to change it. That's not whining: That's damn good engineering.

That may be true for Solitaire or TextEdit, but the web is constantly evolving, new standards mean new requirements, new customer expectations mean new requirements. Imagine trying to use Mosaic today.

Re:Quit whining (4, Insightful)

Vaphell (1489021) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523059)

That's the reality of the web. People want to use css3, html5, svg, faster javascript and what not now, not in 1 year, maybe.
I don't really pay too much attention to what companies want, if they had their way we'd be still using IE6.0

Re:Quit whining (5, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523077)

Do you know why Microsoft only releases patches once a month for its operating systems? Because corporate environments can become violently ill when something is updated without it being tested first.

We even offered to have a "stable" release version with updates only every 1 to 6 months, and have every released version have a 30 day trial period so that they could preview changes. We asked a 5% premium for this service. We thought as much as half of our client base would go for it based on the loud verbal feedback. But as soon as our clients found that they were choosing between having last year's product, totally stable with no updates or getting the new one with all the latest new features, bells, and whistles, guess how popular this option was? How many clients do you think signed that contract?

Not one.

My "narrow-mindedness" comes from my past experience... so now we listen to the whining carefully, and try to identify ways to better disseminate our change logs.

And for the record, a product that doesn't need to be updated is something some programmers strive for: It means they've made something that does its job so well there's no need to change it.

It's also a sign of a stagnant industry/marketplace. Needs change as circumstances change, and if the software doesn't change with the customer, it tends to disappear.

Re:Quit whining (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523791)

Do you know why Microsoft only releases patches once a month for its operating systems?

Do you know that Microsoft releases patches for its operating systems once a week, specifically every Tuesday? [wikipedia.org] Yes, the Wikipedia article implies once a month, except that really isn't the case any more -- they're deployed weekly, except for critical/uber-important security holes, which are pushed out ASAP. Things like "general security issues", even for older OSes like XP, are still pushed out weekly.

This is the 2nd thread I've seen from you talking about Microsoft as if you know the place. I get the impression you may have worked there or knew someone who worked there who gave you a lot of misinformation. I worked there for a total of 7 years (non-linearly; 2 years as a contractor, then many years later, 5 years as a FTE) and it disappoints me to see so much misinformation being spread. :(

As for your opinions on Firefox release schedules, for corporate environments your opinion is spot on - the Firefox release model does not work well in corporate environments (at my past job we used Firefox 3.x exclusively, despite Firefox double-digit builds being available, because upgrading would have caused more issues than sticking with what worked), and their "Enterprise" edition is not realistic/pragmatic in the least. But that has absolutely nothing to do with which browser is "used the most".

As for product which lack updates indicating stability or reliability - this is often nonsense spewed forth from mouths of people who are managerial and not actual engineers. Real engineers know that deep down inside there are always bugs, and that updates to fix those are always warranted, no matter how long it has been since the previous update. Here's a good example [freshbsd.org] of a bug that lasted almost 20 years; does this indicate stability to you? It shouldn't.

Re:Quit whining (2)

Cinder6 (894572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523797)

Do you know why Microsoft only releases patches once a month for its operating systems? Because corporate environments can become violently ill when something is updated without it being tested first.

I don't use Firefox, and I know it's popular to bash its rapid release schedule for some reason, but...

Firefox 14.0: June 26, 2012
Firefox 15.0: August 28, 2012
Firefox 16.0: October 9, 2012
Firefox 17.0: November 20, 2012
Firefox 18.0: January 8, 2013
Firefox 19.0: February 19, 2013
Firefox 20.0: March 26, 2013

Average is well over a month for each major version number. Granted, 13.0 came out less than a month before 14.0, but that was several versions ago, and is the only version in 2012 that had such a short lifetime. Mozilla doesn't ship new major versions that fast. There are point releases, but not as many as you'd think (only 1 or 2 per release).

I don't see why people are upset about Firefox's release schedule. It's similar to Chrome's, which seems to largely get a pass. Then again, Chrome does silent updates. I assume (hope) Firefox does the same--is this not the case? If not, then that could get annoying.

Re:Quit whining (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522945)

I can understand your reasoning.

However, it seems to me - I am Firefox user myself - that Mozilla folks executed this paradigim in a somewhat faulty way regarding extensions API. Extensions are constantly broken and as far as I know, current policy to avoid it is to set 'maxver' metadata to 99 or something like that. This seems wrong and Mozilla fails to see and solve the problem.

