Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Firefox 19 Launches With Built-In PDF Viewer

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the they-should-use-roman-numerals-for-launch-numbers dept.

Firefox 288

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla on Tuesday officially launched Firefox 19 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. The improvements include a built-in PDF viewer on the desktop and theme support as well as lower CPU requirements on Google's mobile platform. You can see the official changelogs here: desktop and Android."

cancel ×

288 comments

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

Wow! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948533)

I'm sure there'll be lots of delicious holes to exploit.

Re:Wow! (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948571)

Well they are giving everyone a leg up by including a PDF view. Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

Re:Wow! (2)

cristiroma (606375) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948619)

From my knowledge it already had PDF built-in, for print preview. Or am I wrong [abeel.be] ?

Re:Wow! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948701)

Producing a PDF is a lot different than rendering one.

Re:Wow! (0)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949373)

Not in Windows

Re:Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949467)

LOL. Idiot.

Re:Wow! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948791)

Firefox is pretty much the last browser to finally get PDF viewing support.

Re:Wow! (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949103)

Firefox is pretty much the last browser to finally get PDF viewing support.

Although they appear to have got it right (based on my Android phone). Unlike Chromium and Google Chrome on Ubuntu/Xubuntu, where you have to fiddle with the /etc/mozpluggerrc file to get it to work right (and avoid the broken reference to Acrobat Reader).

Here's a hint. In /etc/mozpluggerrc, add the lines:

### This line should go close to the start, near where the current Acrobat Reader macro is defined define(EVINCE, [repeat swallow(evince) fill needs_xembed: evince "$file"])

### this group should go in the Documents section, possibly replacing the defective existing group for PDF application/pdf:pdf:PDF file application/x-pdf:pdf:PDF file text/pdf:pdf:PDF file text/x-pdf:pdf:PDF file EVINCE()

Re:Wow! (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949199)

Damn /. formatting. Need some <br> tags in there.

### This line should go close to the start, near where
### the current Acrobat Reader macro is defined
define(EVINCE, [repeat swallow(evince) fill needs_xembed: evince "$file"])

### this group should go in the Documents section, possibly
### replacing the defective existing group for PDF
application/pdf:pdf:PDF file
application/x-pdf:pdf:PDF file
text/pdf:pdf:PDF file
text/x-pdf:pdf:PDF file
EVINCE()

Re:Wow! (-1, Troll)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949259)

Well they are giving everyone a leg up by including a PDF view. Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

Are they giving everyone a leg up by breaking all the add-ons?

Again.

Re:Wow! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948761)

The Mozilla PDF viewer is written in javascript, so it *should* be completely sandboxed.

Re:Wow! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948833)

And run faster than a raped ape

Re:Wow! (4, Interesting)

theguyfromsaturn (802938) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949313)

Definitely faster than PDF plugin. I've been using the pdf.js plugin since it first appeared. I'd never go back to the plugin.

Still not (0, Offtopic)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948537)

fast enough for me to get first post. Switching to Chrome.

Re:Still not (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948563)

I hope you enjoy getting scroogled.

Re:Still not (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949463)

To all who modded me troll: WHOOOOOSH!

Actually I am in the process of moving to Chrome though. I have a highly customized Firefox profile and it took me a long time to get used to Chrome. I did it by using it full time at work and then on my laptop. Particularly on the laptop Firefox really chuggs. More than that though Chrome's UI just seems to make getting stuff done that much faster, especially the omnibox which works better than Firefox's Awesome Bar for me.

Chrome has some issues, like the lack of a good bookmarks menu (mouse wheel scrolling seems to be broken). I miss Firefox's tab groups too. Tab Outliner for Chrome is okay but not in the same league as tab groups.

What about Save As PDF (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948597)

I would be impressed if they included a Save As or Print To PDF File option like Google Chrome browser does.

Re:What about Save As PDF (3, Informative)

cristiroma (606375) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948681)

Guess what? I have Firefox 18 and already has that. Go to File ... > Print ... > PDF > Save as PDF (also, Save as PostScript). Maybe only on Mac?

