Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Firefox 22 Released, Boosts 3-D Gaming and Video Calls

Soulskill posted 1 year,28 days | from the onward-and-upward dept.

Firefox 156

Today Mozilla announced the launch of Firefox 22 for desktops and Android devices. For the desktop version, WebRTC, the open source browser-based communications API, is now enabled by default. "This technology makes it possible to place and receive video calls from a mobile or desktop browser or share live video, files and images with friends and family." Firefox 22 also has support for the asm.js subset of JavaScript, which allows for big performance boosts on graphically complex applications in the browser. (We saw a demonstration of this a while back.) Other new features include display scaling options for making text bigger on high-res displays, better WebGL rendering performance, word wrapping for text files displayed in the browser, and the ability to change the playback rate of HTML5 audio and video. The new Android version features include tablet UI support for smaller tablets, and a fix for scrolling in nested frames.

cancel ×

156 comments

So... (5, Funny)

Jmc23 (2353706) | 1 year,28 days | (#44102979)

when can I use it to run emacs?

Re:So... (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,28 days | (#44102999)

What you really want is vimperator.

I wish chrome could be changed that much. Only thing keeping me on firefox.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44105131)

This a million times.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44105139)

I think Conkeror would be a better match.

http://www.conkeror.org/

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44103045)

Why would a browser run an operating system ?

Re:So... (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103445)

I realize now that's probably too many meta levels for most people.

Why would a browser be an operating system?

An OS to run "web applications" (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103719)

The browser became an operating system when "dynamic web sites" became "web applications". The turning point as I see it came sometime close to when Firefox and Chrome added JIT recompilation for JavaScript in 2008.

Re:An OS to run "web applications" (1, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104423)

The funny part is that, after they went to all that trouble, 'web apps' are now being replaced by plain old 'apps'.

Re:An OS to run "web applications" (1)

lgw (121541) | 1 year,28 days | (#44105377)

Well, it turned out to be not a very good operating system, so it's losing to better ones. Not really a big surprise.

Re:An OS to run "web applications" (2)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,28 days | (#44106061)

Well, it turned out to be not a very good operating system, so it's losing to better ones.

But you'd probably have to agree that the web is a much more widely deployed operating system than any single phone operating system, and the APIs of IE 10 Trident, Gecko, WebKit, and Blink are much more similar than the APIs of Windows, OS X, GNU/Linux, Android, iOS, and Windows Phone.

Chromebooks and Firefox phones (2)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,28 days | (#44106361)

The funny part is that, after they went to all that trouble, 'web apps' are now being replaced by plain old 'apps'.

Unless you have a Chromebook or a Firefox phone. Their API for "apps" is the HTML DOM, just like the API for "web apps".

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44103081)

No sooner than Chrome, I'll wager.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44103461)

You probably already can, since Javascript can emulate Turing machines. In fact, you were probably already capable of doing that for years already, now it would just be faster.

Re:So... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103649)

Well, an elisp implementation for JavaScript shouldn't be all that difficult to write. ;-)

Re:So... (2)

Lennie (16154) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104155)

If not, you can use Emscripten/asm.js to just recompile the runtime as Javascript and be done quicker.

Re:So... (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104799)

That would be terrible, performance wise. For example, compiling a garbage collector in C to JS (even with asm.js) to run on a byte array can't possibly be better than using native JS objects as representation of ELisp objects, what with all the effort invested by Mozilla and Google into high-performance, incremental, generational low-pause collectors written in C++.

Re:So... (1)

Lennie (16154) | 1 year,28 days | (#44105051)

Well, it depends.

