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 21 Arrives

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the can-now-legally-drink dept.

Firefox 246

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla on Tuesday officially launched Firefox 21 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Improvements include the addition of multiple social providers on the desktop as well as open source fonts on Android. In the changelog, the company included an interesting point that's worth elaborating on: 'Preliminary implementation of Firefox Health Report.' Mozilla has revealed that FHR so far logs 'basic health information' about Firefox: time to start up, total running time, and number of crashes. Mozilla says the initial report is pretty simple but will grow 'in the coming months.' You can get it now from Mozilla."

cancel ×

246 comments

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

furst (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723163)

first

Re:furst (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43723751)

You do realize that you've just wasted a perfectly good opportunity to write "Twenty-first post!"?

Re:furst (0)

jhoegl (638955) | about a year ago | (#43723913)

Nobody realizes anything.
That is why everybody does everything!

Meh (-1)

zidium (2550286) | about a year ago | (#43723173)

I honestly do not care about Firefox one bit.

I don't even test new web designs in Firefox; only IE, Safari and Chrome.

Their autoupdates are the most painful of any app short of Java that I know of.

Re:Meh (1, Informative)

Kid Zero (4866) | about a year ago | (#43723187)

Mine went painlessly quick.

Re:Meh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723295)

2 posts when I started, and 2 posts when I checked back on this thread after updating so it went pretty quick for me.

Firebug is awesome (4, Informative)

schneidafunk (795759) | about a year ago | (#43723219)

Firebug is a good reason to use it. I don't really understand your justification for not testing web design in Firefox, considering it has a decent following.

Re:Firebug is awesome (1)

DogDude (805747) | about a year ago | (#43723343)

Firebug is a good reason to use it.

Not really, since the same functionality is built into Chrome.

Re:Firebug is awesome (3, Insightful)

master_kaos (1027308) | about a year ago | (#43723587)

while this is true, I do find firebug easier to use.

Re:Firebug is awesome (2)

pspahn (1175617) | about a year ago | (#43724019)

A bit moot, but in general, web developers need to be familiar with the debug tools provided by all of the browsers. If you use Firebug mainly, there are times when you'll need to use CDT (Chrome Dev Tools) instead, or the incredibly feature rich and UI-tastic IE debugging stuff.

So yeah, not only did we get stuck having to support various browsers on the front-end; in order to do so, we are forced to learn multiple development platforms as well.

I mainly use CDT, but I will attest that IE's debug tools are used the second most frequently.

Re:Firebug is awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723727)

I prefer to not use Chrome and limit my exposure to Google. I draw the line at them seeing all my email, all my web searches, and >50% of all my web traffic, through their various ad divisions & the 'we won't peek' analytics service.

Re:Firebug is awesome (2)

ddd0004 (1984672) | about a year ago | (#43723837)

If your development involves working with cookies, Firebug totally beats the Chrome development tools. With Firebug, I can edit a cookie with a click, filter them, set breakpoints on the cookie so you can see when it is modified. Chrome pretty much lets me view them and delete them individually and that's it. Chrome development tools are still very useful, but I think Firebug totally outclasses it.

Re:Firebug is awesome (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723895)

Firebug does things Chrome's inspector doesn't do, and vice versa. It's worth having both tools to test with, especially if you work on a variety of projects. It's hardly worth getting "religious" about it, because both environments are free. But I suppose if you MUST pretend one is better than the other, go ahead.

Re:Firebug is awesome (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723907)

Firebug is a good reason to use it.

Not really, since the same functionality is built into Chrome.

No, no it's not.

Re:Firebug is awesome (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43724225)

And safari as well.

Re:Meh (2, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | about a year ago | (#43723221)

And yet you felt the need to comment on it. It would appear you care about Firefox more than you let on.

Re:Meh (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723611)

He's passionately apathetic.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723365)

I don't even test new web designs in Firefox; only IE, Safari and Chrome.

Funnily enough, I don't use any of those three browsers when I'm on Windows (maybe 1/3 of the time); I use Opera and Firefox.

Re:Meh (2)

buddyglass (925859) | about a year ago | (#43723755)

I don't even test new web designs in Firefox; only IE, Safari and Chrome.

You might consider starting, since FF's 20% market share is approximately equal to the combined share of Safari and Chrome.

