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 24 Arrives: WebRTC Support and NFC Sharing On Android

Soulskill posted 1 year,14 days | from the onward-and-upward dept.

Firefox 152

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 24 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Improvements include a new option to mass close tabs 'to the right,' as well as WebRTC support and NFC sharing on Android. Firefox 24 has now 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. Compared to Firefox 23, this isn’t a big release for the desktop. Mac users will notice a new scrollbar style on OS X 10.7 and users of the browsers social features will appreciate the ability to tear-off chat windows by just dragging (full release notes: desktop, mobile)."

cancel ×

152 comments

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

Wait (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44877365)

It can make my first post faster?

Re:Wait (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877487)

I wish they'd hurry up and standardize PITF over TCP/IP. There's a great case for adding a standard feature to HTML 5 that invokes it any time someone loads a page with a text box, types a text string along the lines of "first" and initiates an HTTP post action in less than 1.8 seconds.

Re:Wait (1)

CODiNE (27417) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877729)

That just rewards the slower typists with a successful first post while blocking those who deserve it.

Still using 3.6 (0)

oldhack (1037484) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877447)

The new ones hide means to control cookies, etc. from their UI. Wonder how many are in the same boat.

Re:Still using 3.6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44877533)

The new ones hide means to control cookies, etc. from their UI. Wonder how many are in the same boat.

But they also come with a bunch of security bugfixes. I hope you're running your copy of 3.6 in a sandbox...

Re:Still using 3.6 (4, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877563)

I just upgraded to 24, and I see the same cookie controls it always had.

I think blocking cookies is turned off by default in the new version, but that's not the same as "hiding controls". If you upgrade, your settings should be the same as before. Mine are.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

oldhack (1037484) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877771)

Looked thru it a bit, and found that cookie control shows up when you select: Tools -> Options -> Privacy -> Use custom setting for history.

Re:Still using 3.6 (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877777)

I just upgraded to 24, and I see the same cookie controls it always had.

I just upgraded to... using a plugin instead, since the dev team can't seem to get it right after 23 previous attempts, so I'm not optimistic.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877993)

Well, I'm on OS X here, and all the controls are in the same place they always were, and they've always worked fine for me.

If you're on Windows, YMMV. I seldom use Windows anymore.

Re:Still using 3.6 (0, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878383)

Well, I'm on OS X here, and all the controls are in the same place they always were, and they've always worked fine for me.

I'm on Windows... I paid less for things to work fine for me. *shrugs* But hey, if cost is less important to you, you keep rocking that.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878545)

"I'm on Windows... I paid less for things to work fine for me. *shrugs* But hey, if cost is less important to you, you keep rocking that."

Actually, since I'm a developer, I have justification for getting the upper-end hardware anyway, and if you're going to do that, the cost differential between Mac and PC is actually pretty small. Review after review after review have been saying the same thing for years: "For the same level of hardware, Macs are only slightly more expensive."

But there's quite a bit more to it: Mac gives you native access to the *nix command line, and it is easier to run Windows in a VM on OS X than it is to run OS X on a VM in Windows.

So from my point of view, it is the most flexible option, too.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879065)

Actually, since I'm a developer, I have justification for getting the upper-end hardware anyway, and if you're going to do that, the cost differential between Mac and PC is actually pretty small. Review after review after review have been saying the same thing for years: "For the same level of hardware, Macs are only slightly more expensive."

Generally it's for 'almost' the same hardware this is proven. I have found when doing my purchases that I could get sufficiently better hardware for the same price though, which is probably where people find this to be the case.

I have repeatedly over the years [slashdot.org] found this to the case.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879299)

"I have repeatedly over the years found this to the case."

I think I'll keep going with the respected industry reviewers.

But also, as I stated earlier, hardware is not the only issue. In many ways OS X is simply a superior OS. Now, if only they would adopt a modern filesystem...

Re:Still using 3.6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44879845)

What are these "many" ways? Are they only superior in your opinion, or only in your particular use cases? Because I almost never people able to give me specifics on why OSX is superior to other OSes unless it's just a specific piece of software or some feature that only a few people would ever care about. If that's the case, Windows and Linux are just as "superior", not to mention other operating systems nobody ever tries because the mainstream OSes are so damn "superior."

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

jrumney (197329) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879647)

You see the cookie options if you choose "Custom" for the "History" settings. The default of "Remember History" enables cookies and hides the option to separately disable them.

Pale Moon FTW (4, Informative)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877631)

Re:Pale Moon FTW (1)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877973)

Interesting. Thanks for posting this.

Re:Pale Moon FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44878525)

Why bother with this when you can do the same thing with Firefox?

Re:Pale Moon FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44879687)

Yep another convert to pale moon (at least for home, I don't get to choose my browser at work). Sick and tired of Mozilla team's attitude. They can go fly a kite!