This is the text of a slide of the presentation linked below:

"A Unified Approach?
Should we compile entire VMs from C/C++ to JavaScript, and implement JavaScript-emitting JITs?
Seems the only way to run most languages with perfect semantics + maximum speed
This is why I believe C/C++ to JavaScript translation is the core issue regarding compilation to JavaScript"

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/29324270 [ustream.tv]

http://kripken.github.io/mloc_emscripten_talk/ [github.io]

Re:So... (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,28 days | (#44105295)

Seems the only way to run most languages with perfect semantics + maximum speed

You'd first have to have an equivalent-quality generational collector in the original C code to reach the Javascript GC performance level - AND, in addition, the C++-to-JS compiler would have to generate code with zero drop in performance compared to native code. I don't think that the original Emacs elisp GC is *that* good.

Also, after compiling the Emacs elisp VM from C to JS, the only thing you get is a bytecode-interpreting VM (with a lousy GC to boot), whereas a Javascript implementation of the VM could arguably generate JS code on the fly that would take advantage of the V8/JaegerMonkey/whatever engine's inlining and runtime type specialization features, offsetting any possible disadvantage. Really, I'd be surprised if a good elisp VM written in Javascript weren't faster than the original elisp VM from GNU Emacs compiled from C to JS (even asm.js, for that matter).

Firemacs (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44105261)

when can I use it to run emacs?

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/firemacs/

Re:So... (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | 1 year,28 days | (#44105743)

yes! http://bellard.org/jslinux/ [bellard.org] wait for it to boot, then just type "emacs", have fun!

Cool but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44103069)

does it support all html5 input types yet

Boosts 3-D Gaming and Video Calls (2, Insightful)

nitehawk214 (222219) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103101)

Is there something named Firefox that isn't a browser but uses the same silly exponentially increasing versioning scheme?

Re:Boosts 3-D Gaming and Video Calls (2, Funny)

ntshma (864614) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103163)

I was wondering this too.. Remember when Firefox as fast and lean?

Re:Boosts 3-D Gaming and Video Calls (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103209)

No, I do remember phoenix being that way though.

Re:Boosts 3-D Gaming and Video Calls (1)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103247)

No, I do remember phoenix being that way though.

mod up. the slow downfall started when all the cruft doers at mozilla got on the phoenix train..

Re:Boosts 3-D Gaming and Video Calls (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103269)

It was also buggy and crashed a lot.

And really, it wasnt the browser but the web that was "fast and lean".

Re:Boosts 3-D Gaming and Video Calls (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103285)

I would take buggy if we can ditch web 2.0++ teh shiny edition.

Re:Boosts 3-D Gaming and Video Calls (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44105769)

Back in mah day web sites were one column of centered text, maybe a tiled background and some flame or skull gifs if you wanted to get fancy. Now join my webring and git off my lawn!

Re:Boosts 3-D Gaming and Video Calls (1)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103805)

Its still buggy and cra

Re:Boosts 3-D Gaming and Video Calls (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104665)

So... back before CSS3 and HTML5 existed?

Re:Boosts 3-D Gaming and Video Calls (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | 1 year,28 days | (#44106443)

Yes.

Are there still memory leaks? (1)

waterbear (190559) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103897)

Is there something named Firefox that isn't a browser but uses the same silly exponentially increasing versioning scheme?

I used to use Firefox, and the thing about it that I remember 'increasing' was its memory consumption, due to leaks, up to the point that the computer practically froze. I stopped using Firefox when all I could get was denial that there were problems.

So how is the memory leakage issue now? (If there are reliable good reports, then maybe I might dare to try Firefox again?)

-wb-

Re:Are there still memory leaks? (5, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104055)

Lot better. it is now far faster than Chrome. I have switched back.

Re:Are there still memory leaks? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104203)

Lot better. it is now far faster than Chrome. I have switched back.

It can still leak memory and be fast. (well, right up to the point where the computer runs out of memory)

Re:Are there still memory leaks? (1)

rsborg (111459) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104833)

Lot better. it is now far faster than Chrome. I have switched back.

It can still leak memory and be fast. (well, right up to the point where the computer runs out of memory)

Luckily modern operating systems are pre-emptively scheduled allowing you to simply kill and restart the offending App.

Are you by chance running Classic MacOS9?

