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 20 Arrives With Per-Window Private Browsing, New Download Manager

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the one-more-and-it's-old-enough-to-drink dept.

Firefox 181

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla on Tuesday officially launched Firefox 20 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. The improvements include per-window private browsing, a new download manager in the Firefox toolbar, and the ability to close hanging plugins without the browser hanging. The new desktop version was available as of yesterday on the organization's FTP servers, but that was just the initial release of the installers. Firefox 20 has now officially been made available over on Firefox.com and all users of old Firefox versions should be able to upgrade to it automatically. As always, the Android version is trickling out slowly on the official Google Play Store. The changelogs are here: desktop and Android."

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

like it's 2008 all over again (0, Troll)

HateBreeder (656491) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343061)

Chrome had it for 5 years now... talk about slow to catch up. Why is this even news?

Re:like it's 2008 all over again (5, Informative)

Shimbo (100005) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343099)

Chrome had it for 5 years now...

Nice troll, but as Chrome didn't exist 5 years ago, somewhat implausible.

Re:like it's 2008 all over again (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343169)

Initial chrome release was September 2008. That's 4 years and 7 months ago... Legitimately rounded up.

Re:like it's 2008 all over again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343191)

There is No new download manager. They added previous download indexing but theres no change in the way you manage downloads.

And that index is disturbing... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343639)

Well, that's freaky.

I routinely delete things like download history when I've no further need for the files, partly as a tidiness thing and partly as a privacy thing. (This is a work machine that I use for my consulting/contracting gigs, including screen sharing for presentations/teleconferencing from time to time, so both tidiness and discretion are often called for.)

Suddenly, when I go to Tools->Downloads, there's a whole list of everything I downloaded since forever, not least a few potentially sensitive financial records and a whole trail of breadcrumbs identifying clients and various commercial research I've been doing on their behalf. The files are long gone, of course, but it's a good thing that lot didn't show up in the middle of a screen-sharing session with a different client.

What's more disturbing is that despite being reasonably careful about these things, or so I thought, Firefox has apparently been keeping a detailed record of these downloads even though I'd been clearing the old Downloads dialog regularly. What else is it storing away somewhere that I don't know about?

Re:And that index is disturbing... (5, Informative)

Stumbles (602007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343713)

I just checked that and you are right. The download manager showed things I thought were deleted.

Re:And that index is disturbing... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43344741)

This may make me stop using firefox permanently if they are keeping hidden duplicates of all the logs. Seriously, where were these things logged and why did it never delete it with the other history logs?

Did we just find a secret government backdoor? /tinfoil hat

Re:And that index is disturbing... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343843)

potentially sensitive financial records

oh is that what they're calling it now

Re:And that index is disturbing... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344043)

Yes, remarkably it turns out that grown-ups use the Internet for things that need privacy other than the one you're thinking of. In this case, I was looking at every bank account number for my company, since among my recent downloads were records from on-line banking to do our taxes and the files were named after each account. Sorry if that wasn't the giggly story you were hoping for, but when you're old enough to have a bank account and a job of your own, I'm sure you'll understand.

Re:And that index is disturbing... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43345001)

so sometime when most people here are like 50 or 60?

Re:And that index is disturbing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343931)

Not only that, I can see you downloads, too!

Re:And that index is disturbing... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343939)

I suggest going to:

History -> Show All History

Then select the range of the history and the downloads you want purged in turn (use the Shift and mouse to select a range) and then right mouse button -> "Delete This Page"

Re:And that index is disturbing... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343999)

Which is OK until you hit Ctrl+Shift+T or open History->Recently Closed Tabs, which apparently keep these things around even if you've explicitly deleted them from your history.

I just opened a second window for the first time since upgrading to Firefox 20 a few minutes ago, and it even tried to reopen a page I was working on earlier today, which I clearly haven't visited for several hours because it's an admin UI hosted on a device that's powered off right now. I have absolutely no idea why it chose that page to open, and not any of the dozens I must have visited since. In fact, I have no idea why it tried to reopen any old pages at all, though I had restarted Firefox a couple of minutes earlier after updating various extensions so perhaps that was something to do with it.

Re:And that index is disturbing... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344223)

It looks like they've broken Private Browsing as far as extensions are concerned as well.