Re:Quit whining (1)

mlts (1038732) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523521)

Web browsers are the front line in the security fight too. It used to be that the biggest point of attack was the firewalls. Now with packet inspection on even the inexpensive home routers, as well as IDS/IPS appliances being relatively inexpensive, going in via the Internet is fairly difficult.

However, Web browsers and add-ons are the gold rush for malware authors. Add-ons until recently tended to be written at best to support functionality; security was an afterthought, if there was any thought to it at all.

Having a Web browser constantly updated, especially if it is response to potential new attacks against it or add-ons is a good thing. It is one of the few software programs on client machines that is always in contact with untrusted and potentially malicious code on a constant basis. Even trustworthy sites can have ad servers which expose visitors to malicious code.

It is understandable to have a stable browser in the enterprise. However, even IE is updated monthly on average, perhaps more if an out of band patch is required.

The best compromise would be something like FirefoxADM, where on the internal WSUS patch release, push out Firefox as well.

Until the Web browser stops becoming the main staging ground for intrusions, having constant updates is a good thing.

Lawlz (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522375)

Psh, I just upgraded to Firefox 22 just 5 minutes ago. Firfox 18 is so 30 minutes ago.

Re:Lawlz (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522447)

I'm waiting until next week. I hear version 50 is going to be awesome!

Re:Lawlz (1)

jonadab (583620) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522567)

Yeah, but you still haven't caught up with me. I'm using Emacs 23.2.1. Since 23 is more than 22, clearly I'm better than you. Though I really should upgrade to version 24 one of these days.

Re:Lawlz (1)

jonadab (583620) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522589)

Oh, and my Gecko version is 20081217. That's WAY bigger than your puny little Firefox version number. So there.

Too many revisions chased me away (-1, Redundant)

Nationless (2123580) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522399)

They kept updating it and changing things around in very small ways which seemed to break my add-ons and browsing methods on a regular basis. Like adding the awesomebar, taking it out, breaking the addon I had to replace it and probably putting it back in again by now...

  I know updates are generally considered a good thing, but Mozilla chased me away with theirs. I just wanted my browser and daily routine to work every time I started it up without having to worry about whether or not they updated it.

Re:Too many revisions chased me away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522429)

Try Firefox ESR. I'm still running 10.0.11

Re:Too many revisions chased me away (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522519)

Not any more. My Firefox just updated itself to ESR 10.0.12 while reading your post!

Re:Too many revisions chased me away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522433)

So did you switch to ice weasel or what?

Re:Too many revisions chased me away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522649)

They've sapped all the fun out of major version changes. "Ooh, new version 5.0! I can't wait to see the huge amount of major improvements they've made!" Now it's like they assign a new major version number for every little fucking thing. Whores.

Re:Too many revisions chased me away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522707)

Mozilla chased me away a long time ago due to add-ons continuously breaking on updates and Mozilla blaming the add-on developers.

Re:Too many revisions chased me away (3, Insightful)

Lucky75 (1265142) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522929)

Pretty sure that doesn't happen any more with the new way they write extensions.

OTOH (4, Insightful)

dogsbreath (730413) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522909)

Went to Chrome for a while to see what the buzz was about. Supposedly faster, cleaner, etc.

Got po'd when I couldn't configure it to operate the way I wanted it to. Just personal taste and not a criticism; to each their own, as they say. However, I did not see any improvement in responsiveness and, for me there was a genuine loss of functionality. Went back to Firefox and have been very happy. Sure it would be nice to have some process options but Mozilla seems to be doing a bang up job of dealing with the various issues that caused process hangs and memory leaks. I can't remember the last time I had to kill an unresponding FF process. Used to happen weekly, even daily. Kudos to the FF team.

For the most part the Firefox version changes have been transparent to me (well, except for tabs - grrrr - but I have been able to customize them to work the way I want). The update cycle is more or less the same with Chrome and IE. If they changed the numbering scheme so it went from, say, 10.17 to 10.18 instead of 17 to 18, there would be less reaction. Or maybe not. Anyways, it is not a huge issue.

Firefox is easily competitive with any other popular browser and is well supported. Don't think I will bother trying a change again for a while unless something truly game changing comes along.

Stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522465)

These numbers are meaningless now. It's just stupid. It would almost be better to start calling releases stuff like "firefox 20130108" or something, at least you'd have a logical indicator of how recent the version is without having to look it up on wikipedia or something.