Re:Are there still memory leaks? (2)

dsinc (319470) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104909)

Funny you should say that. I regularly use Firefox and Chrome on two very different machines: one, is an anemic laptop with a Pentium T4200, the other a desktop with 8 cores and lots of memory. On the weaker machine, Chrome is visibly snappier - and never slows down at the end of the day. Firefox seems quite spry in the beginning, but quickly becomes visibly slower - not its rendering, but its general reaction, the awful, XUL-based interface. By the end of the day, right-clicking on a page and/or opening a new tab has a very visible, very annoying lag and the overall reactivity has decreased greatly. It's not a problem induced by some esoteric extensions (I only use Ghostery), I have enough memory (8GB, and the system memory load never goes beyond 50-52%), I only read text (lots of pages, though), no video, no games, flash is disabled via click-to-run. The faster/newer machine exhibits the same behaviour, it only takes a while longer for the lag to be apparent (due, obviously, to the increased computing power). I've always been a supporter of Firefox, I've been using it continuously since the 0.x era (in its Phoenix incarnation), but I'm not blind and statements like "FF is faster than Chrome" simply make no sense to me (and my browsing habits).

Re:Are there still memory leaks? (3, Informative)

nigelo (30096) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104673)

Memory leaks are normally attributable to the plug-ins used, rather than Firefox, nowadays.

Unfortunately, memory leaks are usually blamed on the browser, not on a plug-in, regardless of the cause.

Re:Are there still memory leaks? (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | 1 year,28 days | (#44105557)

Unfortunately, memory leaks are usually blamed on the browser, not on a plug-in, regardless of the cause.

Give me an easy way to trace which plug-in it is.
Surely Mozilla could do that?
They already tell me which plug-ins take a long time to load, why not some basic memory management?

Re:Are there still memory leaks? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44106153)

about:memory / about:compartments

See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Zombie_compartments for a lot of the finer details.

If you just want it cleaned up, retaining bookmarks, history and passwords only use Firefox reset. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-preferences-fix-problems

Re:Are there still memory leaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44105825)

It got a lot better since version 20, for me at least (on an old system with 1GB RAM). Before that, I often had to restart FF because it crawled to a halt, and to reclaim memory.
Now it still uses a lot of memory (with a lot of tabs open), but leaves some free, so the system doesn't start thrashing.
I still have to restart it from time to time, but far less than before.

Re:Are there still memory leaks? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | 1 year,28 days | (#44105839)

Haven't seen it in the twenty series, but after being a die-hard Firefox user since ~2000 finally switched to Chrome* last year. I suspect the video was the Flash plugin leaking memory. Firefox about:memory is a total joke. 2 GB to 4 GB usage after 30 days of heavy YouTube usage and the ONLY way is to close down and restart the browser.

* The reason: saw that Chrome was extremely fast (V8 compiles JS down to assembly) and has a beautiful "Tools > Task Manager" option that runs every web tab in a separate process, can precisely track memory usage per web page, and shows CPU usage and Frame Rate.

Re:Are there still memory leaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44106293)

Every fucking submission that mentions FF has some moron posting this drivel. Go ahead and mod this troll, but he fucking admits right off that he doesn't use FF any longer. So how the hell is bashing this tired old memory bullshit, not simply trolling to make FF look bad? To make it worse this is a problem that was solved a long time ago.

But hey, lets just hash this same tired shit all over again for the entire thread. The first half of the thread is bashing on about running emacs in the browser, so WTH it's not like this is wasting anymore space. Maybe it's just time for me to stop coming here expecting the old /.

Have fun people,

WhooHoo (2)

Nov8tr (2007392) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103169)

Now I'll be able to play games on my Mac!!

Fingers crossed for asm.js to take off (2)

Rubinhood (977039) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103221)

I have big hopes for asm.js. Even with its teething problems, it's the best chance we have for a truly multi-platform common ground to develop networked apps in.

At the same time, this awesomeness has traditionally been ignored by the big players who desired fragmentation. Hopefully this time is different, as all browser vendors have a lot to lose if they are the last to implement asm.js.