Re:Pale Moon FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44880455)

I prefer Cyberfox myself and deploy FrontMotion at work. I don't think I use the official builds anywhere.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44877649)

The new ones hide means to control cookies, etc. from their UI. Wonder how many are in the same boat.

Whether you run Fx 3.6 or Fx 36, PrefBar [tuxfamily.org] is your friend. Single-click radio buttons to turn on/off Javashit, images, cookies, etc.

That said... WebRTC: "Capture camera or microphone streams directly from Firefox Android using only JavaScript (a feature we know developers have been wanting for a while!)" And NFC speaks for itself in terms of the possibilities for exploits.

Yeah, web developers may want that, but I sure as fuck don't. Is anyone maintaining a complete list of "all the shit that's been added since 3.x that needs to be turned off in about:config or needs an extension like Status4Evar to turn back on?"

Because that list just got a little bit bigger today.

Two uses for WebRTC (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877767)

"But privacy!" The last time I checked the spec, WebRTC required the user to click to activate the camera.

"But I don't see any compelling use for connecting my device's camera to a web site." Without WebRTC, how do you expect to be able to scan a barcode in order to submit a product's UPC or EAN to the product search web site that you are using? Without WebRTC, how would you make a video chat site without having to write a separate application for each PC operating system or mobile or set-top platform and get it approved by each platform's gatekeeper?

Re:Two uses for WebRTC (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877961)

Without WebRTC, how do you expect to be able to scan a barcode in order to submit a product's UPC or EAN to the product search web site that you are using?

I've been looking for a way to do exactly this. Thanks, WebRTC!

Re:Two uses for WebRTC (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44878833)

Except that with WebRTC enabled, future browser vulnerabilities might easily give hackers access to the camera. And except that 99.9% of users simply don't need to scan barcodes at all.

Support for WebRTC - obviously without easy ways to disable it - is simply part of Mozilla's new dumbing-firefox-down strategy.

I hope firefox will be forked by privacy and security conscious developers some day. It used to be an intelligent project some years ago.

Re:Two uses for WebRTC (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879263)

And except that 99.9% of users simply don't need to scan barcodes at all.

They don't need to use a price comparison or video chat app, but they want to.

I hope firefox will be forked by privacy and security conscious developers some day.

It has been. Read the other comments to this story, particularly this one [slashdot.org] .

Re:Still using 3.6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44879983)

If you're that worried, and that willing to do work to control the browser, then install NoScript and get used to it. It's not bad once you're used to it (I got used to it in a matter of a few days and I've never looked back). You can't stop the web from gaining more functionality, but you CAN control what sites gain access to it.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877733)

Ahh, the Firefox user equivalent to the IE user still using IE 6. We (the web dev community, in general) are going to leave you behind, so don't complain if things don't work right.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

oldhack (1037484) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877835)

We (the web dev community, in general)...

Oooh, web monkeys scare me. :)

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877935)

We (the web dev community, in general)...

Oooh, web monkeys scare me. :)

It's not a threat, I'm just saying that the industry can't keep supporting Model Ts on the Information Superhighway. Things will start to break (if they aren't already). I think Firefox 18 is probably the oldest version of FF I'd use at this point, if I were a general user.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878215)

I'm just saying that the industry can't keep supporting Model Ts on the Information Superhighway.

I understand and generally agree with your comment, but new and/or trendy doesn't always mean "better", even if the Firefox developers want it to and/or think it does.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878273)

I'm just saying that the industry can't keep supporting Model Ts on the Information Superhighway.

I understand and generally agree with your comment, but new and/or trendy doesn't always mean "better", even if the Firefox developers want it to and/or think it does.

"New and/or trendy"? Implementing support for updated web standards is not the same as being 'trendy', and that's what the concern here is. Ignore the trendy nonsense as you will, but you really WANT support for web standards.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

gstoddart (321705) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878345)

Ahh, the Firefox user equivalent to the IE user still using IE 6. We (the web dev community, in general) are going to leave you behind, so don't complain if things don't work right.

In fairness, Firefox version numbers have become meaningless to many of us over the last few years unless you pay really close attention.

I'm apparently running 9.0.1, but when I tell it to apply it's update it just restarts and doesn't actually do anything and leaves me with the exact same "Apply update" button in the help > about.

So I have no idea of what version I'm running in relation to anything else, don't seem to get updates when I tell it to, and have no trust in a piece of software which auto-updates itself quietly behind the scenes and do not want that.

So if the goal was to make something less confusing and easier to use and keep track of ... from my perspective, that's not working well at all.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878539)

Ahh, the Firefox user equivalent to the IE user still using IE 6. We (the web dev community, in general) are going to leave you behind, so don't complain if things don't work right.