I use Lazarus to avoid losing form data if things crash, and it used to automatically disable itself in Private Browsing mode. I've just confirmed that since updating to Firefox 20 this doesn't happen any more, even though the relevant Lazarus option is still set the same way.

Re:And that index is disturbing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43344441)

Others do not detect that as well. I think it is because there isn't a private browsing "mode" anymore because of the per-window mode. Two examples: the new window shortcut key always opens one in regular mode, while the old behavior was to open a window in whatever mode you were in; Second is that many download managers will continue to download regular downloads and "private" downloads side by side without differentiating between them.

Re:And that index is disturbing... (1)

shoor (33382) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344875)

Hmmm, why not create a plain .mozilla directory somewhere, mainly to preserve your bookmarks. Then, when you want to wipe stuff, rm -rf .mozilla, then tar over the saved clean .mozilla to restore it? You know, something like:

cd BACKUPs; tar cf - .mozilla | (cd ~; tar xvf -)

Re:And that index is disturbing... (1)

sponse (1468283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43345341)

I think it has to do with the following bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=847627 [mozilla.org] The list of downloads at the downloads windows and the list of downloads at the history (History menu / CTRL+SHIFT+H) was separated. The second list was always accessible through the History menu. I did know about it and I didn't think its a bug.

Re:like it's 2008 all over again (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344897)

So, what, nearly 5 years then?

Re:like it's 2008 all over again (5, Interesting)

increment1 (1722312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343163)

It sounds a bit different since Chrome supports one private browsing cookie store, and one general cookie store. If you have two private browsing chrome windows (or tabs) they both use the same private browsing cookie store.

Firefox now sounds like it supports multiple private browsing cookie stores, so you could login to the same site 3 or 4 or however many times with different private windows, whereas with chrome you can only login twice at the same time.

Re:like it's 2008 all over again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343203)

MMMMM.... cookie store. omnomnomnom

Never mind 2008 all over again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43344089)

This comment is straight outta 1995

Re:like it's 2008 all over again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343943)

Opera lets you have different private browsing tabs mixed in with normal tabs. Do you know if they use the same cookie stores or different ones? Thanks.

Re:like it's 2008 all over again (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343977)

Nope. Just tested this, and the second private browsing window automatically picked up the login session from the first private browsing window.

Re:like it's 2008 all over again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343303)

Chrome had it for 5 years now... talk about slow to catch up. Why is this even news?

Because it's new in Firefox.

Re:like it's 2008 all over again (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343581)

"Chrome had this x years ago" posts are the new "Opera had this x years ago".

Re:like it's 2008 all over again - NOT (1, Informative)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343623)

Chrome did not initially have incognito, that came later.

Firefox has had private browsing longer than Chrome has had it. The difference was that you could have a normal and incognito Chrome window open at the same time, Firefox was all or nothing.
Chrome was playing catch up a long time ago. It's a game of leap frog. Chrome is now in the back seat.

Re:like it's 2008 all over again - NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43344113)

Do your research before you start typing a relpy, dumbass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#cite_note-150

Notice the date retrieved: September 4, 2008. Chrome's launch date. Incognito was there from the start. The only major browser to have a privacy mode before Chrome was Safari.

Re:like it's 2008 all over again - NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43345309)

"relpy"

lol

Re:like it's 2008 all over again - NOT (2)

sootman (158191) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344515)

> Chrome did not initially have incognito, that came later.

WRONG. It was there since day 1. It was even in the fricking comic -- page 22. [google.com]

Re:like it's 2008 all over again - NOT (2)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344917)

HOW did this get modded +5 Informative? It's blatantly WRONG. Incognito has been in since Chrome launch. It was one of the main advertised features of the damn thing.

6 more to go. (4, Insightful)

Dan541 (1032000) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344575)

So Firefox is now at 20, Chrome is now at 26.

Looks like they are finally going to reach their goal of overtaking chrome.

awesome! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343069)

Now I can masturbate to gay porn while I also use webapps at work!

FAP FAP FAP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343129)

Now I can wank the ol' sausage in just one tab without having to restart firefox when I'm done? Sign me up!