Re:Meh (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | about a year ago | (#43723843)

I don't even test new web designs in Firefox; only IE, Safari and Chrome.

You might consider starting, since FF's 20% market share is approximately equal to the combined share of Safari and Chrome.

What website is this with these numbers??

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723801)

With each new version since FF17 you need to disable all the social crap, sync-shit, animations, tab-behaviour, phoneHome-telemetries and pdf-viewer using "about:config".

multiple social providers on the desktop (-1, Troll)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | about a year ago | (#43723199)

Remember when Firefox used to be a web browser? I liked it when it was a web browser.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723215)

Remember when Mozilla Seamonkey, a full kitchen sink web suite, was faster and more efficient with memory than the "lean web browser" Mozilla Firefox?

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723265)

I liked it when it was pheonix, and the other choices were mozilla or IE.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723311)

I updated after reading this, and I have no idea what a "social provider on the desktop" means. I see no change in Firefox.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723915)

"social provider on the desktop" means they got paid fat stacks of cash to send usage data to company-that-will-not-be-named.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43723313)

I don't have any social features in my firefox. What? Do you just install every plugin every website you visit suggests to you?

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about a year ago | (#43723867)

I don't have any social features in my firefox. What?

The Firefox release notes say you're wrong.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#43723925)

Sort of? It looks like it's automatically supported plug-ins you have to activate from the relevant web-page. You wouldn't see them unless you said "activate it" or whatever dumb link exists on the page.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop (5, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about a year ago | (#43723377)

Remember when firefox wasn't trying to complete in some stupid version race, and just tried to be the best browser it could possibly be?
I miss that too.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop (1, Insightful)

Mike Frett (2811077) | about a year ago | (#43723607)

You know what idiotic thing they did? They combined Download and Web History. So since FF20, when you clear one, they both go. The reason they give is because Options such as that are hard to maintain. BS. Not to mention that silly, huge, Download dialog. Are they trying to scare people away or what?.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop (2)

raburton (1281780) | about a year ago | (#43723669)

> They combined Download and Web History. So since FF20, when you clear one, they both go.

Really? Mine doesn't do that. I've cleared my download history many times and still have >6 months of web history.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop (2)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | about a year ago | (#43723693)

I just cleared my download history from Firefox 21. My browser history is still there.

Revert to old download window (5, Informative)

InvisiBill (706958) | about a year ago | (#43724077)

FYI, you can revert to the old download window by setting the browser.download.useToolkitUI option to true in about:config. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/955204 [mozilla.org]

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop (1)

hduff (570443) | about a year ago | (#43723855)

Remember when Firefox used to be a web browser? I liked it when it was a web browser.

Isn't that kind of bloat what happened to Netscape?

No. .Just No. (0)

kernelpanicked (882802) | about a year ago | (#43723247)

You guys have fun with that. Firefox 17 is still kickin along just fine here.

Re:No. .Just No. (1)

denzacar (181829) | about a year ago | (#43723367)

The only reason I'm running an 8.01 at the moment of is because I couldn't be bothered to track down a 5.0 version at the time of the installation.
Which still works just fine on my old box.

Re:No. .Just No. (1)

nullchar (446050) | about a year ago | (#43723495)

Pffft 8.x. Firefox 3.6 with TabKit rocks! (Well, it's pretty slow executing javascript and manipulating large DOM trees, but the side-tabs with grouping, indenting, coloring, bookmarking, searching are priceless.)

Re:No. .Just No. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43723821)

If anyone ever asks "why do people still run IE 6", I would like to present Exhibit A.

Re:No. .Just No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43724039)

firefox 3.6 was the last good version, all downhill since then, think of it in terms of can openers, the old ones worked.

Re:No. .Just No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723383)

I just stole all your bitcoins, thanks.

Re:No. .Just No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723407)

That is so last week.

Re:No. .Just No. (2)

_bug_ (112702) | about a year ago | (#43723511)

What are your concerns with Firefox 21 versus 17?

Is it the social api? That was introduced in 17 so you already have it. And it can be disabled in about:config, just search for "social.enabled".

Is it the health report? You can disable that as well either through the advanced tab under preferences or through about.config, just search for "healthreport".