In fairness, Firefox version numbers have become meaningless to many of us over the last few years unless you pay really close attention.

I'm apparently running 9.0.1, but when I tell it to apply it's update it just restarts and doesn't actually do anything and leaves me with the exact same "Apply update" button in the help > about.

So I have no idea of what version I'm running in relation to anything else, don't seem to get updates when I tell it to, and have no trust in a piece of software which auto-updates itself quietly behind the scenes and do not want that.

So if the goal was to make something less confusing and easier to use and keep track of ... from my perspective, that's not working well at all.

You're never, ever, going to get me to fight on the side of Firefox on that kind of thing. :)

My only concern is people deliberately not keeping up with the times; it harms everyone. IE 6 held those of us in the industry back for FAR too long; we're just now beginning to catch up in being able to implement modern web standards. We just dropped IE 7 support at work a month ago. *sigh*

Feel free to use Chrome if you want.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

gstoddart (321705) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878601)

You're never, ever, going to get me to fight on the side of Firefox on that kind of thing. :)

LOL, but now I still need to figure out how the hell to upgrade from 9.0.1, which seems to be proving quite annoying. The built in mechanism seems useless.

Feel free to use Chrome if you want.

Well, at this precise moment I'm running Firefox, Chrome and Safari all at the same time -- which is pretty much my standard configuration as I use them for different web presences and because Safari has incompetently implemented 3rd party cookie blocking. As in, there isn't actually any 3rd party cookie blocking in Safari.

Re:Still using 3.6 (2)

Tumbleweed (3706) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878687)

You're never, ever, going to get me to fight on the side of Firefox on that kind of thing. :)

LOL, but now I still need to figure out how the hell to upgrade from 9.0.1, which seems to be proving quite annoying. The built in mechanism seems useless.

It's most likely a corrupted profile. I heard they were working on a profile cleaner feature, but I don't know if it ever got released or not. I'd backup your Firefox with MozBackup, then run the standalone installer and hope it fixes it. If not, reinstall the old version and restore via MozBackup.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

gstoddart (321705) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878715)

It's most likely a corrupted profile. I heard they were working on a profile cleaner feature, but I don't know if it ever got released or not. I'd backup your Firefox with MozBackup, then run the standalone installer and hope it fixes it. If not, reinstall the old version and restore via MozBackup.

And somehow we geeks expect people like our parents and non-technical people to be able to navigate this kind of thing.

I maintain mission-critical enterprise software, and that sounds like a pain in the ass to me. Your average user is going to have no frigging idea what any of that means and give up and go back to IE.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878813)

It's most likely a corrupted profile. I heard they were working on a profile cleaner feature, but I don't know if it ever got released or not. I'd backup your Firefox with MozBackup, then run the standalone installer and hope it fixes it. If not, reinstall the old version and restore via MozBackup.

And somehow we geeks expect people like our parents and non-technical people to be able to navigate this kind of thing.

I maintain mission-critical enterprise software, and that sounds like a pain in the ass to me. Your average user is going to have no frigging idea what any of that means and give up and go back to IE.

Yup.

Re:Still using 3.6 (3, Informative)

brentrad (1013501) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879397)

This link should help you out. Just download the latest version and install it over the top of your current version. It will upgrade your current install.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/fx/#desktop [mozilla.org]

Re:Still using 3.6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44877735)

The newer version is certainly non-intuitive. It's found in the same place as history. You have to select "Use custom settings for history" before you can get to the cookie handling controls that are standard in modern browsers.
Yes, it's hard to see this as incompetent rather than malicious.

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

steelfood (895457) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878117)

3.6 has a status bar, and a real status bar at that. As opposed to the always-present extension bar add-on, I see status messages in the status bar and not above it intruding into page space.

I also have a real back and forward button, as well as an arrow I can click if I want to see my backwards or forwards history. I don't need to hold anything down if all I want is to go back three pages, or go forward to the most recent one from five pages back.

I regularly using 17 and 23 in different environments. The only thing I like about the newer versons is that the URL is under the tabs and not above it (but for some reason, search is also under the tabs even though it is not tab-specific).

Re:Still using 3.6 (1)

PixetaledPikachu (1007305) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879653)

3.6 has a status bar, and a real status bar at that. As opposed to the always-present extension bar add-on, I see status messages in the status bar and not above it intruding into page space.

I also have a real back and forward button, as well as an arrow I can click if I want to see my backwards or forwards history. I don't need to hold anything down if all I want is to go back three pages, or go forward to the most recent one from five pages back.

I regularly using 17 and 23 in different environments. The only thing I like about the newer versons is that the URL is under the tabs and not above it (but for some reason, search is also under the tabs even though it is not tab-specific).