The big missing feature is threading - here's hoping for an extension to asm.js to make it complete.

Re:Fingers crossed for asm.js to take off (1)

Lennie (16154) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104921)

On the issue of threading:

That is what webworkers is for.

I know it wouldn't cover all the uses of threading, but it fit a lot of use cases.

Since we're all paranoid now, how secure is this? (2)

Bearhouse (1034238) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103223)

Not trolling, straight question. I know nothing about webRTC; are communications 'secure' by default?

Re:Since we're all paranoid now, how secure is thi (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44103995)

Not trolling, straight question. I know nothing about webRTC; are communications 'secure' by default?

They use (S)RTP for the transport:

http://www.webrtc.org/reference/architecture#TOC-RTP-Stack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_Transport_Protocol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Real-time_Transport_Protocol

The speicific protocol used is DTLS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datagram_Transport_Layer_Security

Re:Since we're all paranoid now, how secure is thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44105315)

It's a complicated question, since "secure" is a relative term. See http://sporadicdispatches.blogspot.com/2013/06/webrtc-security-and-confidentiality.html

Does it stop crap code ? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44103243)

setTimeout(function(){window.locationmanageQueryStringParam('source','autorefresh');}, 600000);

this bit of code is a nightmare on FF mobile, iam trying to read the comments and bam iam looking at the slashdot homepage ? WTF ? i didnt press back

sort it out slashdot, your code needs much more work and if you cared about the user you would NEVER reload a page the user didnt request.

I want a car, no I want a plane... (3, Insightful)

sinij (911942) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103267)

I don't know all use cases, but I personally use Firefox to browse. Why do I want 3D gaming and video conferencing integrated into it? What next, preparing taxes?

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (4, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103483)

Because the web is increasingly an application delivery platform, and modern web standards reflect that. Many people may not like it particularly, but that's what it is.

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (2, Insightful)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104929)

Adding all this garbage is just setting the browser up to be like IE6 before it... a huge, bloated, buggy, major security risk. Most if not all of those things are already true to some extent, but at this rate it's only going to get worse. Once upon a time, a web browser just fetched web pages... now it's making it braindead easy to run unheard of amounts of potentially untrusted code. Beyore, you would have to download an executable in most cases or even buy a program at a store... now, all you have to do is browse a few web pages.

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44105241)

now, all you have to do is browse a few web pages.

To be fair, this has been the only requirement for Windows users using IE for a very long time and the entire foreseeable future :)

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44103565)

So that you can play web-based 3D games and video-chat on websites. This is a step forward that opens up a lot of new possibilities, but of course old people will whine about it. Stick with Lynx if that's your thing.

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103847)

I personally use Lynx to browse, why would I want images/audio/video built into it?

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (4, Interesting)

washort (6555) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104169)

"to browse" is a pretty vague term. This is equivalent to saying 30 years ago "I don't know all use cases, but I personally use my computer to compute. Why do I want 3D gaming and video conferencing integrated into it? What next, reading the news?"

The web browser is now a universal secure applications platform, standards-based, not controlled by a single owner. These are compelling reasons for people to want features added to it to compete with other applications platforms.

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (1)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104467)

These are compelling reasons for people to want features added to it to compete with other applications platforms.

Thirty years ago, the old-timers used to call that 'bloat'.

I have absolutely no use for 3D gaming or video conferencing in my web brower, and I don't plan to be using it to run slow, ugly 'web apps'. Is there an option to turn all that crap off?

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (1)

archen (447353) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104807)

Most of this stuff requires some javascript to function, so noscript is probably your only option.

Although in about:config you can set webgl.disabled to true if you want to disable that specifically.

