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 23 Arrives With New Logo, Mixed Content Blocker, and Network Monitor

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the michael-jordan-edition dept.

Firefox 365

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 23 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Improvements include the addition of a share button, mixed content blocker, and network monitor on the desktop side (release notes). The new desktop version was available on the organization's FTP servers last night, but that was just the initial release of the installers. Firefox 23 has now officially been released over on Firefox.com and all existing users should be able to upgrade to it automatically. As always, the Android version is trickling out slowly on Google Play."

cancel ×

365 comments

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

I hope there's an easy social integration disabler (5, Funny)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44489319)

We use firefox across our work network, and for obvious reasons, the head of our company has ordered Facebook blocked. The last thing I want is everyone being ordered to use Internet Explorer as a result. Even better if we can install one that doesn't even have those functions.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (5, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a year ago | (#44489379)

If Facebook is blocked then users will be unable to use any Facebook integration features in Firefox... I don't see a problem here?

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (5, Insightful)

sinij (911942) | about a year ago | (#44490043)

I just don't understand how could you not see a problem with X integration in a web browser, where X is not directly related to displaying web content.

This social media integration is not unlike bukake integration, sure some users might enjoy convenient access to their vice of choice, but it is unreasonable to assume that everyone wants to partake.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (2, Informative)

LandGator (625199) | about a year ago | (#44489447)

Perhaps edit the HOSTS file so that facebook.com is sent to 127.0.0.1 ? Set and forget solution.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#44489521)

No.
That is not funny and moreover is stupid.

Block facebook at the firewall and be done with it.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (2)

LandGator (625199) | about a year ago | (#44489809)

Well, the OP didn't say how big his company is... nor what level of IT talent they have available.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44489911)

OP here. It's already blocked at the firewall. I'm also aware of the about:config settings.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (1)

armanox (826486) | about a year ago | (#44490061)

Block it in DNS too to be sure.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489851)

I hope you aren't a sysadmin or IT person :/

I actually hope you are a HOSTS file troll...

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (2)

LandGator (625199) | about a year ago | (#44490137)

Perhaps you could explain the evils inherent in altering my own HOSTS file so that Facebook requests are lost in the aether? No sarcasm intended.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44490215)

If you're administering a network, dicking around with everyone's HOSTS file individually is idiotic, rather than blocking at your firewall or web proxy or whatever you use.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (4, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#44489531)

Adblock works just great as a first line of defense against Facebook. Same for any other http/https-based spyware sites.

I for one hate those buggers so much I also serve an empty zone for {facebook,fbcdn}.{com,net} and friends in my DNS, and block their IP ranges just in case some new domain pops up, but that's probably overkill. If you don't trust your co-workers to not muck with Adblock settings, you can do the DNS trick. If you want my zone management scripts, shout, I can clean them up for public consumption.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44489587)

This was half a joke about knee-jerk management decisions without consulting IT, and half a legitimate concern about having Facebook integrated in one's browser in any way. As far as my own tests since my first post here, I did find the main bit to be disabled by default, and with Facebook already blocked on our network, there's really no concern on my part that people will actually enable it. I did go ahead and disable a couple other social bits that were probably disabled by the primary one. Blocking the domains is always a good step.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (5, Insightful)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about a year ago | (#44489907)

The biggest thing here is that Firefox doesn't need FB (or any) social integration. So why add it? As an add-on, sure, go for it. But not as part of the core.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (4, Interesting)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44490051)

Agreed. Between this and the removal of easy javascript disabling, I'm leaning more and more toward jumping over to Seamonkey.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489575)

There is, but it's going to get removed in version 30 in September.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about a year ago | (#44489843)

Yes, there's a way to turn it off. Go to "about:config" and set "social.enabled" to False. This was previously the default.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489893)

At my workplace we have the policy of never installing version x.0 of anything. We're running Firefox 3.6 and IE 5.5.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (4, Funny)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44490067)

Windows 3.11 is also a tailor-made selection for your workgroups.

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (2)

Ioldanach (88584) | about a year ago | (#44490011)

You're not really blocking Facebook in the user browsers, are you? Wouldn't it make more sense to block at the network level?

Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44490163)

Of course not. It's blocked centrally at the firewall.

LOL (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489337)

Wow a share button?!?!

This is what Mozilla is wasting time on now?

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489845)

Yes. Instead of working on Thunderbird. We get a share button.

Re:LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489919)

I know could they instead focus on the horrible freezing on return from wake bug, that they can't seem to understand is caused by blocking flash?

Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (4, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | about a year ago | (#44489373)

AND... user prefs returned to default?

Thank the FSM I'm using NoScript.

Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489555)

And it doubles down the devilry with: “Load images automatically” ... removed from preferences and reset to defaults

So they re-enable javascript and image loading on people who actively disabled them. Removing the option from preferences isn't evil but silently re-enabling them is criminal. My apologies to them if they throw up a "we would like to re-enable these features" dialog on upgrade, but it certainly doesn't sound like it.

Frankly I hope some people get their boxes owned as a result, sue mozilla and take them to the cleaners. Even some mobile users could get them for data charges incurred. If I used it, I'd have 50M daily data cap before I went into 2c/M charging on my payg sim, how many "average" tabs would I have to have open by default on launch for the JS+images to chew through my limit (remember _everything_ JS and image related would be uncached at that point)?

Dictatorial software (1)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about a year ago | (#44489651)

Mozilla Foundation: We know better than you how your browser should be configured. We can re-configure your browser at any time.

Meanwhile, Firefox is the most unstable program in common use, if you often have a lot of windows and tabs open.

Re:Dictatorial software (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489929)

This is one of those times when I really want to pound the developers hands into pulp with a sledgehanner, so they never come near a keyboard again.

Re:Dictatorial software (2)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about a year ago | (#44489947)

I rarely had issues with FF, Safari, OTOH.... Chrome is inherently unusable as a browser, it's more a send all your web browsing history to google and search if it doesn't think the *valid* hostname resolves. Not to mention that viewing a self-signed certificate is non-intuitive, among other things.

Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (4, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#44490017)

And it doubles down the devilry with: “Load images automatically” ... removed from preferences and reset to defaults

So they re-enable javascript and image loading on people who actively disabled them. Removing the option from preferences isn't evil but silently re-enabling them is criminal. >

What the fuck is wrong with these people? If I wanted a browser with a shitty UI and almost no configurability I would use Internet Explorer

Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (5, Interesting)

kevingolding2001 (590321) | about a year ago | (#44489655)

I've got a bad feeling about this!

“Load images automatically” and Always show the tab bar” checkboxes removed from preferences and reset to defaults.

It looks like they have been afflicted with the same "our way or the highway" disease that is ruining Gnome and Windows.

Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (1)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about a year ago | (#44489943)

Chances are you can still modify those options through the about:config page (I hope). I'm sure they will argue that if you do want to disable it, you probably can go out of your way to do it in about:config page and thus we can remove it from the options so that unexperienced users don't mess up with the options they shouldn't and then complain it doesn't work.

It's still a strange move (that I don't agree with it). And I've seen the argument above be used.

Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (4, Insightful)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#44490039)

Chances are you can still modify those options through the about:config page

Maybe . . . . for now. Until they completely remove it, even from about:config, like they did with the "always show tab bar" pref.

What a bunch of fucking retards.

Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (4, Informative)

BenFenner (981342) | about a year ago | (#44490133)

You can not autoHide tabs any longer. They've removed the option from the UI, and the entry in about:config is no longer honored. It has been completely stripped. I'm stuck with FF 22 until they reserve this decision.

Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (1)

BenFenner (981342) | about a year ago | (#44490151)

*reverse

Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (1)

xorbe (249648) | about a year ago | (#44490027)

Same thing from the KDE Konsole maintainer who says "Well I don't see the value in multi-row tabs or supporting system beep for myself, so too bad for you."

Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (2)

Teckla (630646) | about a year ago | (#44490179)

It's not that big of a deal.

It's better for non-technical users, who are likely to accidentally disable JavaScript and then assume Firefox was broken when the web didn't work right anymore.

And it's just as good for technical users who can trivially go to about:config and set javascript.enabled to false.

Network monitor? (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44489381)

Isn't that a "hacking tool"? Germany might not approve..