Right click on the back/forward button shows history. It looks like a timeline, and It will tell you how many pages are in front of you, and how many are behind. I like it. As for status bar, I used to be like you, bothered that the pop up is blocking the page content. But then I realized when I see the pop-up, I don't really want to see the content, and when I move away the mouse, the pop up is gone

What features did they now remove? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44877467)

What features did they now remove in the name of dumbing down the user interface for mentally challenged user group? Address bar? Right mouse button context menu? Bookmarks?

Re:What features did they now remove? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44877567)

What an un-loving anonymous coward you are!

Re:What features did they now remove? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877585)

I think you're confusing Mozilla with Apple: giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

Re:What features did they now remove? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44878119)

What features did they now remove in the name of dumbing down the user interface for mentally challenged user group? Address bar? Right mouse button context menu? Bookmarks?

Whoa! You have an Android device that can use a mouse?

CAPTCHA: Possible.

Re: What features did they now remove? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44878319)

my android 2.3 can handle a mouse just fine. USB thumb drives too.

Oh God! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44877527)

Another Firefox version number?!?

Can't Firefox just update their product with reasonable version numbers?

If they did it right, we'd be on 1.0.1.2.3.11.654399922344!

But Noooooooooo, they only go out to 2 -TWO -decimal places!

Really!

And the release cycle! Can't they wait for at least 4 or 5 really bad bugs that will compromise my system, take all my sensitive information, and god knows what BEFORE releasing all these pesky releases!

I mean really, when I see these notifications of a new release, I just HAVE to go and update.

It takes time, you know. For one, I got to change user to an admin account and download and install because if I do it as a user, then I got to clean up user/AppDatarsomething/balh/blah/blah/yada/yada/yada/yada or I get the "Update Failed to install. Please try again." error.

And let's not forget that ... I can't think of anything. Can I have my +5 Great Bitch and Moan karma now?

Re:Oh God! (1)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877579)

security patches are not in the xx product naming cycle.

honestly though I have no fucking idea how many major versions there are between 3.6 and 24.

oh and to get bitch and moan karma you must log in. even if you're posting bitchings and whatever you can still easily maintain a steady excellent karma rating as long as you every so often post something someone agrees with or finds interesting..

WebRTC ? (1)

Thud457 (234763) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877565)

So my Chromecast will work now?
sweet.

'Top Sites' Privacy Issue. (0)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877591)

The Firefox team needs to REMOVE the 'Top Sites' tab, or at least make it possible for the user to disable it, on Android. The existence of the 'Privacy Tab Browsing' is nice, but it's totally outrageous that for normal browsing there is a permanent indelible record of where you have browsed on display every time you load the browser.

That said, The Firefox Android browser is one of the main reasons it's even reasonable to browse the web on Android. If you use the default browser or Chrome, everywhere you browse is known to the Googleplex. I specifically NEVER log onto any Google Services from Firefox on my Samsung phone.

Re:'Top Sites' Privacy Issue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44877675)

The Firefox team needs to REMOVE the 'Top Sites' tab, or at least make it possible for the user to disable it, on Android. The existence of the 'Privacy Tab Browsing' is nice, but it's totally outrageous that for normal browsing there is a permanent indelible record of where you have browsed on display every time you load the browser.

This is different from the browser history how?

If you want your browsing to stay private, use "Private Browsing". It's right in the name!

That said, The Firefox Android browser is one of the main reasons it's even reasonable to browse the web on Android. If you use the default browser or Chrome, everywhere you browse is known to the Googleplex. I specifically NEVER log onto any Google Services from Firefox on my Samsung phone.

Son, Google Play Services runs as root. If they want your Firefox browsing history, they can get it easily.

Re:'Top Sites' Privacy Issue. (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878143)

The Firefox team needs to REMOVE the 'Top Sites' tab, or at least make it possible for the user to disable it, on Android. The existence of the 'Privacy Tab Browsing' is nice, but it's totally outrageous that for normal browsing there is a permanent indelible record of where you have browsed on display every time you load the browser.

This is different from the browser history how?

If you want your browsing to stay private, use "Private Browsing". It's right in the name!

That said, The Firefox Android browser is one of the main reasons it's even reasonable to browse the web on Android. If you use the default browser or Chrome, everywhere you browse is known to the Googleplex. I specifically NEVER log onto any Google Services from Firefox on my Samsung phone.

Son, Google Play Services runs as root. If they want your Firefox browsing history, they can get it easily.

I think he's more miffed by the fact that they have no 'disable history' or 'automatically clear history when firefox closes' options on the mobile version, as they do on the desktop version. Thus your 'Top Sites' page is spammed with all your incidental browsing history, unless you remember to manually clear your history each time you close the mobile browser...