Re:FAP FAP FAP (4, Funny)

sanman2 (928866) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343413)

v21 will have auto-sausage-fapping capability - it'll even wipe up after you

Version 20? (-1, Redundant)

HillBilly (120575) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343173)

When did that happen? I thought we were still in single digit version numbers or was that last week?

Re:Version 20? (5, Funny)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343221)

Firefox is going exponential. Can't wait for the next version, Firefox v2^5

Re:Version 20? (2)

DrVomact (726065) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343645)

I say "No!" to such mathematical pretentiousness. Personally, I will not be upgrading until they give their version numbers in binary to prove they still employ actual programmers. Besides, everyone knows that you should never use anything below version 50 of any software because that's when all the bugs have been worked out.

Re:Version 20? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343243)

When did that happen? I thought we were still in single digit version numbers or was that last week?

Firefox devs have contracted a severe case of "me-too-itis" from Chrome.

Re:Version 20? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343411)

When did that happen? I thought we were still in single digit version numbers or was that last week?

Firefox devs have contracted a severe case of "me-too-itis" from Chrome.

Fools not to adopt good ideas. Same goes for Chrome.

Re:Version 20? (1)

doti (966971) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343837)

And since when this version number escalating thing is a good idea?

Re:Version 20? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43344047)

Why can't you Google it? It's pretty obvious for anyone with a brain, the rest can figure it out by searching themselves.

Re:Version 20? (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343841)

Firefox devs have contracted a severe case of "me-too-itis" from Chrome.

Hopefully someone will find a cure soon; "me-too-itis" can be fatal when not properly treated.

Re:Version 20? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343331)

I'm going to be so confused when they this version 2013 later this year.

Re:Version 20? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343881)

Uhhh...what? What do you mean? I'm confused...

Re:Version 20? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343533)

It's the same release cycle as Chrome you fucking idiot. Too bad you're too dumb to realize that.

Re:Version 20? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343731)

Your only on version 20? Shiiiiit. Version 20 is sooo 15 minutes ago. The cool kids are already on Firefox 55.

Re:Version 20? (2)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343897)

I can't drive 55. I can't run 55 either, but that's an entirely different issue...

Re:Version 20? (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343823)

They switched to a rapid-release schedule of a new full version number every few weeks as of v5 in summer 2011... I can't tell you when we actually went from 9 to 10, though -- I'm on the auto-updating beta (or the auto-bloating, to be snide about it) and the new numbering system makes all of the releases blur together.

3.11 (1)

Vainglorious Coward (267452) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344115)

It puts a new spin on the ancient meme "wake me when it gets to three eleven" - not three dot eleven but version three hundred and eleven. Which by my reckoning is due to be released next Thursday.

Android version STILL missing privacy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343207)

Firefox still needs better privacy controls on android. Instead of necessitating an extra step for a private browsing experience, why not make it that way by default? Or at least, have that as an option? Firefox still won't let me choose a homepage of my own, and instead displays a 'top sites' page everytime I startup. I don't want my history tracked, ever, for any reason -- and yet there is no way to turn this off (in the v20 beta at least).

Version 23 (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343213)

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/firefox-23.0a1.en-US.win32.installer.exe

BIGGER NUMBERS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343245)

I know it's been said to death, but I'm going to say it again:

Where's it written that bigger numbers equal more features?

This could be FF 5.11 and the only real difference would be the version number.

Captcha: pride, indeed!

How about fixing basic stuff first? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343257)

Or is that no longer taught in software courses?

So what did they take away now? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343339)

Every time I upgrade to a newer version of Firefox, there's always some unwelcome surprise lurking in the shadows. From past experience:

- Butt-ugly default skin
- Fucking with the location bar icon
-"Tabs on top" option gone
- Outright refusal to run an outdated plugin on Flash (for various reasons, 11.2 is the last version that will work on portable Firefox)
- Broken extensions, always broken extensions
- Removal of status bar
- Default zaniness with hiding and showing the back/forward button

So what did they take away this time?

Re:So what did they take away now? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343585)

Looked at the location bar... shed a tear for my "http://"
It's old, but still a pain. Remember when Stop had a separate button?
About the only thing I don't miss is that dreaded Control-Q surprise. It only affects the kind of people who know enough to Control-W to close a tab. FF just copied that design decision from Chrome.