Javascript is ON, period. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489415)

CHANGED: “Enable JavaScript” preference checkbox has been removed and user-set values will be reset to the default.

Re:Javascript is ON, period. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489591)

You can still disable it via about:config but this is really really really dumb. As I suggest above I'd say it's criminally dumb and civilly liable for damages.

Re:Javascript is ON, period. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489599)

CHANGED: “Enable JavaScript” preference checkbox has been removed and user-set values will be reset to the default.

Fireshit is OFF my computer.

Re:Javascript is ON, period. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489835)

Um, no. The sky is not falling. They reset the value of the pref. Big whoop.

about:config -> javascript.enabled = false.

Re:Javascript is ON, period. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489979)

Also, people who disable Javascript across-the-board are idiots.

Re:Javascript is ON, period. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44490095)

Also, people who disable Javascript across-the-board are idiots.

People who disable Javascript by default and ENABLE it on a site basis are doing the good thing.
Of course now that Fireshit not only takes away the Javascript option and never had a per site option it's 100% useless.
What a travesty, that's what happens when you're flowing in Google's cash. Mozilla no longer has to cater to its users. Fuck them, I won't recommend Firefox anymore. On windows use IE9/10. And on GNU/Linux use if you can a pre Opera-next version, or some heavily modified Firefox version (seamonkey or equivalent).

Re:Javascript is ON, period. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44490135)

First, hiding the option is stupid. It's incredibly useful.
Second, changing a preference that still exists after an automatic update is INCREDIBLY stupid. No one reads release notes. Hell, I worked with programmers who told me I was the first person they've ever met who reads release notes. The browser configuration has changed under the user's nose unexpectedly. That should never be tolerated.

Police and military (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year ago | (#44490121)

Only the police and military should be allowed to disable javascript.

Re:Police and military (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44490193)

if i couldn't disable javascipt myself i would leave the country, I guess I should stat packing up and follow the rich that have already left

Re:Javascript is ON, period. (1)

Teckla (630646) | about a year ago | (#44490213)

Technical users can still navigate to about:config and set javascript.enabled to false.

All my tests (1)

sundru (709023) | about a year ago | (#44489437)

*Groan* all my selenium tests stopped working :(

And only 35% more TOR hostile! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489439)

But we blame Microsoft anyway. [slashdot.org]

Still, don't worry, FireFox 27 will be out next week and will have full Google-Glass integration.

tag removed (5, Funny)

Art3x (973401) | about a year ago | (#44489449)

<blink>No!!!</blink> They removed the blink tag!

Re: tag removed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489533)

What is the world coming to? How am I supposed to make my white text stand out against a starfield background? Next they'll be telling me that I'm not supposed to use tables for layout!

Re: tag removed (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44490235)

No problem with the "living bastard^Wstandard" HTML, that doesn't check shit and allows you to put random invented-on-the-spot tags, attributes and even syntax in there and still renders the tag shit soup... in a completely random way of course. Like it's HTML 3.2 all over again. (And back then it was the same group of people causing the mess too... nowadays known as the WhatTheFuckWG.)

Just write a <blink> tag anyway. No need to close it if you don’t want to. Then, thanks to CSS3, you can even make it blink again, by adding the following style:
.blink { animation: blink 1s steps(5, start) infinite }
@keyframes blink { to { visibility: hidden } }
Or how about recreating the entire Star Wars intro (including the star destroyer) in pure CSS [windows.net] ? Blinking. With disco strobes.

Because the early days of Flash didn’t give us all enough nightmares already... ;)

And another 3D icon bites the dust... (4, Insightful)

Retron (577778) | about a year ago | (#44489465)

...well, a bit at least. This anti-skeuomorphic craze is pretty damned irritating - the new logo looks worse than the old one in my view, just as the Windows 8 theme looks worse than Aero Glass and iOS 7 looks worse than iOS 6. I had enough of 2D, flat icons in the 80s (when there weren't the resources to do better); I can only imagine the designers doing all this 2D stuff today weren't around back then.

Re:And another 3D icon bites the dust... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489499)

What does an icon being 3D have to do with skuemorphism?