That being said, he should really take a look at Clean Quit [mozilla.org] . It adds a quick-exit option to your popup toolbar on FF mobile, and (the most important part) it automatically clears whichever privacy settings you select if you exit via that button. That way, your 'Top Sites' page is only populated by your bookmarked sites, not by every little address search, imdb query or wikipedia article you happened to have browsed over the last few days...seems to work pretty well so far :)

Re:'Top Sites' Privacy Issue. (2)

dclozier (1002772) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877749)

If you hold down on the thumbnails the option to pin the site is there so that it always shows when opening firefox. Simply pin down 6 sites you don't mind displaying at startup. Also, there is an addon called clean quit that can be set to clear out history, cookies and such when you choose it as an option to exit the browser.

Re:'Top Sites' Privacy Issue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44880461)

Please don't say 'simply' when you mean 'much more complicated than it needs to be'. I take it they still don't have any way to put bookmarks into folders in the Android version? Can I download an addon for that? What's that, you can't, because only obsolete people want to do that? It's terrible, the things that should be simple are either complicated or impossible, the things that should be fine-grained are reduced to idiot-user level. How did these people screw this up so badly?

Looking Forward to Checking Out WebRTC (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877599)

I think peer sharing via the browser is a wonderful idea. I've been waiting for something like this for a long time.

New scrollbar style on OS X 10.7? (4, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877607)

Can't you morons just display the scrollbar in the normal default style the OS is giving you? That's what I hate about Firefox, it looks like an ugly Windows program on every OS.

System-level scrollbar overhead (2)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877887)

Perhaps system-level controls have more overhead than application-drawn controls. Consider the "system resources" in Windows 3.1 and Windows 9x. All applications shared a single 65536 byte GDI heap and a single 65536 byte USER heap. Each system-level control, such as a window or a scrollbar, used up space in the GDI heap. One advantage of NetCaptor's tabbed browsing in the Windows 9x days was the ability to keep more pages open without taking up a whole window's worth of GDI heap space. Fortunately, this shared heap wasn't present in 32-bit applications for Windows NT, and once Windows XP displaced Windows 9x, there wasn't much of a problem anymore. I don't think OS X has precisely this concept of "system resources", but it may still impose overhead for each scrollbar, or it may impose overhead when CSS changes a particular box between scrollable and not scrollable.

Re:New scrollbar style on OS X 10.7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44878513)

Can't you morons just display the scrollbar in the normal default style the OS is giving you? That's what I hate about Firefox, it looks like an ugly Windows program on every OS.

It's not like other browsers don't do this either: Chrome's scrollbars are fugly and non-native in GTK+, Chrome's titlebar is non-native, IE's tab and titlebar combination is unique amongst applications, Opera's button spacing is non-native, etc.

Re:New scrollbar style on OS X 10.7? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44880299)

If you think it's so simple, than why don't YOU do it? That's what I hate about idiotic comments, they sound stupid on every website.

Re:New scrollbar style on OS X 10.7? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,14 days | (#44880401)

All the other browsers seem to be able to do it on OS X, Firefox is the exception.

Just restarted (1)

ultranova (717540) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877715)

I just restarted Firefox, because after using 2 gigabytes on my 16-gigabyte system it started flashing black when switching windows in a way that predicts an imminent crash.

Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.

Also, has the issue with switching to another window when a page using Flash is opened been fixed? I doubt that.

64 bit Firefox .. (1)

codeusirae (3036835) | 1 year,14 days | (#44877929)

Linux x86_64, Linux, Netscape, Mozilla/5.0 X11; Linux x86_64; rv:26.0 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/26.0 ..

Firefox Nightly 26.0a1 (64-bit) [downloadcrew.com]

64-bit browser and 32-bit Flash Player (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878001)

no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore

"No one" is strong language. Netbooks tended to be 32-bit because (due to Windows license pricing) they shipped with less than 4 GB of RAM. Though netbooks are discontinued, some are still in operation, and several tablet PCs have similar specs. Besides:

a page using Flash

Do you expect to be able to use a 32-bit Flash Player inside a 64-bit browser? Furthermore, I limit Firefox's memory footprint on my machine by using Flashblock to control sites' access to Flash Player.

Re:64-bit browser and 32-bit Flash Player (1)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878293)

Netbooks tended to be 32-bit because (due to Windows license pricing) they shipped with less than 4 GB of RAM.

Netbooks tendded to be 32-bit because the cheap Atoms used in netbooks were 32-bit only.

Re:64-bit browser and 32-bit Flash Player (1)

ultranova (717540) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878445)

"No one" is strong language. Netbooks tended to be 32-bit because (due to Windows license pricing) they shipped with less than 4 GB of RAM. Though netbooks are discontinued, some are still in operation, and several tablet PCs have similar specs.

Perhaps. But that's hardly a reason to not have a 64-bit version as the default for the desktops. After all, we're not talking about assembly code here.