I miss classic tabs in Android (1)

rockerito (2791051) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522491)

Firefox for Android lacks tabs. I mean, you have them in a sidebar as big screenshots of the website, and there is no option to use classic tabs at the top of the window. I hope they fixed it with Firefox 18, will try it later today. Otherwise, it is a great browser and the only one in which I can use flash for android jelly bean (though I had to install flash by hand). Chrome and Dolphin disabled flash, even if it is installed, for jelly bean.

I wonder... (1)

jfengel (409917) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522501)

I set it up to use Chrome as my PDF viewer. (Which wasn't easy, since the nonstandard way Chrome installs itself under Windows meant that it didn't show up on the list of programs.)

I wonder if it's going to override that setting when it updates itself. I don't really care, as long as it works. I just liked keeping my system clean and didn't want to download Adobe if I didn't have to.

Re:I wonder... (2, Interesting)

ShaunC (203807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522553)

I wonder if it's going to override that setting when it updates itself.

Doesn't seem that way. I had the Foxit Reader plugin installed, and after upgrading, PDFs still opened in Foxit. Quite frankly I can't figure out where the built-in PDF reader even is; I uninstalled Foxit and if I try to load a PDF, Firefox now just prompts me to save the file.

Re:I wonder... (2)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523157)

You need to set pdfjs.disabled to 'false' in about:config. PDF reader seems to be disabled by default for old installations.

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523215)

Posting ANON to avoid undoing moderation (+1)

"""Update: The built-in PDF viewer is not included in this release, although it was in the Firefox 18 beta. We have updated the article to reflect that."""

So, no PdfReader included yet

Foxit Rocks

Wasn't this supposed to happen silently? (1)

viniosity (592905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522523)

I recall reading that the updates would start happening silently in the background. I still appreciate the announcement, but my guess is that next week I'll go to the About Firefox section and find that it waited until just then to download the update to version 18. I much prefer the way Chrome handles it where I go to check and find out it happened while I wasn't paying attention. Where's the hold up on making that happen? Did it happen and I just haven't flipped a setting?

Re:Wasn't this supposed to happen silently? (3, Informative)

ChronoReverse (858838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522543)

It already happened. Check your settings to see if it's turned on.

Re:Wasn't this supposed to happen silently? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522709)

For reference, it's under options > advanced > update

On Windows, if you've got the 'use separate updater' box checked, you might also want to make sure that the Mozilla Maintenance Service is set to run automatically in services.msc.

Re:Wasn't this supposed to happen silently? (1)

viniosity (592905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522793)

It already happened. Check your settings to see if it's turned on.

As suspected, my settings are correct. When I went to About Firefox I got the dialog.. downloading update 0 of 24.2MB downloaded. Seems like they still have work to do.

Re:Wasn't this supposed to happen silently? (1)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522873)

Something isn't quite right there. For whatever reason you are getting a full update, when it should have tried a binary diff first (~3 to 6MB).

It's gotten much better for me over the last couple releases. I used to have to do what you do in checking manually but haven't for a while. (That's when I maintain Windows, Ubuntu's Firefox obviously updates with the system)

Re:Wasn't this supposed to happen silently? (1)

ChronoReverse (858838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523113)

Might just be staggered release then.


The update was just released and it's entirely reasonable it could stagger you a couple days even before auto-downloading.

Re:Wasn't this supposed to happen silently? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523371)

Might just be staggered release then.
The update was just released and it's entirely reasonable it could stagger you a couple days even before auto-downloading.

Exactly

IonMonkey (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522533)

Seriously, were y'all drunk when you came up with that name? It conjures up images of some kind of celestial primate flinging high energy particles about. Firefox at least sounds like something that could be found frolicing about in heavily wooded areas.

Re:IonMonkey (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522743)

It conjures up images of some kind of celestial primate flinging high energy particles about.

Sounds to me like something that'd be hanging out with a dragon.

'Firefox' just makes me think of that lame Eastwood film.

Re:IonMonkey (5, Funny)

A10Mechanic (1056868) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522973)

"Firefox" , . Remember, you must post in Russian.

Re:IonMonkey (1)

cruff (171569) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522889)

It conjures up images of some kind of celestial primate flinging high energy particles about.

At least that's better than the stuff they usually fling around...

Re:IonMonkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523101)

Firefox at least sounds like something that could be found frolicing about in heavily wooded areas.

I guess it's currently frolicking in Australia.

Yes but Nightly can drink beer now.. legally (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522597)

Happy 21.0a1!

Fu`c4? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522603)

to w-ork I'm doing,

PDF viewer? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522629)

Sounds like good functionality for a plug-in.