Re:So what did they take away now? (2)

nabsltd (1313397) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344319)

Pretty much everything you and the GP poster mention are either options that can be configured (I still have a separate stop button, and URLs display the protocol at the front), things that can be fixed with add-ons (status bar), or things that aren't an issue (The theme I chose quite a few versions ago is displayed after every update with no issue, and "Tabs on Top" has been configurable through a context menu for as long as the option has existed, but once you set it, it's done, so who needs a menu?).

The last few Firefox releases have resulted in a much faster browser that uses a lot less memory. Even if I couldn't easily configure all the changes to default settings back to my liking, I'd still call it an overall win. Right now, the Android version needs the most work, as it is lagging far behind in features, especially on tablets, where you have the screen real estate to do much more.

Re:So what did they take away now? (4, Informative)

Emetophobe (878584) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344559)

Looked at the location bar... shed a tear for my "http://"

You can disable that by going to about:config and setting browser.urlbar.trimURLs to false.

It's old, but still a pain. Remember when Stop had a separate button?

There's always been a separate stop button, you just have to customize the toolbar so that the stop button is ordered before the reload button, otherwise it "combines" them into a single reload/stop button. http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=2142587 [mozillazine.org]

Basically you right click the toolbar, select customize, then drag the stop button to the left of the reload button, and viola... separate buttons (yes it's retarded).

Re:So what did they take away now? (2)

adolf (21054) | about a year and a half ago | (#43345123)

Basically you right click the toolbar, select customize, then drag the stop button to the left of the reload button, and viola... separate buttons (yes it's retarded).

More retarded: I've now spent enough time customizing Firefox to simply act more like it used to that there is no conceivable way that I will ever be able to rebuild it from scratch.

Fun.

Re:So what did they take away now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43345167)

Go try the FoxDie theme. You will not be disappointed.

Re:So what did they take away now? (1)

Dagger2 (1177377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43345163)

There's always been a separate stop button, you just have to customize the toolbar so that the stop button is ordered before the reload button

Just be aware that you won't be able to do this after the upcoming changes to make customization more user-friendly go in. The address bar (and buttons to the left of it, including back/forward) are outside of the customizable area, so you won't be able to split out the stop and reload buttons (or prevent the back/forward buttons from merging with the address bar by placing something between them).

Re:So what did they take away now? (2)

Dagger2 (1177377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343871)

The ability to stop the animation of an irritating animated image by pressing Esc.

Re:So what did they take away now? (2)

srmalloy (263556) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344263)

I notice that they retained the "I'll just randomly decide to hide the browser window you're looking at under all the other windows on your desktop" 'feature', though...

Embarrasing (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343513)

seriously ?, the new download "manager" is nothing of the sort, it manages nothing, as soon as i click the downloads button it opens the entire library (and the cpu sucking waiting time for it to open), which is asking to show me ALL my history, bookmarks AND downloads in a whole another window, not a little onobtrusive window like before, and no that terrible chromeless!!? overlay doesn't count, good job iam not disabled egh ? what a total waste of time

as for information, it wastes space like nothing else, 200px tall rows for 1 line of 12px text ? (the name of the downloaded file whoo), no extra info or details about the download at all other than apparently its on my hard drive, no exact link, speed, time completed, size, referer, server details etc etc

absolute garbage, an embarrasment to mention it other than WTF have you done ?, and iam looking for a replacement addon as we speak HALP

Re:Embarrasing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343727)

open about:config
enter in the search
browser.download.useToolkitUI
and double click to set the value to true

the fact this key exists speaks volumes, tech support will not be happy, at all

Re:Embarrasing (5, Informative)

TypoNAM (695420) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343759)

I've found that by going into about:config and changing browser.download.useToolkitUI to true will restore the original download manager. There is one bug I've noticed by using the old download manager is that the title of its window will clear out leaving it a titleless window after all downloads are completed. Closing and reopening the downloads window will cause the title to be restored. A warning though that this key might fail to work in the next release or so. Just like the status bar fiasco.

You'll also need to customize the toolbar in order to remove the new downloads icon though. Also the "new" download manager is still accessible via History menu &> Show All History after making the above configuration change.