Re:No. .Just No. (2)

smooth wombat (796938) | about a year ago | (#43723579)

Why should one have to disable these things? Why are they not turned off by default? Isn't that the mantra of the FOSS community, "Let me decide!"?

Or are we giving the Mozilla group a pass despite their continuing plunge into bloat and unnecessary cruft because they're Mozilla?

Re:No. .Just No. (2)

pLnCrZy (583109) | about a year ago | (#43723769)

Why should one have to disable these things? Why are they not turned off by default? Isn't that the mantra of the FOSS community, "Let me decide!"?

If you can disable them, how are you not given a choice?

Your disagreeing with their default state is not equivalent to not having a choice.

Re:No. .Just No. (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about a year ago | (#43723981)

Social is disabled by default.

Re:No. .Just No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723619)

The whole gosh darned browser can be reprogrammed in about:config

about:config is a massive crutch and a heavily overplayed get-out-of-jail-free card for the versioneers over at Mozilla Inc.

Re:No. .Just No. (3, Insightful)

raburton (1281780) | about a year ago | (#43723757)

> What are your concerns with Firefox 21 versus 17?
> Is it the social api? Is it the health report?

I don't think it's anything this sensible, I think it's just the version number. I don't really understand what issue people have with it, but that seems to be what's exciting most people. If they just versioned the new releases as point releases there wouldn't be half as many comments to this story. I think having mostly small incremental changes in new full version numbers has really upset some people's sense of normal software conventions and their brains have melted.

Oookkkaaayyy.... (2, Insightful)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year ago | (#43723317)

You know, I feel like I only just upgraded to Firefox 20. In fact, there hasn't even been a 20.1 yet. I really like Firefox, I do. Some of the new web development tools (which I've only just discovered) are really nice. But, to be frank, apart from those, I can't tell the difference between 18, and 20. And looking at the changelog, I can't see anything that says, "I'm a major new version that breaks compatibility with previous versions".

So, I want to ask again (and I'm beating a horse that is not only dead, but buried, and decomposed, with only a few bones and other hard items left), what's the point of these fast track updates?

Many of the new features (e.g. the web developer tools and the Social API (only useful for people who actually use "social websites", i.e. not me)) would be better off as plugins. Instead, Mozilla should be focusing on things that actually improve both the user experience and the safety of browsing the web. So, perhaps blocking third party cookies by default, building in a simplified RequestPolicy-like tool (with a blacklist of ad networks and trackers), and maybe even improve the shitty bookmark system. But no, they want to improve the Social API.

I'll continue to use Firefox, it's better than the alternatives. But it's the plugins that really make it better, not the superfast increase the numbers (and hide useful UI - luckily that can be fixed with plugins).

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#43723387)

The point was supposed to be that one of the three version numbers wasn't really being used - the first number changed maybe twice, while major updates were just bumping up the second digit over and over.

However, as you've pointed out, now they've started ignoring the second digit, going straight from 20.0.1 to 21.0.0. So nothing's really changed at all.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (2)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year ago | (#43723585)

The first number says "I'm incompatible with previous versions", which in Firefox's case, probably should mean with regards to plugins and extensions. So, if there's no need to increase it, don't! The second number, that's for additional functionality, and various changes that don't break compatibility, and the third number is for patches (bug fixes).

It's also plausible to upgrade the first number for major rewrites, or other major changes in the software's life cycle. A change from a SGML/XML based renderer to a HTML5 based one could justify a major version increase.

But it's "keeping up with the Jones'" versioning isn't it. Chrome has auto-updating and silly numbers, and so Firefox needs to have them to; to keep being "relevant".

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723741)

The first number says "I'm incompatible with previous versions"

Every single company/project/whatever out there has its own way of what that means. Even linux for the longest time resisted calling itself 1.0 even though it was pretty ready by .98. When the reality is they had released ~200 different versions. I have run projects both ways. You know what? Most real people get Y > X. The second you start attributing meaning to the version numbers it goes crazy and everyone wants to change the meaning. Hours of meetings about what the 4th place means.

The only things I care about is 'do I have the latest version' 'can I tell if this version is the latest version'. 1 number sure makes that a hell of a lot easier.