Re:What about Save As PDF (5, Informative)

MrYingster (594507) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948711)

That's a Mac thing. Any program that uses Apple's built-in printer dialog can do it. So handy!

Re:What about Save As PDF (4, Informative)

Junta (36770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948771)

It also happens in Linux. Don't have Windows handy at the moment, but I'd be surprised if Firefox on OSX and Linux has it but Windows did not.

Re:What about Save As PDF (4, Informative)

JackieBrown (987087) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948909)

Windows does not have it (at least not XP.) Linux does, as you said. I use that feature more than I actually print.

Re:What about Save As PDF (0)

cbhacking (979169) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949225)

XP is a 12-year-old OS. Why are you comparing it to modern OSes?

That said, I don't believe Win7 has the support you're referring to either. I know some MS software, such as Office, has supported exporting as PDF for some years now (and 2013 even supports importing PDFs for editing) but I don't know of OS-wide support.

Re:What about Save As PDF (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949417)

Why are you comparing it to modern OSes?

Funnily enough, I've been asking that very same question about Windows XP for the last 12 years.

Re:What about Save As PDF (0)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948943)

It would be handy, if you actually wanted to produce pdf. Given that Adobe's pdf tools are what most people use, and that those are absolutely the largest vector for malware IN THE WORLD, I don't want any more pdf around.

Re:What about Save As PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948981)

It would be handy, if you actually wanted to produce pdf. Given that Adobe's pdf tools are what most people use, and that those are absolutely the largest vector for malware IN THE WORLD, I don't want any more pdf around.

PDFs containing only text and images is as safe a format as anything else.
Start inserting javascipt, flash, 3d and the kitchen sink in and all goes to hell.

Re:What about Save As PDF (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948703)

I would be impressed if they included a Save As or Print To PDF File option like Google Chrome browser does.

I'd be impressed if they included a Save As PDF option that wouldn't botch the PDF file. (The last time I did that with Chrome, there were strange fonts in the file and the top and bottom portions of each page were cropped. But perhaps they've fixed that one already...)

Re:What about Save As PDF (2)

lindi (634828) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948707)

At least in Debian the "print to file" option has offered PDF support for ages.

Re:What about Save As PDF (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949253)

That is based on the OS having a print to pdf driver.

So linux and OSX yes, windows requires a driver to be installed.

Re:What about Save As PDF (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948733)

I would be impressed if they included a Save As or Print To PDF File option like Google Chrome browser does.

Oops, I forgot one thing: Anyway, if you convert web pages into PDF with any frequency, you might be better of with using Prince XML - better quality and more control over the process, including slipping in your own style sheet. There's one really nice for Wikipedia, for example.

Re:What about Save As PDF (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948759)

But is it worth $495 per seat, as the web site appears to imply?

Re:What about Save As PDF (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948917)

That's what CUPS-PDF is for. Any application that can print, can print to PDF with CUPS.

Re:What about Save As PDF (1)

lindi (634828) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949075)

CUPS-PDF is a hack. It requires the print server to be able to write files to your home directory.

Re:What about Save As PDF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949305)

Everything is a server in Linux. You know that whole GUI display thing, it's called the X server for a reason. That sound daemon? server.

Re:What about Save As PDF (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949387)

How is that any different than the print server writing out to the printer?

Everything is a file.

Re:What about Save As PDF (2)

Mister_Stoopid (1222674) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949005)

Printing is an operating system function. Just install cutePDF [cutepdf.com] , then everything that can print can print to PDF.

Re:What about Save As PDF (1)

somarilnos (2532726) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949207)

While it requires a little bit of work, you can do that with a third party program.

CutePDF is a program that will allow you to install it as a printer, so you can select it from the list of printers from any printer dropdown menu in Windows. The program then converts the output to a PDF file. Dreadfully useful.

For non-Windows users, as many have mentioned in this thread, there's functionality already out there.

Not new, and do not want (3, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948613)

New? That went in a few Firefox versions back, I think at Firefox 16. I turned it off, since I use Sumatra PDF (which is dumb, but safe).