Re:And another 3D icon bites the dust... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489539)

What the hell was skeuomorphic about the old Firefox icon? I don't know about you, but I don't see gigantic flaming foxes wrapping themselves around globes everywhere.

In fact, what's so much worse about this one? It's just a slightly simplified version of the old one. I barely noticed a difference at all. Aren't you the sensitive one?

Re:And another 3D icon bites the dust... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489615)

I think the new logo is nice, it is more Firefoxy than the last logo. /sarcasm

Mixed Content blocker is awesome for security, but (4, Informative)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year ago | (#44489473)

..many sites still need to be updated to work with it. Likely some behind the firewall stuff as well. (And many of these sites break in IE10 and Chrome as well)

See here for full details: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2013/05/16/mixed-content-blocking-in-firefox-aurora/ [mozilla.org]

Basically it prevents loading active content (JS/CSS/etc) from a non-HTTPS source when the page is HTTPS.

Also, if you are a HTTPS Everywhere user and wondering why sites like XKCD and NYtimes are no longer HTTPS, this is why.

Re:Mixed Content blocker is awesome for security, (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489647)

Mixed content blocking has been in IE since IE8. Good to see Firefox finally catch up with that old version of IE on the mixed content front. I had just assumed that FF was ahead of IE on everything. Apparently they aren't; just on most things.

A new logo?? Eyeroll (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489495)

Hate to go all hipster on you guys, but here goes.

I was using Firefox before it was cool. It was called Phoenix when the project started, then later renamed to Firebird. This was circa 2002/2003.

It was a great browser: cross-platform, smaller than Mozilla, fast. Everything I wanted. I used FF for over ten years without problems. I was OK with playing whack-a-mole in the settings each new release, trying to keep my preferences for things consistent. But then the UI people showed up. At some point they completely re-arranged the user interface, breaking over a decade of my visual/muscle memory. Seriously, what the fuck guys? I guess they wanted to make it look more like Chrome. So I switched to Chrome.

The Firefox project needs to get rid of all of the people who don't code but "contribute" by fucking around with the UI. So, FF team, you can take your new logo and jam it up your ass.

Re:A new logo?? Eyeroll (-1)

MindStalker (22827) | about a year ago | (#44489661)

Phoenix is their email program, FireBird was a short lives calendering app. WTF are you talking about?

Re:A new logo?? Eyeroll (5, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | about a year ago | (#44489747)

Phoenix was the original name of Firefox until there were trademark issues woth Phoenix Technologies. Then it was callef Firebird but was changed because of the Firebird database project. It was not until Feb 2004 that it was finally named Firefox.

Re:A new logo?? Eyeroll (1)

MindStalker (22827) | about a year ago | (#44489837)

Your right, I need to go home... long day..

Was thinking Thunderbird and Sunbird.

Re:A new logo?? Eyeroll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44490245)

Why not his left?

Re:A new logo?? Eyeroll (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year ago | (#44489813)

To add:

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/0.1.html [mozilla.org]

Phoenix is a redesign of the Mozilla browser component, similar to Galeon, K-Meleon and Chimera, but written using the XUL user interface language and designed to be cross-platform. More information about Phoenix is available at the Phoenix Project Page.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/0.6.html [mozilla.org]

Mozilla Firebird, formerly known as Phoenix, is a redesign of the Mozilla browser component, similar to Galeon, K-Meleon and Camino, but written using the XUL user interface language and designed to be cross-platform. More information about Mozilla Firebird is available here.

Re:A new logo?? Eyeroll (1)

MrYingster (594507) | about a year ago | (#44489817)

No, he's right... There is a heading in Wikipedia about their past names (Pheonix, Firebird) in the "History of Firefox" article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox#Naming [wikipedia.org]

I remember using Pheonix when it first came out. It was quite nice at the time. It felt really lightweight compared to Mozilla.

Re: A new logo?? Eyeroll (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year ago | (#44489781)

But Firefox is faster than chrome on desktop and android, the syncing works better, it's far more fully featured, nothing touches Firebug for development, etc. Yeah, I used phoenix too. I was temporarily swayed by the speed of chrome but they're all fast enough now.