The next version (or is it the one after this) is the one I am interested in. With their new ION JS compiler. Also I do not have to wait 2 years before I will see it. It is 6 months at most out. Less if I am willing to use the beta version.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43724103)

The first number says "I'm incompatible with previous versions"

Every single company/project/whatever out there has its own way of what that means.

Nope, that's been a standard for decades, with a few oddball outliers. The children took over the ranch at Mozilla though.

[ ] No Karma Bonus [X] Post Animositily

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (3, Informative)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#43723419)

But, to be frank, apart from those, I can't tell the difference between 18, and 20. And looking at the changelog, I can't see anything that says, "I'm a major new version that breaks compatibility with previous versions".

FF20 added that horrendous download box, for starters...

Of course, you can revert it back to the more sane old download list by setting browser.download.useToolkitUI to TRUE.

It isn't that hard to miss in FF20. Not sure what UI breakage they did in 21, though.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (1)

globalist (1332141) | about a year ago | (#43723535)

Thanks for the "browser.download.useToolkitUI" tip! The new download box was truly horrendous. And LOL @ "UI breakage" - because that's really the only thing they're good at nowadays at Mozilla.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (5, Interesting)

hduff (570443) | about a year ago | (#43723901)

Thanks for the "browser.download.useToolkitUI" tip! The new download box was truly horrendous.

What good is a browser that makes you use about:config to undo all the "improvements"?

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (5, Insightful)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about a year ago | (#43724075)

You know, you're absolutely right. I'm swearing off Firefox. Which browser did you say was as user-configurable as Firefox again?

Until Mozilla's douchebaggery rises to the level of anyone else's, we're all going to sit right here and take the ass-fuckings Moz keeps handing out every few months.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (1)

InvisiBill (706958) | about a year ago | (#43724199)

What good is a browser that makes you use about:config to undo all the "improvements"?

It's better than a browser that doesn't give you a way to undo all the "improvements".

I don't expect any browser to ever match exactly what I want, short of rolling my own. However, it's rare to find something with Firefox that can't be changed via a simple plugin or even just a setting in about:config. While Firefox may not be exactly what I want right out of the box, its configuration options allow me to turn it into exactly what I want (or pretty darn close).

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43724233)

Sorry to ask here but

The drop down to ask if remember passwords used to be must less intrusive (was a bar at the top of the page). How it's a balloon dialog that covers parts of the page. Is there something in about:config to change that back?

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723455)

You don't win browser wars developing toward you and me, you win my developing for them. *shudder*

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | about a year ago | (#43724091)

Fuck winning, I just want a browser that does what the fuck I tell it to.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (1)

godrik (1287354) | about a year ago | (#43723493)

I am taking the debian approach to it. Apparently, I am using firefox 10.0.12

And you know what, I so much do not care which firefox I am using...

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723523)

They did it to catch up to Chrome's high version numbers and give the illusion of a more mature product.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723529)

Does it really matter if its name is 20.1 or 21?

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723539)

I can't tell the difference between 18, and 20. And looking at the changelog, I can't see anything that says, "I'm a major new version that breaks compatibility with previous versions". So, I want to ask again (and I'm beating a horse that is not only dead, but buried, and decomposed, with only a few bones and other hard items left), what's the point of these fast track updates?

According to what a Firefox dev told me in a previous /. thread, it is technically impossible for them to release the same set of patches as anything other than a major-version upgrade. The build process and the version numbering are tied together such that they literally can not package and release a new version of the software without giving it a new major version number. The build process is incapable of supporting minor version numbers, patch levels, and milestones. I don't buy it, but that's one excuse that they've used.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#43723709)

According to what a Firefox dev told me in a previous /. thread, it is technically impossible for them to release the same set of patches as anything other than a major-version upgrade. The build process and the version numbering are tied together such that they literally can not package and release a new version of the software without giving it a new major version number. The build process is incapable of supporting minor version numbers, patch levels, and milestones. I don't buy it, but that's one excuse that they've used.