Re:Embarrasing (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344377)

Wish I had some mod points to push your answer higher. Thanks for the information.

Re:Embarrasing (2)

Dagger2 (1177377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344053)

The rows are huge because they also have to accommodate the status bar and status info on active downloads, and somebody decided that rows shouldn't change height based on whether a download is active or not. I fixed it by doing "#downloadsRichListBox > richlistitem.download { height: 0em !important; }" which makes the rows for inactive downloads take up the same amount of space as they did in the previous download UI.

Of course, the design is still poor for space usage. Most users will prefer to have the Library window sized fairly big, to accommodate the lists in the History/Bookmark views. That makes the Window far too big for the Downloads view, which has way too much whitespace if you do that. You can resize the window down, but then it's too small for the other views. You have to keep resizing it depending on what you want to look at. This would be pretty easy to fix by displaying Downloads in a separate window, to allow you to resize it separately, but they'll never do that because that's what we had before and they changed it, so they'll never change it back.

(My prediction is that the fix they'll actually end up doing will be to make the History and Bookmarks view similarly space-wasting, and then they'll probably stick the whole thing in a tab to prevent you from resizing it, along with picking up the terrible theme from about:addons.)

Did you also notice that the download arrow panel (which has no keyboard shortcut) doesn't display download speeds?

Not to be jaded, but... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343575)

...I'll wait for version 20.0.1 which will be released, if history is any indicator, on Thursday.

Re:Not to be jaded, but... (3, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343761)

...I'll wait for version 20.0.1 which will be released, if history is any indicator, on Thursday.

I don't know... I never could get the hang of Thursdays.

Re:Not to be jaded, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343975)

Better to still have the bugs but wait a month instead?

Captcha: stable

Doesn't have $x feeture :) (0)

dgharmon (2564621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343579)

I wonder how long for the first 'Firefox doesn't have $x feeture' poast :)

DownThemAll (4, Insightful)

ZeroNullVoid (886675) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343663)

I don't understand why they don't natively incorporate download managers like DownThemAll into Firefox.  Segmented transfers, speed limiting, link catchers...

Tabs (is an anagram of stab) (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343675)

I still can't stand the way FF mobile handles tabs. I want to see all my tabs without having to press a button yo open the tabs menu.

It might be an appropriate means of dealing with low-res or small screens, but not on tablets 7" and up. Until that changes, I can't see FFm being my regular mobile browser.

Download Manager (4, Insightful)

WedgeTalon (823522) | about a year and a half ago | (#43343681)

I don't understand why Mozilla never just worked with the author of Download Statusbar [mozilla.org] to integrate it. That extension has been one of the most popular addons since it was released in 2004. In fact, the addons site show it is currently the 7th most-used plugin with 1,930,345 current users.

Re:Download Manager (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343729)

Because they removed the status bar to spite users, why work with a plugin author that reincorporates the features they originally removed?

Re:Download Manager (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343737)

Their resources are limited. They only receive a paltry $800,000 per day from Google. You can't expect much when they're running on such a tight budget.

Re:Download Manager (2)

aloniv (1972020) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344359)

I don't understand why Mozilla never just worked with the author of Download Statusbar to integrate it. That extension has been one of the most popular addons since it was released in 2004. In fact, the addons site show it is currently the 7th most-used plugin with 1,930,345 current users.

The license of Download Statusbar isn't compatible with Firefox's license. From the add-on page:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-statusbar/license/0.9.10 [mozilla.org]

Source Code License
Custom License

Copyright 2011 Enzymatic Software, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Firefox 20? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343767)

They're up to Firefox 21 already? I wonder what features this new Firefox 22 contains, and whether it's worth getting this Firefox 23.

Has anyone downloaded Firefox 24 yet? I want to know if Firefox 25 is any good.

(Hope I'm not falling too far behind in my version numbers since starting this post).

Re:Firefox 20? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43344205)

As long as Firefox's versioning scheme is a joke, jokes about Firefox's versioning scheme will continue to be funny.

(/different AC)

Re:Firefox 20? (0)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344375)

Has anyone downloaded Firefox 24 yet? I want to know if Firefox 25 is any good.

Next week!

Re:Firefox 20? (1)

Alarash (746254) | about a year and a half ago | (#43345367)

Alternatively you can MAJ+Click and that'll open in a new window.