Dumbing down is out of hand (5, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about a year ago | (#44489497)

The continual removal of configuration options from Firefox is not only insulting, it's pointless. I seriously doubt it reduces the amount of code for the browser by any significant amount.

The day Firefox removes the ability to set client-side font overrides is the day I switch to Chrome. Currently that is the only feature left in Firefox that keeps me using it. For me, it's an invaluable feature, and I'm really annoyed that Firefox seems to be the only browser that supports the concept. After all, the whole point of HTML was that the client is supposed to control rendering, not the server.

Re:Dumbing down is out of hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489541)

The continual removal of configuration options from Firefox is not only insulting, it's pointless. I seriously doubt it reduces the amount of code for the browser by any significant amount.

The day Firefox removes the ability to set client-side font overrides is the day I switch to Chrome. Currently that is the only feature left in Firefox that keeps me using it. For me, it's an invaluable feature, and I'm really annoyed that Firefox seems to be the only browser that supports the concept. After all, the whole point of HTML was that the client is supposed to control rendering, not the server.

Drop Fireshit and use Seamonkey.

Re:Dumbing down is out of hand (1)

Luthair (847766) | about a year ago | (#44489547)

Exactly what was dumbed down here? If you're referring to the JS preference, its simply been moved into about:config to prevent Joe User from "Turning off the Java" and breaking the internet.

Re:Dumbing down is out of hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489721)

Exactly what was dumbed down here? If you're referring to the JS preference, its simply been moved into about:config to prevent Joe User from "Turning off the Java" and breaking the internet.

As a user I don't want to dig down into the bowels of Firefox to disable a setting. What's next, should a need to recompile the program to enable/disable a feature ? Make the setting available under some "advanced" menu in the menubar. We have a GUI and hierarchical menus, so USE them.

The Firefox team instead of stupidly copying what Google does with Chrome (another shit browser btw), should look hard at how Opera implemented all the options in the Opera 12 (Opera next is shit as well since they're copying Google).
All is at your fingertips, and the GUI doesn't feel overloaded. In fact it's very streamlined. Copy from the masters, not from idiots whose only goal is to take away control of YOUR browser experience because they want to show you more adds.

Re:Dumbing down is out of hand (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#44489727)

Exactly what was dumbed down here? If you're referring to the JS preference, its simply been moved into about:config to prevent Joe User from "Turning off the Java" and breaking the internet.

Except that it only "breaks the Internet" on his computer. Which is his problem. Not mine.

This is just another one of Mozilla's eleventy gazillion stupid pointless moves.

Re:Dumbing down is out of hand (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489755)

How is Joe User supposed to lean not being incompetent without being offered the chance to break things?

Re:Dumbing down is out of hand (4, Informative)

BenFenner (981342) | about a year ago | (#44489767)

Here's one example. The browser.tabs.autoHide functionality has been completely stripped. You can no longer hide the tab bar. There was an explosion of posts about it today, so I'm not the only one crying over the loss of this feature.

Re:Dumbing down is out of hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489945)

Yeah, that one is really irritating. If they had just removed the checkbox from the preference modal, that's a small inconvenience; not even allowing it to be set through about:config means no longer having my browser the way that I like it.

Re:Dumbing down is out of hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44490207)

so now he can go dig around in about:config and make a even bigger mess? *sigh*

Re:Dumbing down is out of hand (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#44489757)

You can achieve a similar effect using user CSS in Opera, although the dumbing down has also started here. I don't think switching to Chrome would help, they are the ones who started the minimalist trend in the first place.

HTML 5 number still experimental (2)

OlRickDawson (648236) | about a year ago | (#44489511)

according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] they added the input type "range". Sadly, the input type "number" is still listed as experimental, and no support for the date/time input types. Since Firefox 22 added a couple of different element types, I was hoping that the "number" type would be supported, and have at least 'experimental' support fo the date/time formats.

Re:HTML 5 number still experimental (1)

armanox (826486) | about a year ago | (#44490145)

Actually I'd be very much in favor of the date/time support - I think Safari does it, but most browsers (esp. mobile) do not.

"includes...mixed content blocker" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489525)

...and breaks HTTPS Everywhere badly [mozilla.org] . Poor show Mozilla, poor show.