What a load of shit. Why is there a version 3.6.23? They never had a problem with minor version numbers for the entire history of Firefox. Now all of a sudden they have a problem.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (4, Informative)

Cochonou (576531) | about a year ago | (#43723687)

There is supposed to be an important new feature in Firefox 21 (which was not talked about in the summary): h.264 playback with system codecs enabled by default. It is present in Firefox 20, but needed to be enabled manually through about:config.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (2)

ssam (2723487) | about a year ago | (#43724107)

gstreamer support has been there (but disabled by default) since fedora 14. on gentoo you just add gstreamer to your use flags and you can watch h.264.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (1)

olivebridge (1122781) | about a year ago | (#43723729)

I can't tell the difference between 18, and 20...So, I want to ask again (and I'm beating a horse that is not only dead, but buried, and decomposed, with only a few bones and other hard items left), what's the point of these fast track updates?

I was happy when Firefox 19 added its own PDF reader like Chrome did long ago. Now Firefox is the default PDF reader on my machine -- I uninstalled Adobe Reader.

At some point recently Firefox made insecure plugins (Flash when outdated, for example) click-to-play by default, which is also nice.

I guess the point is that after the ~6 month wait between Firefox 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. now we no longer have to wait half a year for these small but helpful new features. Security patches are going to happen regularly (monthly?) anyway, so now Mozilla just bundles new features along with the patches.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#43723731)

I can't tell the difference between 18, and 20...what's the point of these fast track updates?

Many small updates allows them to keep adding features without causing huge breaking changes. It gives everyone enough time to implement the new ways before the old ways are dropped.

Re: (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723871)

You should consider installing the ESR version if you don't want to deal with the rapid upgrades. It is currently version 17.0.6. The "ESR channel" gets only security patches, no new features, until it reaches end of life after about a year, at which point you upgrade to the next ESR (Extended Support Release). Firefox version 3, 10, 17 (and future 24) are ESRs.

See http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq

Re:Oookkkaaayyy.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43724163)

Firefox has been steadily improving it's under-the-hood tech as well. Never forget that. The plugins are handy, but the browser itself is improving, almost in leaps and bounds.

Just because there are teams at Mozilla who work on less routine stuff doesn't mean they're ignoring the basic browser. Far from it, they're hard at work making the core browsing experience vastly better than it was a year or two ago.

Besides, the major version number of a browser doesn't matter much anymore. This could be called Firefox 3.7.13 instead of 21, and the end result would be the same. It's not the numbers, it's the frequency of releases, right?

We need an alternative/fork (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723503)

I am seriously tired of all the new crap that they keep adding to FF. On new installations I must spend a good amount of time turning stuff off. Most of the features I turn off would be better in an extension or at leasr off by default.

We badly need a need a new Firefox. It's still the best of all the browsers because you can actually tweak it but the defaults are getting out of hands.

Almost everything that the foundation added since version 4 was not wanted.

Re:We need an alternative/fork (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723533)

And it should focus only on being the best web browser around; lean, mean and fast. Anything not needed for basic browsing can be provided by extensions. We could call it Phoenix! No wait, that's the name of a database program isn't it.

Re:We need an alternative/fork (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723639)

We could name it after Crom from Conan. Worshipers of Crom claim that he grants his followers strength and endurance and has little patience for weakness. We would call it Cromium.

Re:We need an alternative/fork (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723551)

We badly need a need a new Firefox.

Give 'em a chance, 21 is only just out. I'll be a few more weeks till the new Firefox (22) is available.

Re:We need an alternative/fork (5, Informative)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#43723743)

I am seriously tired of all the new crap that they keep adding to FF. On new installations I must spend a good amount of time turning stuff off. Most of the features I turn off would be better in an extension or at leasr off by default.

That's the irony of Firefox. They remove features that people actually find useful, forcing people to create extensions to get the feature back, while at the same time add new useless features that should be implemented as extensions.

Re:We need an alternative/fork (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43724079)

Such as?

Re:We need an alternative/fork (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43724087)

They remove features that people actually find useful, forcing people to create extensions to get the feature back, while at the same time add new useless features that should be implemented as extensions.

That's called "nurturing a vibrant developer community following".

Re:We need an alternative/fork (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43724035)

Since version 4? What? You'd rather have the old, crufty HTML parser and rendering system? You'd rather not have hardware-acceleration? You'd rather not have the new, faster and more efficient Javascript engines? HTML5 video's a no-go? What about the massive memory and stability and security improvements? No out of process plugins? No improved font rendering? No restartless addons?