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (0)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | 1 year,28 days | (#44105035)

Secure, my ass... and at this rate of adding garbage which only makes it easier to run untrusted code (before the user at least had to be smart enough to download an infected file in many cases), I think we're just getting set up for some serious security nightmares in the future. Complexity and unnecessary bloat in no way help security--especially when that bloat enables even more complex, powerful code to run. Maybe this is why Mozilla wanted to switch to the retarded rapid-release plan they're on right now and try to downplay the importance of version numbers: They know an obscene number of bugfix updates would be needed, and they'd rather not embarrass themselves in front of the public by being forced to put out more critical fixes than ever before...

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44104753)

Why do I want 3D gaming and video conferencing integrated into it?

So I don't have to use Adobe Fucking Flash or god forsaken Java plugins to do it.

Do try to realize that YOU are not a representation of what everybody else wants or needs.

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (1)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,28 days | (#44105219)

Do try to realize that YOU are not a representation of what everybody else wants or needs.

The people who claim everyone wants to run 3D games and video conferencing in their web browers might want to consider that comment.

I've certainly never, ever met anyone who does, though i'm sure they exist. I see no reason why this crap should be imposed on everyone just for a tiny few who think running Quake in Firefox is a really good idea.

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44106535)

Unless you can prove that your circles are more representative than my circles... maybe you should just STFU because you have nothing to go on. Yes I know you think you have so many friends that weren't selected by your personal likes and dislikes... but it's human nature to select friends that think like you.

This is about YOU trying to validate YOUR opinions by claiming they're that of everyone else. You don't have any evidence to such but you're going to carry on as if you do.

Go poll something besides "everyone I know" or fuck off with your opinions about what you think the "tiny few" want. You don't even know the size of the group you impose on.

Re:I want a car, no I want a plane... (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | 1 year,28 days | (#44105039)

So adobe flash can finally die

How to disable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44103279)

Does anyone know a way to block these features? I can't seem to find a matching about:config field.

Re:How to disable? (2)

magic maverick (2615475) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103579)

Torbrowser [torproject.org] , and you get the added benefit of Tor! Or, if you just want Firefox, download the latest ESR release (10.X I think). If you can find it.

Boosts 3D Gaming and video calls? (2)

rbpOne (2184720) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103337)

That's two things i really never do within my browser.

Maybe in 23, they could boost performance and reduce memoryleaks instead of adding bloat.

Re:Boosts 3D Gaming and video calls? (1)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103917)

Have you thought that perhaps you aren't doing these things on your browser because they have been previously unsupported, slow, or lacking critical features of native clients? There was a time when videos weren't watched on a computer, because a computer was for performing math calculations. We do more things on a computer now because computers have gotten better at doing them. The same goes for web browsers, which are nice as a mostly standardized platform for running software on a variety of clients.

Re:Boosts 3D Gaming and video calls? (2)

sinij (911942) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104065)

Have you thought that perhaps feature creep has bigger downside in context of browsers other than bigger footprint and wasted development time? Security for example.

Decades of constant battles with Java security should be abject lesson to anyone eager to swell functionality past any reason.

Consider how much better our browsing would be if Java never existed? I am eagerly await near future when marketing gets a hold of video conferencing and start throwing sales pitches at you or hackers figure out how to access video feed on your laptop.

Re:Boosts 3D Gaming and video calls? (1, Insightful)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | 1 year,28 days | (#44105201)

I do VoIP in my browser, and I can tell you, while I like the capability to call people from my computer for free using Google Voice, I FUCKING HATE being forced to do it in a web browser. The Gmail site is a bloated pig, just like so many others these days, and Firefox itself is also bloated to hell these days. With 1GB memory, it is NOT a pleasant experience, and sometimes the damn plug-in even refuses to load. I literally cannot open Firefox with Gmail and Slashdot without the system swapping like a son of a bitch. If Google provided a "native" client, I wouldn't hesitate to use it and stop having to load and stay on a bloated web page within a bloated browser for the entire duration of the call. Simply put, 3D gaming and video calls are a DUMB idea for web browsers.

Re:Boosts 3D Gaming and video calls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44104803)

Maybe you should just go use Chrome or IE and get on with your life. If FF is that bad... just DON'T use it. I don't know why there's this nagging need within fuckheads like you that you have to bitch about something non stop instead of just solving your fucking problem and moving on.