Besides, I can't help but notice that Chrome is somehow managing to keep working with 100+ open tabs day after day week after week in a freaking phone.

Do you expect to be able to use a 32-bit Flash Player inside a 64-bit browser?

Sure, why not? Firefox runs plugins inside a container nowadays precisely to isolate its own memory space from them. So why would it be a problem?

Furthermore, I limit Firefox's memory footprint on my machine by using Flashblock to control sites' access to Flash Player.

Block it or allow it by default, the second you start FP Firefox switches to another open window. Which is a bug, and an annoying one.

Mobile browsers evict less recently used pages (1)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879327)

Besides, I can't help but notice that Chrome is somehow managing to keep working with 100+ open tabs day after day

That's because Chrome runs each tab in a separate process. It's far less likely for a single tab to top 1 GB than it is for all tabs put together to top 1 GB, reducing the need for a 64-bit binary. Firefox is working toward this model; search Bugzilla for "electrolysis" to find related bugs.

in a freaking phone.

I've noticed that if I have more than about three tabs open in Chrome or Firefox for Android, switching to another tab may cause the page to reload if it's been kicked out of memory. This "forgetting" interferes with the offline use case of opening a bunch of pages in tabs, going offline, and reading each page, and it interferes with pages that have forms on them.

Flashblock is overkill in Firefox 24 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44880297)

Now you can uninstall it and install the lighter-weight Click-to-play per element [mozilla.org]

Re:Just restarted (2)

sconeu (64226) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878051)

[Raises hand].

My PC at work is 32-bit.

What they need to do is release both 32 and 64 bit versions.

Re:Just restarted (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44878161)

My PC at work is 32-bit.

Your PC at work is broken.

Re:Just restarted (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878291)

Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.

They used to have a 64-bit build, but but dropped it for various reasons [slashdot.org] , though they did bring back 64-bit nightlies [slashdot.org] .

Basically it was a buggier version, with fewer users and even fewer plugins that supported it.

You'll find a lot of kinds of applications to be 32-bit only - even Microsoft puts 32-bit IE as default (even though they have a 64-bit version) for the same reasons. Other applications with plugins like Office tend to recommend installing the 32-bit version as well.

OTOH, I use profiles and separate Firefox sessions...

Re:Just restarted (1)

0123456 (636235) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878299)

Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.

If you were using a real operating system, you could have been running 64-bit Firefox for five years or more. It's only people running an old clunker like Windows who are mostly stuck running 32-bit apps on a 64-bit OS.

Re:Just restarted (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44880019)

Windows also has 64-bit builds. Either you're retarded and can't find any or you're trolling. Get a grip.

Re:Just restarted (1)

David_W (35680) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878919)

Also, has the issue with switching to another window when a page using Flash is opened been fixed? I doubt that.

No. :( Just checked.

Re:Just restarted (1)

sootman (158191) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879135)

The most recent version of FF on OS X 10.6.8 (work computer) introduced a new behavior: with a few windows open, it'll suddenly use 100% of one core. I'll close every window (but leave the app running) and it STILL uses 100% of one core. I'll be interested to see if they fix that.

Re:Just restarted (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44880009)

Never reached 2 GB with mine, maybe you should turn off one of your 912390213123 addons.

Firefox user experience (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44877855)

Some of the user experience of Firefox feels a bit clunky. I know they'll probably never put them in, but I'm still waiting for a 'Bookmark this page' on a tab's context menu. I just clicked the tab to take a look, and now I want to bookmark it. But I either have to know the keyboard shortcut, go to the Bookmarks menu, or click some star. Why not just right-click (what I just left-clicked), and pick it there? I've seen people ask for some of that stuff but somebody always says no for some other reason. I'd also like to be able to 'Bookmark all Tabs' from the 'Bookmarks' menu (why it's only (?) on a tab's context menu only is beyond me).

why tabs to the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44878011)

My tab bar is a stack. I read a page, open the links and they stack up to the right. I close the page, when i finished reading. So when there is any need for this feature (it should have been an addon), then close to the left, because the user may jump right, and leave tabs, which are already read to the left.

TLS 1.2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44878163)

Firefox 24 brings TLS 1.2 support at last.

Sure not a lot of websites support 1.2 but browser adoption is the key to getting the ball rolling.

Memory Leaks Solved? (0)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878255)

I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0. Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved? (3, Informative)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878711)

"I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0. Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox."

Oh man, as someone that hung onto 3.62 forever I can feel your pain, but Chrome? That thing is so creepy I couldnt keep it installed for a week.

I have found that the Firefox ESR with a LOT of customisation, including downloading extensions to fix some of the breakage, is the best option out there for me. Firefox "17" with bugfixes but no feature additions seems reasonably stable and has no noticeable memory leaks for me. If they are happening on the order of hours the best solution may be the fast restart extension.