Why does everyone cry and stomp their feet about new features they won't use anyway, then conveniently ignore all the really awesome work Mozilla does under the hood? Because they're too lazy to read the more detailed changelogs, I guess?

Does anyone honestly care? (3, Insightful)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about a year ago | (#43723515)

I remember the huge fanfare when Firefox 4 came out, we were on 3.x.x for ages.
That was what, 2 years ago now I think? And so now we've since had 17 new "versions", it maybe deserves to be 3, at best. My point here? /., we don't need an article every time a new version is released. You don't do this with chrome either, and for good reason.
They come out too frequently, with too few changes, and frankly very few people honestly care at this point.

Re: Does anyone honestly care? (2)

BambarbiaKirgudu (2876515) | about a year ago | (#43723721)

In some situations 21 vs u21 matters.

Re:Does anyone honestly care? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723935)

Fuck off, faggot. Nobody cares about version numbers anymore.

Report Generation Time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723631)

and how much does generating these reports affect the performance of firefox.

Update Fatigue (0)

SpaceManFlip (2720507) | about a year ago | (#43723685)

Surely I can't be the only one who goes "SHUT UP NOT NOW" every time the last new version of Firefox goes to hollerin' "HEY FUCK THAT PAGE YOU WERE LOOKING AT A SUPER-CRUCIAL NEW UPDATE IS OUT"

blarg

Re:Update Fatigue (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43723783)

You're not. Especially when the first "improvement" to be mentioned is "the addition of multiple social providers."

Re:Update Fatigue (2)

hduff (570443) | about a year ago | (#43723919)

You're not. Especially when the first "improvement" to be mentioned is "the addition of multiple social providers."

I read that as "multiple social diseases" and now it makes more sense to me.

asm.js? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723699)

All I want to know is, does it now support asm.js?

i wait (0)

geekymachoman (1261484) | about a year ago | (#43723749)

I wait firefox v269.
I mean, what's not to like ? 269.. and in 20 years, my child is gonna speak about firefox 18057. Google will be at 20-30 k .. version.

What a bloody joke.

Social what on the what now? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43723765)

Improvements include the addition of multiple social providers on the desktop

On the desktop? Don't you mean "on the side of the Firefox window"?

bugs everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43723777)

I hope they fixed the bug on 15" retina MBP where you can select items from some menus only by pushing enter.

Still no support for TLS 1.1 / 1.2 (3, Insightful)

Aethedor (973725) | about a year ago | (#43723793)

And the only thing I really want in Firefox is *still* not there. But instead, more crap features.

Re:Still no support for TLS 1.1 / 1.2 (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#43723967)

( Clippit shows up)

Clippit : It seems you are trying to use an enterprise feature of the Web.
            Mozilla has stated that the enterprise is not there target audience.
            You should use Chrome which supports TLS 1.2 with graceful fail to TLS 1.1.

(Note: Just don't tell anybody that Chrome tracks your ass like it owns it)

Re:Still no support for TLS 1.1 / 1.2 (1)

Aethedor (973725) | about a year ago | (#43724031)

Clippy?? Dude, you haven't updated your computer for too long. Get your ass of the web, right now!

Version 21 (5, Funny)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year ago | (#43723815)

Finally allowed to get drunk.

Re: V21 (1)

BambarbiaKirgudu (2876515) | about a year ago | (#43723999)

... legally that is.

BTW the related news: "obviously" as a tit-for-tat move against Russians for expelling a US diplomat in Moscow earlier today, in DC NTSB proposed lowering drivers' legal blood alcohol content http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/ [cnn.com] .

cxo3k (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43724013)

MOST. LOOK AT THE ops or any of the that they can hold

Clear History? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43724167)

So. There's no option to clear browsing history or data in the menus anymore under OS X? Where I can do that now?!

Re:Clear History? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43724227)

Nvm... History -> Clear Recent History.

Firefox, caught between two worlds (2)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year ago | (#43724211)

One world is to implement Chrome like versioning.

The other world is to implement a Microsoft like need for making a grand entrance.

It's just a web browser, nobody gives a rat's ass what it does, that is why Google updates silently in the background without fuss.

It's the 21st century, web browsers do not need press releases anymore just like you don't need someone on the street corner announcing every hour of the day.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?