Just Sayin' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343911)

Netscape 6.1 was the word in both security and ease of use.

per tab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343945)

I'd much prefer per-tab private browsing.

Per-window sounds confusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43343969)

I like a separate window for my "private browsing". Doing it per window could lead to accidents.

Yaaay! Judgement Averted! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43344193)

Now me "normal" porn tab won't know what I'm really looking at in the other window!

and Opera says... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43344313)

hey guys...I've had that for several years now. Just keep looking to me for what "new" features to "innovate."
*sigh*

Re:and Opera says... (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344367)

Hell, I've been doing it in Firefox since I can't remember. It's called the -no-remote option. With a little scripting around it, every Firefox window is its own process in its own home directory. I can make permanent ones (I have one for Slashdot, for example) or temporary ones.

And still no Windows sandboxing (3, Informative)

Myria (562655) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344341)

Unlike Chrome and Internet Explorer on Vista/7/8, Firefox doesn't run a child process in a sandbox to better protect the browser against exploits. Firefox runs entirely as a normal user process, and thus can access anything that regular processes can. An exploit running as an ordinary user can steal your bank account passwords and act as a zombie almost as effectively as an exploit running with root access.

I stay with Firefox only because I dislike tabs. Unlike Chrome, Firefox still has an option to open links in new windows instead of tabs.

Re:And still no Windows sandboxing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43345061)

Er...chrome has new windows as well as tabs, and incognito window. Accessible through the control panel ("new window" is second option under "new tab"). Or just Ctrl+N.

Re:And still no Windows sandboxing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43345071)

Also to open a link in a new window just right click and chose "Open in new window".

It's Firefox Tuesday! (4, Funny)

Skapare (16644) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344399)

Time to close all your browser windows.

Firefox sinking (0)

Vince6791 (2639183) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344437)

Firefox freezes and crashes with no plugins in windows 7/8 on my amd machine but in Linux it's fine. I'm using IE in windows 8 and it runs fast with no issues.

Re:Firefox sinking (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344761)

If I released a new version of my software once a month for really no apparent reason, it'd do the same.

For Per-Window, Should be Per-Site (3, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344549)

What I want is private browsing a on a per-site basis. So when I am on the NYTimes, there is one cookie store for the NYTimes (and all the embedded stuff on the NYTimes pages) and when I am on ESPN it is a completely seperate cookie store for ESPN and embeds. That way if both NYTimes and ESPN use some of the same trackers, each tracker gets a different cookie from me based on the site the tracker was embedded in.

Re:For Per-Window, Should be Per-Site (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344621)

You can turn off third party cookies and, even better, apply some NoScript action to stop the tracking sites from monitoring your browsing habits.

Re:For Per-Window, Should be Per-Site (2)

LordNimon (85072) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344705)

Per-site would also allow me to have one Google profile for youtube.com, and another for gmail.com, and a third for google.com. This would fight attempts by Google to merge all of my activity under one profile.

Hope there's more tweaks than that in v20 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43344645)

Hey, Mozilla. Fix your craptastic PDF viewer. I just spent the greater part of today trying to undo the S-storm the Firefox built-in PDF viewer did to a slew of network printers when users in my company's tax department tried to print PDF documents from investment sites - using the native PDF viewer. It magically caused a 5 page document to clog up the print queue with over 20000 pages of garbage on over half the printers in that department and it completely vapor locked the printers until I was able to get the queue deleted. I'm just glad it didn't take down the print server.

At Last! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43344653)

I can fap to my porn in one window while doing important research in the other!

hurray (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43344757)

I could have sworn they said 19 would have one-private, one-not as a feature so I had a ton of Windows open and ctrl-alt-p, NOPE! Closed, lol. So this will finally be nice!

FF + Fedora fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43344805)

Been running FF18 on a Fedora 16 system (yeah, not so super-early adopter)... that combo periodically and pontlessly likes to thrash the hard drive and locks up the system for up to several minutes, effectively acting like nice --200. Anyone know yet if FF20 improves such situations (in combo with Fedora 16+)?

Also, what would be the least problematic Linux "brand" to use with FF in general? (Ubuntu, Mint, Arch, etc)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?