URL bar and search bar synced? (4, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | about a year ago | (#44489545)

In version 22, I could use the URL bar to search for something via google and use the search box (on the right) for other searches without changing it. Now in 23, they are in sync. So if the right bar is set for "corporate bug search engine" the URL bar is set for that as well.

Kinda liked being able to have two different search bars at the same time.

I know I can use aliases in the URL bar (I use 'dir' to search the corporate directory), but this was a surprise.

Network Monitor (1)

89cents (589228) | about a year ago | (#44489585)

The network monitor looks nice for troubleshooting. I'll be using that in the future. It also has a 3D button which is pretty cool, good for showing the different elements of a web page. I don't care for the sharing feature. I guess the icon only shows up if you login to Facebook, so I'll never see it.

No longer able to autoHide tabs. (2)

BenFenner (981342) | about a year ago | (#44489619)

The browser.tabs.autoHide functionality has been stripped. I've read all the history on this. I'm fucking livid.

I hope they reverse this decision.

Re:No longer able to autoHide tabs. (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#44489909)

The browser.tabs.autoHide functionality has been stripped. I've read all the history on this. I'm fucking livid. .

I don't care about that feature since I never hide the tab bar, however, reading through the comments the arrogance of the Mozilla developers is truly mind-boggling, with most justifications for doing this amounting to little more than a thinly veiled "Fuck You".

Re:No longer able to autoHide tabs. (1)

BenFenner (981342) | about a year ago | (#44489993)

It caused minor issues with some new theme they are pushing out. As if I use their themes anyway. Here is what my Firefox layout looks like. http://i.imgur.com/VwQK7vm.png [imgur.com]
Simple, clean, minimalistic. And now I have to deal with a tab bar because it messes up their pretty little theme? Fuck you Mozilla.

Re:No longer able to autoHide tabs. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44490065)

did they already abandon "personas"?

Re:No longer able to autoHide tabs. (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year ago | (#44489921)

I hope they reverse this decision.

LOL!!!!! You must be new to Firefox.

The stupid, arrogant, pointless decisions they make are NEVER reversed.

New logo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489675)

OMG the new logo is so incredibly.... the same as the old one...

I notice less white on the paw and then globe with more on the tail, and that's about it.

Unless the announcement is they made the new one bigger...

New Logo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489691)

New Logo?

The new logo is the same as the old logo, like the new boss/president is the same as the old boss/president?

Or did it actually change.
Doesn't look different at firefox.com (which, by the way, still forwards to mozilla.org/blahblahblah).

That's it, I'm staying at FF22 for now (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#44489743)

I don't give a $#it about social "media".
Hiding controls is seen as a bad thing, especially in these Prism times.

It's as if Mozilla is trying to create hype around Firefox by pissing off it's users.

      FoxNews called. They want their SOP back.

Re:That's it, I'm staying at FF22 for now (4, Insightful)

sinij (911942) | about a year ago | (#44489997)

Won't work for long. I tried staying with 3.6 for a while and eventually everything broke.

Re:That's it, I'm staying at FF22 for now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44490231)

change http user agent, yahoo mail won't work but that's what ie is for

Re:That's it, I'm staying at FF22 for now (1)

armanox (826486) | about a year ago | (#44490241)

Meh. I use prefer NoScript anyway. They haven't removed anything that I can't/don't control with add-ons, so....

And most users didn't know about using the options anyway.

Herpaderp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44489759)

Pointless version number comments go here.

Firefox 23 for Ubuntu (0)

DadLeopard (1290796) | about a year ago | (#44489793)

Well seems the new version hasn't hit the Ubuntu repositories yet, so I'll have to wait till tomorrow!

Share button? (1)

sinij (911942) | about a year ago | (#44489927)

Built-in Like (Share) button? What are they trying to become, a facebook browser?

Browser should focus on browsing, this feature bloat is highly regretful and is ultimately unwanted.

Re:Share button? (1)

tehlinux (896034) | about a year ago | (#44490023)

But she has a new hat!

No JS disabling in this times... (1)

stiebing.ja (836551) | about a year ago | (#44490253)

...just when Magneto came up you will never again be able to disable JavaScript in FireFox.

Yeah, hooray and RIP, FF.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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