Still eagerly awaiting a sane fork of firefox. I would be happy to pitch in some but I am far from capable of coding or funding it without lots of others onboard.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved? (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879021)

Thank you for some solace and good ideas, friend. Yes, Chrome is creepy too. I will explore your suggestions. Thank you and wishing you up mods!

Re:Memory Leaks Solved? (3, Insightful)

theweatherelectric (2007596) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879341)

I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0.

What memory leaks? If you've found new ones, have you reported them? Significant progress has been made in Firefox's memory usage in the last three years. Do you read the memshrink progress reports [mozilla.org] ? If you don't, maybe you should.

Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox.

Surely you realise that Chrome uses more memory than Firefox. Look at a comparison of browser memory usage with a single tab open [tomshardware.com] and multiple tabs open [tomshardware.com] . If you're happy with Chrome's memory usage, you'll be happy with any browser's memory usage.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved? (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879583)

Yes, I have had a currently open bug with FF21.0--that got worse with 22.0. I have been fully co-operative and helpful for months as they work to resolve it. I uploaded memory dumps of before and after. In the after state it was taking 2GB of RAM after TWO minutes. And I and the other watchers of the bug I opened at Mozilla will dispute your contention that Chrome uses more memory. Simply not true! Chrome with its process-per-tab manages memory much better than FF does. As I said, this bug has been validated by DEVs at Mozilla and they have admitted my use case exposes a valid problem that they themselves have been able to replicate. Next troll?

Re:Memory Leaks Solved? (1)

theweatherelectric (2007596) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879683)

Yes, I have had a currently open bug with FF21.0--that got worse with 22.0.

Where's the bug? Link to it.

And I and the other watchers of the bug I opened at Mozilla will dispute your contention that Chrome uses more memory. Simply not true!

Did you not look at the memory usage charts from Tom's Hardware? Chrome uses more memory than other browsers. This has been my consistent experience as well as Tom's Hardware's as well as most everyone's. Look at another memory usage chart [tomshardware.com] from Tom's. They use Chrome's memory usage tool to measure it. Even Google disagrees with you.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved? (1)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879937)

Here is the bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016 [mozilla.org]
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016 [mozilla.org]
Whether Chrome temporarily uses more RAM is not the point. I have never seen Chrome get into a runaway 2-3GB memory leak like so frequently happens to FF https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016 [mozilla.org]

You are the perfect scenario for (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44880279)

Firefox's about:memory "Measure and Save" & "Load and Diff" buttons. Use them and attach the diff to the bug.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44880475)

Sounds to me like one particular pay site has an issue with Firefox, not "Firefox has a lot of memory leaks". Heck, if you guys still haven't tried safe mode after a month, it can't be THAT major of an issue.

Maybe you could contact Doxpop and try to break the ice between them and Mozilla; sometimes an apparently-off-one issue won't gain traction until more people get involved, because there are always "bigger fish to fry".

There's also an emergency update to the ESR (1)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878681)

Looks like several more important bugfixes.

That's great (1)

Reliable Windmill (2932227) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878777)

But what about the flagrant memory usage? Before posting this I closed all windows and noted that Firefox was eating 1015 MB of RAM (and 36 threads, hopefully idle) to just sit there and do NOT ONE GOD DAMNED THING AT ALL.

Re:That's great (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44879441)

It would be nice if you'd report your case to Mozilla and help them figure out what the problem is. Why? Because so few people have these issues, except a few very loud ones who refuse to do anything to fix them, pretending that it's always Mozilla's fault. Even when Firefox uses possibly the least amount of RAM of the major browsers while doing anything remotely useful. But of course, not everyone will have the best user experience, it's just that the few who have these problems are universally unwilling to help Mozilla find out why. It's just "Mozilla's fault" and "nothing else matters... unless it means me having to do something".

Re:That's great (1)

Reliable Windmill (2932227) | 1 year,14 days | (#44880151)

It would be nice if you'd report your case to Mozilla and help them figure out what the problem is. Why? Because so few people have these issues, except a few very loud ones who refuse to do anything to fix them, pretending that it's always Mozilla's fault.

My case is like everyone else's case, normal usage; look through the thread, many people mention the enormous memory usage of FF.

Even when Firefox uses possibly the least amount of RAM of the major browsers while doing anything remotely useful.

I don't think so. Chrome has now been running for a few hours, and with pages open it's still only at 110 MB memory usage. FF uses twice as much immediately after having been started up.

But of course, not everyone will have the best user experience, it's just that the few who have these problems are universally unwilling to help Mozilla find out why. It's just "Mozilla's fault" and "nothing else matters... unless it means me having to do something".

Everyone has these problems. The browser isn't broken nor does it behave oddly. It's just enormously resource hungry, and I think it's a consequence of the design process and how the software has grown and been built. I don't know what meaningful information I can provide to Mozilla that they don't already have.