Re:Not new, and do not want (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948773)

PDF.js became available a few versions back, but didn't come with by default, you had to install it. At least, I did.

Re:Not new, and do not want (1)

async5 (2812079) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949017)

New? That went in a few Firefox versions back, I think at Firefox 16. I turned it off, since I use Sumatra PDF (which is dumb, but safe).

How do you know it's safe? From http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/search-results?query=Sumatra&search_type=all&cves=on [nist.gov] ?

Re:Not new, and do not want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949131)

You have to be a fucking moron to not realize that Adobe PDF sees a million times the volume of 0 days that SumatraPDF does. All of the ones you linked are fixed already.

Mosaic FTW (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948643)

Glad I'm posting this with Mosaic.
No worries about updates breaking my plugins every few weeks.

In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (5, Insightful)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948659)

Are they serious? A built in PDF reader, and this is only the start of things. Meanwhile there are Mozilla bugs that are over half a decade old.

This constant bloat of software, where a program eventually gets filled with so many features that it might as well be Ann entire OS, is one of the most dangerous diseases in the tech world. The irony is that Firefox was originally a lightweight answer to the entire Mozilla suite, because it had grown too bloated.

Every platform out there already has a PDF reader. My operating system has a PDF renderer built in. It works great. Why jam another one in the browser? They're just increasing the attack surface, and if a vulnerability in the PDF format were to crop up now I have to worry about getting patches for yet another thing here.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948717)

Version 20? That's so 45 minutes ago. All the cool kids are already on version 25. This version has a built- in version of The Gimp written in JS.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (1)

gparent (1242548) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949175)

How many of you stupid fucks still do not realize that Firefox's release cycle is the same as Chrome's? And that they have an enterprise version with slightly longer time between updates so that if you don't want the new features, you can have the security fixes?

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949323)

I guess you haven't realized that we make these posts because we know it pisses off the Firefag fanbois like yourself.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (5, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948729)

The PDF reader in Firefox is actually implemented in JavaScript. It's quite an achievement!

It doesn't bloat the software much; it's just a .js file that gets loaded when needed. I personally think this is the RIGHT way to do it; external binary plugins are much more susceptible to security problems than simply using the already existing JavaScript engine, which has been time tested to be secure.

Worry not, Firefox is in good hands.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948783)

which has been time tested to be secure.

Please tell me you're being sarcastic...

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948881)

Please tell me your being sarcastic about him being sarcastic. You can still have your ActiveX plugins in IE if you want. I think a js solution simplifies Firefox and means it should be improved as the JavaScript implementation is improved.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (0, Troll)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948959)

I'm not being sarcastic. Every version of Firefox fixes multiple critical and high priority bugs in the Javascript engine that allows arbitrary code execution. That he thinks this will be immune from exploits is hilariously naive.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948953)

The Firefox JS engine has a lot more eyeballs looking at it than the random-ass 3rd party PDF viewers slashdot users advocate.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948973)

And yet every version still has multiple arbitrary code execution exploit vectors fixed.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949069)

And how many are there in those other PDF viewers? That's sort of the point, just because one software package is fixing vulnerabilities with that frequency, does not mean that the alternatives are more secure. It just means that there are more vulnerabilities being patched in the first case than in the second case.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (1)

gparent (1242548) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949189)

Which is better than the multiple security vulnerabilities that have yet to be encountered in the no name, piece of shit PDF viewers that no one wants to use.

You mean like Adobe Reader? (1)

SIGBUS (8236) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949363)

Is any PDF plugin secure? Certainly there have been a hell of a lot of exploits targeted at Adobe Reader over the years...

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949397)

When concerning security, YOUR sarcasm filter should be tuned down a couple of notches. I'd much rather trust a sandboxed .js than an unknown binary on the same system.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948945)

external binary plugins are much more susceptible to security problems

Who said anything about "external binary plugins"? Use the system PDF viewer. Obviously you trust the system you're using, so why not trust the system PDF viewer?