Re:PDF viewer? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522985)

Yep, and reading PDFs inside Firefox has already worked using the plugin which ships with Adobe Reader.

a plugin full or security issue (4, Insightful)

JcMorin (930466) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523175)

Yeah and Adobe have a long reputation of having seriously security with their PDF reader. Wonder why they want to make it run without the plugin...

Re:a plugin full or security issue (1)

robmv (855035) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523993)

Exactly, and they are not embedding a C based PDF library like Chrome, this is a new implementation (that needs a lot of testing, printing is still awful) made in Javascript, sandboxed by default

version numbers (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522659)

This is exactly what they wanted, by the way.
With all the big numbers they get a lot more publicity.
This /. article, for example, because they are now at number 18.

Update (-1, Redundant)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522661)

In the following 3 hours they released Firefox 19 and then Firefox 20, because marketing thought 20 sounded better.

There is no PDF viewer, yet (2)

ShaunC (203807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522687)

From another article [techcrunch.com] :

One feature that didn't make it into this release, by the way, is Mozilla's new built-in PDF reader. While the organization has been working on this for a while, it will only make it into the beta release that's expected to arrive on Thursday.

Re:There is no PDF viewer, yet (5, Informative)

MarcoAtWork (28889) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523011)

there sure is, although it wasn't on by default for me: enable pdfjs inside about:config and set the pdf in content to 'preview in firefox'

Still crashy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522717)

Does the entire browser still lunch itself when a plug-in fails on some page?

Chrome showed us that the browser must be robust and generally survive glitches caused by individual sites. Please learn from Chrome and adopt that model.

Re:Still crashy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522971)

Here's a spectacular crash [www.nrc.nl] .

Re:Still crashy? (1)

Lucky75 (1265142) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522991)

Nope, plugins are in a separate process. Have been for quite a while now....

Yawn (0, Flamebait)

sunking2 (521698) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522729)

I stopped really caring years ago about what happens to be on a computer. They all pretty much work at this point. Just like at a restaurant when I ask for a Coke and they say, 'Pepsi ok?' and I just say sure and go happily on with life.

PDF.js (4, Informative)

oever (233119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522759)

The PDF viewer in Firefox, PDF.js [github.com] is an amazing piece of software. It is written entirely in JavaScript and runs in the same sandbox in which a webpage runs. So it is very safe. The layout accuracy and speed of PDF.js are simply amazing. Text selection happens just like it does in the browser. Some PDF viewers only allow you to draw a rectangle on which to do OCR. PDF.js simply lets you select the glyphs.

This viewer has been available as an add-on [mozilla.org] for a while already.

Re:PDF.js (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522841)

With PDF.js Firefox will "eat" a lot of memory hundred of megabytes or even one GB. A solution cold be a special (firefox) profile only for PDF.js.

Re:PDF.js (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522931)

Firefox will "eat" a lot of memory regardless of what you do with it. Even without extensions, any memory usage improvements mozilla may or may not have implemented do not play any role in long term usage scenarios (that is, leave the browser open for a couple of weeks), it'll end up using 1-2 GB of ram.

Re:PDF.js (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523177)

Have you looked at recent benchmarks?

I posted a story last July and Firefox handled the most amount of tabs with the least ram. IE 9 surprising wins too if you have just 1 - 2 tabs. Chrome now is the new pig. My, have things changed in just 1 year.

Re:PDF.js (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523287)

The fact firefox performs better now then other browsers (which I've never used) does not automatically make Firefox's excessive ram consumption justified.

Re:PDF.js (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523333)

Kernel can handle 20-30-40 tasks better than a single large task with a big workload, from point of view of CPU time, RAM and swap memory. Unfortunely Firefox Electrolysis (e10s) was postponed indefinitely.

Re:PDF.js (1)

DirePickle (796986) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522983)

I can not comprehend of anything worse than a PDF viewer written in javascript. The worst of both worlds, together in one package!

Re:PDF.js (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523095)

You can always use Adobe Reader - the best of its kind ;)

Re:PDF.js (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523171)

I can not comprehend of anything worse than a PDF viewer written in javascript.

Clearly, you have never used Adobe's PDF viewer.

Re:PDF.js (2)

Tailhook (98486) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523183)

I can not comprehend of anything worse

That's not much of an imagination. You can embed Javascript in PDF [adobe.com] ...

It's turtles all the way down.

Re:PDF.js (1)

Dwedit (232252) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523957)

PDF viewer written in Javascript, and it's a file format that can contain embedded Javascript...
Yo dawg.