Fire-Who? (1)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | 1 year,14 days | (#44878785)

I remember back in the day FF was a small footprint, fast browser, then it got bloated taking up huge amounts of memory, rendering slowly , and coming out with a ridiculous release cycle that killed any corporate backing it had. I cant think of any of my clients that use FF. Sorry but FF is going to have some major performance improvements to win the masses back.

Re:Fire-Who? (2)

rklrkl (554527) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879211)

Replace "FF" with "Google Chrome" and you'll see that Google beat Mozilla to the punch :-) Remember that Chrome is on version 29 (5 ahead of Firefox) and now uses more RAM than Firefox! You've also conveniently forgotten the Firefox ESR [mozilla.org] release (Chrome has *nothing* like it, so is a complete disaster for corporate use). Also, the performance gap has been gradually closing between Chrome and Firefox in the last year or so. For the first time in a couple of years, Firefox recent actually beat Chrome in Tom's Hardware Browser Grand Prix [tomshardware.com] .

The lack of extensions on Android Chrome is utterly appalling, which is why Firefox on Android basically destroys Android Chrome. Now if Mozilla could fix the dodgy graphics issue [mozilla.org] with Firefox on the Nexus 10 (pages often half-rendering and needing a screen rotation to render them properly!), then I wouldn't have to double-rotate my tablet so often :-)

Re:Fire-Who? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44879525)

No, Mozilla will NEVER be able to satisfy you. Stop kidding yourself. They've practically rewritten half the browser over the last 2 years, solved a huge amount of their nastiest bugs, caught up and even surpassed the other browsers in some important ways, and they're STILL not even competitive by your reckoning.

I'd actually like to know what magical browser you're using that's so much better. You're also going to have to try harder to convince me that a rolling release schedule is the problem when virtually every browser has them now, or that "the masses" care about corporate features.

It sounds more to me like Firefox could win all of the browsing awards, cure cancer and dance for your amusement and you'd still apparently not give a shit.

TLS 1.2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44878881)

Sadly M24 still only supports up to TLS 1.0 by default. We're at the point that we really need to start moving the ball forward:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security#Cipher

M24 uses NSS 3.15.1, which does support TLS 1.2, but (a) it's not enabled and (b) it doesn't support the GCM-based ciphers, which adds a lot of security against BEAST, CRIME, etc. M25 is supposed to use NSS 3.15.2 which has added support for AES128-GCM, among other protocol enhancements:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=898431
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=880543

M25 is expected toward the end of October AFAICT:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar

I'm more anxious about support in NSS, as that's used in a whole bunch of other places.

DECLINED (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44879393)

I declined my FF Andriod update today.
Why!
It reqeusted two NEW app permissions. NFC & Microphone.

What the fuck does a web browser need access to a MICROPHONE for?
Remove it NOW!

Also how about allowing one to set their OWN HOME PAGE, its there on the full browser.

DONT BE A SLAVE TO GOOGLE !
MAKE YOUR OWN UI DESIGNS !
BE INOVATIVE LIKE YOU USED TO BE !

At the risk of sounding like a troll (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | 1 year,14 days | (#44879989)

NFC is kinda pointless until the iPhone supports it. There isn't a single large company that'll move until then. I can't tell you the let down it was when the iPhone 5 didn't have it. As near as I can tell the problem is iPhone users have lots of money and they spend it, so they're a required demographic for any major push forward.

Re:At the risk of sounding like a troll (2)

mjwx (966435) | 1 year,14 days | (#44880139)

NFC is kinda pointless until the iPhone supports it. There isn't a single large company that'll move until then. I can't tell you the let down it was when the iPhone 5 didn't have it. As near as I can tell the problem is iPhone users have lots of money and they spend it, so they're a required demographic for any major push forward.

You're right, you do sound like a troll.

With Android outselling Iphones 3 to 1, it really doesn't matter what Apple does. Android eclipsed Iphone long ago.

You'll notice most Iphone features came out on Android first, WiFi and cable tethering, copy and paste, the "new" data usage meter in IOS 7 has been in Android since version 2.

With features, the Android modding community is really the test bed, people who use community ROMS get the features first. The ones that are good get rolled into Android propper in 6 months, Iphone users get them 18 to 24 months after that.. Maybe, if Apple feels like it.

So it really doesn't matter what Apple does, the only ones who will be harmed by Apple choosing not to use NFC will be Iphone users who are no longer a significant audience.

NFC sharing (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#44880393)

I hace No Fucking Clue what NFC is, and why I should share it.
National Football Coaches?
Naked Fight Club
Nebraska Fried Chicken

Not For Conservatives

Northern Freezing Canada
Nixons Flying Circus

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?