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949263)

Surely you must be joking. The "system PDF viewer" is practically the definition of binary software that is rarely updated in response to new exploits. Even Apple's system Java is often months out of date. In contrast, Firefox usually patches zero-day exploits within a couple days. Using a system binary to render web content is an invitation to get owned.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949129)

I personally think this is the RIGHT way to do it; external binary plugins are much more susceptible to security problems than simply using the already existing JavaScript engine

Even more secure and faster too would be to code it in in kernel-level LUA script. What is more secure and well-tested than the kernel? Used every day by every user means the most number of eyeballs. Putting script in the kernel means scripting will finally be safe. It only makes sense to put a scripted PDF interpreter in the LUA kernel code as well.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948731)

Chrome has one. Chrome is beating Firefox's butt at adoption, so Mozilla just does what the Chrome team does without examining why.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948735)

"where a program eventually gets filled with so many features that it might as well be Ann entire OS" - See Chrome OS

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948835)

The irony is that Firefox was originally a lightweight answer to the entire Mozilla suite, because it had grown too bloated.

Except that it hadn't, that was just Firefag propoganda.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (5, Insightful)

TeknoHog (164938) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949073)

They should really make a small, light version of Firefox that only does web browsing, and does it well. They could call it "Phoenix", for example.

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949099)

No, it's actually decreasing the attack surface.

With Chrome or Firefox + Acrobat, the attack surface is your Javascript engine + your PDF plugin.

With Firefox pdf.js, the attack surface is the Javascript engine. Smaller! (If they can own you via PDF.js, they could already have owned you via a web page.)

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (1)

Lew Perin (30124) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949239)

In version 25, Emacs will have built-in Firefox! So there!!

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949287)

This constant bloat of software, where a program eventually gets filled with so many features that it might as well be emacs

FTFY

Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949343)

Because some people do not want to install Adobe's Reader. Since every piece of software has security flaws (people who say "OMG! Why don't they get past these exploits?!?!?" are clueless and have never written commercial grade code) and that's one *less* piece of software to maintain. As with Flash, the exploits with Adobe's Reader over the years are numerous. I stopped installing it long ago instead opting to use Google Docs for PDF viewing. But at least I now have the functionality built-in with my preferred browser. Yeah I use Chrome to a much lesser degree, but for a variety of reasons I still prefer Firefox.

Still exists? (-1, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948683)

I honestly didn't know that Firefox still existed. We banned it from our company after waiting years for various memory leaks to be fixed. I thought that most people had done the same a long time ago. We're very happy with Chrome, and don't see a reason to bother with Firefox again. Is there any real reason to use Firefox any more?

Re:Still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948793)

For me: Six Add-ons for Firefox I love [johnbokma.com] and mostly Tree Style Tab. Last time I checked there was something similar for Chrome, but not the same, alas. I use CopyURL+ a lot as well, but maybe something similar is available for Chrome as well. As soon there is Tree Style Tab for Chrome (and no horizontal tabs at all) I most likely switch. The past month or so Firefox has become quite instable in my experience (random crashes when I click in a side bar, or accidentally press a few keys). And the upgrade before this one on Ubuntu kept crashing; I had to move my profile dir out of the way and reboot the computer and then move stuff back. The crashing stopped but it ate quite some time.

Re:Still exists? (5, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948795)

1. it's got adblockplus
2. it's the only browser left that isn't directly targeted at marketing interests over my privacy (you worry about holes, but then trust google??)
3. a useful library of plugins. sure other browsers have this now, but not like firefox.

does that excuse the performance issues? hell no.

Re:Still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948997)

Chrome:

1. has ABP + integrated Flash + already had PDF
2. can have the privacy invasions disabled with two clicks
3. what important plugins are you missing from Chrome?

Does this make it better than Firefox? Hell no, but it's something you might consider.

Re:Still exists? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949271)

3. Vimperator or similar
None of the chrome plugins offer anything nearly as good. I want the URL bar gone and I want full modality.

Re:Still exists? (3)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949297)

Chrome is built on good technology, but since it is proprietary closed source I prefer Firefox.