Firefox will NEVER FIX THE LEAKS. MOVE THE FUCK ON. See a god damn shrink already. Thousands of ways out and you pick exactly one to get trapped by. Se a god damn shrink. You need it.

Re:Boosts 3D Gaming and video calls? (2, Interesting)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104987)

FYI: google chrome has this same "bloat" in development and stable builds as well as true bloat like NaCl - a brand new interpreted language on top of javascript that no one uses

nabled by default (2)

rossdee (243626) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103383)

" WebRTC, the open source browser-based communications API, is now enabled by default. "This technology makes it possible to place and receive video calls from a mobile or desktop browser or share live video, files and images with friends and family."

This doesn't sound very convenient - there are times that I am "browsing" when I don't want a video call suddenly interrupting me.

Luckily I don't have a webcam on this PC

Re:nabled by default (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44104137)

share live video, files - sounds like a lockdown/security nightmare

Re:nabled by default (1)

washort (6555) | 1 year,28 days | (#44105761)

what security concerns are you thinking of?

Re:nabled by default (4, Informative)

washort (6555) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104179)

Firefox handles it the same as geolocation or offline storage -- the browser asks you if you want to grant access to the camera and microphone.

It handles the flying periodic table better (5, Interesting)

sasparillascott (1267058) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103553)

Re:It handles the flying periodic table better (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103943)

Under Firefox 21 I could drag and rotate quite smoothly, but the transitions from one model to the other were very slow. After the upgrade, it's all smooth.

Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44103639)

Can we please have some attention paid to the Linux build?

It still does absolutely inane things like treating Gimp/Inkscape as valid a PDF reader.
And switching tabs, even on a very light loads, locks the interface up for 2 seconds, and not to mention it's horribly sluggish (relevant hardware: 3.2GhZ hexacore, NVIDIA 460GT), whilst virtually every other browser on my system outperforms firefox when it comes to rendering and responsiveness by a factor of 20.
And it adapts absolutely horrendously to dark colour schemes, even when configured to NOT use the system colours (which is also the default)

And finishing up the half-assed interface changes would be appreciated too, at present tabs on top uses exactly 1 more vertical pixel than the alternative, and with default settings, selecting the entire url in the url bar (via double click), and copying that doesn't copy the http:// - which is bad for some URLs.

These are just the tip of the iceberg too.
I just find it patently ridiculous that in 2013, my choice of browser is dictated by which I find to be "least bad," rather than what's "best for me."

Re:Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44103795)

yes and tls 1.2 for FF and Tbird sometime before i'm 50 would be nice as well. the webrtc sounds like a cool feature but there are certain things that need to be addressed prior to new features being added. The linux version needs more attention, period.

Re:Linux (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103819)

It still does absolutely inane things like treating Gimp/Inkscape as valid a PDF reader.

Are you sure that's a Firefox issue? Here (Debian) Firefox picks up gimp as a PDF reader because the gimp package declares itself as being able to handle PDF.

Re:Linux (1)

MrBandersnatch (544818) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103855)

I used to have issues with locking but it seems fixed with a Ubuntu 12.04/Gnome 3/FF 20 combo....

Re:Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44105015)

Go learn about how xdg-open works and you'll be on your way to fixing your problem.

Spot the odd one out (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,28 days | (#44103679)

WebRTC is now enabled by default.

Useful!

support for the asm.js subset of JavaScript

Impressive!

word wrapping for text files displayed in the browser

Decidedly underwhelming.

Re:Spot the odd one out (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104081)

Scrolling horizontally is such a pleasant experience. What are these clowns thinking?

Re:Spot the odd one out (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104405)

If this doesn't get people flocking back to IE, nothing will.

And, just to chase some "informative" points:

about:config
plain_text.wrap_long_lines

Re:Spot the odd one out (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44105179)

Yeah except I'm way more likely to have a use for the "underwhelming" option, to use your categorisation.