Re:PDF.js (4, Informative)

DuckDodgers (541817) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523265)

They did that because an awful lot of PCs hacked by a website were hacked through security flaws in the PDF viewer. Writing the PDF viewer in Javascript means that the Mozilla developers only need to make Javascript in Firefox secure to protect the machine from intentionally badly formed PDFs, and of course they already needed to secure Javascript so that's no extra security work.

As a scripting language, Javascript is still slow compared to something like well-written C++. But Firefox 18 is pretty close to the latest version of Chrome for Javascript performance (e.g. arewefastyet.com ), so I bet the PDF viewer in Javascript works quickly enough.

Re:PDF.js (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523067)

It may be built in but for now it is disabled...

Reference here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Show_PDF_Inline/

Cheers

Re: Firefox is not sandboxed! (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523139)

This is a major security risk if you ask me. Chrome and IE are and Mozilla is still behind. Flash luckily is now sandboxed which is a huge improvement but PDFs can contain nasty javascript exploits and without a sandbox could be a SECURITY NIGHTMARE.

I am sticking with Firefox ESR 17.01. It will be supported for a year and and want to see if my suspicions are right.

If my information is outdated feel free to correct as I am in the process of not recommending Firefox anymore unless the corporate system is still on XP. IE is much secure now in Windows 7.

Re: Firefox is not sandboxed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523389)

Why do you need to embed the JavaScript in a PDF when you can just run the JavaScript exploit directly? Do you think that running a PDF viewer written in JavaScript is going to give the embedded JavaScript in a PDF some sort of special powers?

Re: Firefox is not sandboxed! (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523835)

Why do you need to embed the JavaScript in a PDF when you can just run the JavaScript exploit directly? Do you think that running a PDF viewer written in JavaScript is going to give the embedded JavaScript in a PDF some sort of special powers?

The power to execute data? Yes. If Mozilla took it out people would whine their PDFs wont work. It was a moronic thing for Adobe to include. I use Foxit PDF because it allows limited javascript functions, is sandboxed, and on top of that will display a warning and run in safemode with javascript disabled by default. Mozilla does have many holes in Javascript fixed, but it is not fully sandboxed like the other browsers to save ram.

Re:PDF.js (1)

Pascal Sartoretti (454385) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523195)

It looks great, even if not 100% ready (I guess this is why it is still an add-on and not a part of the standard installation).

What I like most about it : no more PDFs cluttering my "Downloads" folder. And if I really want to save the PDF, it is only one click away.

Great job, guys.

HTML5 and H264 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42522819)

Question for anyone running the Windows nightlies with the native H264 support: is it stable? Having to use Flash as an HTML5 H264 decoder is one of the most pointless things I can think of.

Bug Fix/New Feature 12 years in the making (1, Offtopic)

Tailhook (98486) | about a year and a half ago | (#42522961)

They've landed the solution to this [mozilla.org] issue, first submitted in 2000. Clinton was still president.

Old bug (0)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523029)

Heh, they surely fixed an old bug [mozilla.org] in this release.

Problem is the update dialogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523401)

Ever since I started using Google Chrome I've gotten used to fact it doesn't give you annoying update / addon update dialogs. I tried firefox few version numbers ago, it still threw the dialogs! That is insane with this release schedule.

Please Mozilla, make dialogs by default off, and create option to enable them.

Where's my x64 Windows support dammit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42523525)

Come on, x64 OS's were out in like 2004... it's now almost 10 years later and we're still clinging to 32-bit versions just for shitty plugins to keep working
Flash has x64
Java has x64
Nothing else is required.

I personally welcome any attempt... (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523533)

...to bring about the demise of the dud that is called Evince;
they finally broke its last functionality under Linux Mint.

Just switched to v18 (1)

cvtan (752695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523767)

Now it runs but will not show any web pages. I just get spinning circular arrows. All pages are blank. :( I want v17 back!

gave up on Firefox a year ago (1)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523831)

I use Chrome on my Windows machines and Chromium on Linux.

Whoa (1)

engineer_uhg (880695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42523841)

No kidding about the faster javascript. Now Gmail is practically instantaneous.

Just switched to Firefox 17 ESR (1)

Dwedit (232252) | about a year and a half ago | (#42524019)

I just switched to Firefox 17 ESR [mozilla.org] .
CacheViewer got broken by the upgrade from 17 to 18, and I don't want any more automatic updates that will break extensions, so I'll just stop automatic updates, and keep a browser that works, and will get updates only for security fixes.

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...