Re:Still exists? (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949451)

3. what important plugins are you missing from Chrome?

For me, the big one is NoScript. There appear to be similar plugins for Chrome, but none seem to widely used or well rated by users.

FWIW, I use both Firefox and Chrome regularly, but for anything other than websites I trust, it's Firefox because of NoScript.

Re:Still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949047)

1. it's got adblockplus

So does Opera.

2. it's the only browser left that isn't directly targeted at marketing interests over my privacy (you worry about holes, but then trust google??)

So does Opera. In fact Opera gives much more control than Firefox over the info that is leaked on the web.

3. a useful library of plugins. sure other browsers have this now, but not like firefox.

does that excuse the performance issues? hell no.

So does Opera. Opera is fast, multiplatform and has more features than IE, Firefox, Chrome and Safari combined.
But its only crime is that it is closed source so the FOSS zealots don't use it, and prefer to use Chrome. What a travesty.

Re:Still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949341)

Opera's dead, Jim.

Re:Still exists? (5, Interesting)

realmolo (574068) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948821)

Firefox uses less memory than Chrome these days.

Plus, Firefox is just as fast as Chrome, typically.

And, finally and most importantly, Firefox has a zillion useful extensions. Like NoScript and Adblock.

Chrome is fine, but I don't like how it handles tabs (I use TabMixPlus on Firefox), and I *really* hate how hard it makes it to access bookmarks. Yes, you can solve the bookmark issue with extensions, but none of them are *quite* right.

Re:Still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949125)

And, finally and most importantly, Firefox has a zillion useful extensions. Like NoScript and Adblock.

Noscript and Adblock are not a zillion extensions.
They are but 2 extensions. As for the rest, most Firefox extensions are half baked, crash prone plugins.

Re:Still exists? (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949319)

Chrome is fine,

Chrome is a virus that attaches itself to various other useful programs and hopes that you don't notice the "install Chrome, too" box is checked by default when you are doing something like updating java. It makes itself your default web software without asking. And then when you try to uninstall it, you are left with cruft that breaks how Firefox behaves, like getting an obscure error text about some missing or undefined variable in line X of something displayed instead of a simple 404 failure report.

It managed to weasel its way onto a laptop I administer because apparently it attached itself to something useful that I allowed a user to install. I fired it up to see how it did at browsing the web and the first thing it did was demand that I log into the google cloud using a gmail account. That's before I even tried to load any web pages with it. Why do I need to HAVE a cloud account just to use a web browser, much less be forced to log into it before I am allowed to go anywhere?

Re:Still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949411)

"And, finally and most importantly, Firefox has a zillion useful extensions. Like NoScript"

Whenever someone mentions NoScript they should also mention RequestPolicy [mozilla.org] . Try RequestPolicy for yourself and see it block all the stuff that NoScript is letting through.

Re:Still exists? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948891)

My company dumped Lin-sux for a similar reason (well, it being slow and insecure too). Open sores software generally SUCKS ASS compared to its closed source counterpart in basically every field. We are now a Windows and OS X shop and MUCH better off for it. At this point anyone who still uses open sores to run any aspect of their business is an idiot.

Re:Still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949109)

Shawn, is that you?

Re:Still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948899)

Firefox extension API allows changes far beyond what can be done in Chrome, and extension programmers do take advantage of it.

Also for me personally, Chrome has an unpleasant 'feature' that collects search engines you've used. It's not wiped during history cleaning, can't be turned off and developers say they won't implement an option to turn it off because it would bloat the interface. Apparently all the search engines query URLs I don't want and haven't put there are not considered bloat already.

Re:Still exists? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948927)

Your pet store banned firefox for eating excessive memory and has replaced it with the biggest memory hog known to man?

Zombie compartments, four versions ago (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948955)

We banned it from our company after waiting years for various memory leaks to be fixed.

That was fixed. The Firefox memory heap is now divided into "compartments", and Firefox 15 changed memory management to be more aggressive at purging compartments associated with closed pages [mozilla.org] .