Re:Spot the odd one out (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | 1 year,28 days | (#44106533)

Funny, my use cases are the exact inverse of yours. I have a JavaScript bookmark on my bar for exactly the last use case (well, for wrapping long <pre>s, actually). I don't have a webcam and don't intend to buy one, and would use different software for that anyway if I did, and have heard enough about Mozilla "focusing on speeding up JavaScript" for the last 12 releases that I'm sure it doesn't need more boosting for the time being.

How about *reducing* bloat? But yeah...

who cares ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,28 days | (#44103883)

Regression bugs in the ESR version should be fixed first, as a matter of the highest priority. It is essential to fix your current users problems first, only then go for the nice new features.
Without an approach like that it is hard to take the long term support version serious, and not as just token appeasement to the "we want a proper development cycle for stability group"

Like this one, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=765337 [mozilla.org] .Took a year to fix and it is still not in ESR.
btw. not to mention that the fix is a hideous one. Who ever thought it is a good idea for a browser to even have the possibility to go to a different URL than the completely valid one the user has typed in ?

Re:who cares ? (1)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104427)

But fixing bugs is boring.

Piorities (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104069)

They should focus on rewriting their engine and "boosting" memory management.

Re:Piorities (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104915)

They did a long time ago and are continuing to do so

I like Firefox (1)

dskoll (99328) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104615)

I know it's fashionable to give Firefox a hard time, but it's still my default browser after all these years. I use Firefox about 85% of the time and Google Chrome about 15%. Speed seems comparable, but overall the Firefox UI is still better for me.

Thank you, Mozilla developers.

For the Whiners (4, Informative)

caspy7 (117545) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104617)

For those who read the title and came here to moan about bloat:
The technologies mention in reference to 3D gaming are WebGL and asm.js. These serve to make things faster and their size is negligible (want to complain when the few extra bits in your JS engine make things go faster?). They can both be used in non-gaming situations, particularly processing-intensive stuff like dealing with images (processing, filters) and video (decoding - see ORBX.js). WebGL was already there, it's just better now.

You can disable it if you want, but WebRTC stuff doesn't load additional components (encoding/decoding video for instance) unless you're using them - which would be no worse than Flash (better actually). And just like with Geolocation, a site has to ask permission - to which you can say "never".

Chrome already has WebGL, WebRTC and is optimizing for asm.js. It's possible to land these without adversly impacting performance/responsiveness, and for the past year Mozilla has had their eye on the metrics.

An XMPP client? (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104751)

So with all this new tech, it would be interesting to see a video-enabled web-based XMPP client sometime soon.
Does anyone have any now on something like this?

support for asm.js (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104891)

Every browser, even IE, has support for the subset of javascript - that is the whole point! What is significant is that it has been OPTIMIZED for the asm.js subset

Any Downsides to Upgrading? (2)

PastTense (150947) | 1 year,28 days | (#44104939)

Any Downsides to Upgrading?

For example are lots of extensions not working with the upgrade?

A Sad Fate (1)

runeghost (2509522) | 1 year,28 days | (#44106127)

For a project originally started to combat software bloat....

should be plugins (1)

Tom (822) | 1 year,28 days | (#44106615)

Time to move away from Firefox, it seems, and I've been using it since long before it had that name.

Why? Because it's going down the bloatware road that already destroyed Open Office. If you want 3D or video conferences, or kitchen sinks or coffee machines in your browser, a plugin is the proper way to go, period.

I don't want it. It want to display HTML pages. That includes Javascript and CSS and stuff, but why the f&%$! does it even have a plugin system if every newfangled crap gets thrown into the core code?

Firefox is taking up 650 MB right now. Yeah, that's with a bunch of tabs open, but still. 650 fucking MB to surf the web. It is by far the most memory-hungry app I have open all the time. The next in the list (Mail) clocks in at 160 MB, that's less than a quarter.

No, thank you. I don't want any additional crap in my browser.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...