Re:Still exists? (1)

afidel (530433) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948985)

Ha, we just implemented it because the IE DOM is too retarded to handle a couple tens (or was it hundreds?) of thousands of objects that are in the BI reports created by OBIEE 11g, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari handle it just fine but of those only FF with the Frontmotion extensions can be centrally managed to the degree we need.

Re:Still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949053)

How is the wind up there on your high horse?

"My browser X is the best browser evaaaar!!!1!" That is how you sound. Glad you have a browser you like. The rest of us care, why?

Does not exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948739)

There is no 19th Firefox.

Still no TLS1.1 / TLS 1.2 support. (2)

Aethedor (973725) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948799)

I want to be able to download my PDF's securely!!

Re:Still no TLS1.1 / TLS 1.2 support. (2)

Lennie (16154) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949179)

The technical bits of 1.1 are availaible in the NSS-library (the library created by Netscape at the time I believe and now developed by the people who develop Firefox).

The technical bits for 1.2 exists too, but I don't know if they still need more core, I believe they are under review.

The Firefox parts are almost there:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=733647&hide_resolved=1 [mozilla.org]

The problem is really with all the webservers which still don't properly work with it.

Which forces a new TCP-connection with 1.0 (which means adding the 1.1 or 1.2 is probably useless if an active attacker can mess with your traffic and force fallback to an older protocol).

Still no way to get to the recovery key. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948911)

Go to setup sync->pair a device->don't have it with me and you'll get a login box and a text that states: "You can get a copy of your Recovery Key by going to Sync Options on your other device, and selecting "My Recovery Key" under "Manage Account".". These are LIES. That option menu does not exist on the android version.

But hey, I'm glad someone implemented a fucking PDF viewer, I'm sure that'll come in handy when I manage to get my bookmarks OUT OF THIS FUCKING DEVICE.

PS. The official solution is to install the 'copy-profile' add-on, dump profile to (in the case of the nexus 7) the simulated sdcard, then use the android development kit to back up that memory, then use a tool to mount up the sqlite database and....

Now all they need to add (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42948919)

is built-in Java!

Re:Now all they need to add (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42949089)

Mozilla is working on something callled "asm.js". So soon it will theoretically possible to port the JVM to Javascript.

Page Numbers (2)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year and a half ago | (#42948951)

Can it jump to page and display page numbers, or does it mimic Chrome in ignoring this frustratingly obvious functionality?

Re:Page Numbers (3, Informative)

oji-sama (1151023) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949289)

Yes, it displays page numbers and supports jumping. Also includes buttons for moving a page up or down (left and right keys work as shortcuts)

I hate PDF readers, embedding suckssssss (4, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949153)

Just let me damn well download the files, never open in a tab and render it.
Yes I know you can set this option but I use 3 damned PC's - and FF updates regularly (or dies and I need to do a clean profile) I'm sick of adjusting things to make things work properly.

Like the ridiculous copy and paste http:/// [http] bug - they strip it from the URL (breaking bloody standards) and I copy and paste it elsewhere. 95% of the time it auto-adds the http:/// [http] as it should, however 5% of the time it doesn't and it's frustrating (because it should never be removed in the damned first place!)

Re:I hate PDF readers, embedding suckssssss (2)

Lee_Dailey (622542) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949255)

howdy AbRASiON,

hiding the protocol display is controlled by a pref. you can disable the darned "feature" by setting ...
browser.urlbar.trimURLs ... to FALSE.

take care,
lee

How does it compare to acrobat? (2)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949159)

I use Acrobat for Linux because it's the only pdf reader I've ever seen that actually works correctly with pdf layers, which is very nice when used with map PDF's, because you can choose which features you want to see on the map.

Re:How does it compare to acrobat? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949333)

It is supported and will be patched if there are any vulnerabilities discovered. Adobe Acrobat for Linux was discontinued some time ago and no longer receives patches, and should therefore no longer be used.

Can I disable it, and use my own? (2)

runeghost (2509522) | about a year and a half ago | (#42949273)

Or is the Firefox dev team still sure that they know better than I do, so that shouldn't be an option?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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