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 25 Arrives With Web Audio API Support, Guest Browsing On Android

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the glad-the-browser-wars-continue dept.

Firefox 144

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 25 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Additions include Web Audio API support, as well as guest browsing and mixed content blocking on Android. Firefox 25 can be downloaded from 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. The release notes are here: desktop, mobile."

cancel ×

144 comments

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

I can't remember (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45271673)

I can't actually recall the last time I was actually enthusiastic about a Firefox release. Nowadays it seems like a chore that rewards my expenditure of effort with features I will never use.

I mean... I get that mature software doesn't necessarily deliver awe-inspiring features all the time, but in that case, why is it news?

Re:I can't remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45271837)

just to make you feel old :-) i'm still using firefox 2.0.0.3 and 3.5 at work (internal/external), it's like the IE6 experience in the linux universe. why bother if you already have everything you need? well.. until bugzilla got upgraded and doesn't do line breaks on server side anymore. now i have to scroll trough 1 line bugs horizontally. maybe it's time to upgrade to firefox 4...

Re:I can't remember (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 9 months ago | (#45272213)

IE6 is at least supported. Debian might still support 3.5 but I don't know of anyone that actively supports 2.0 anymore.

Re:I can't remember (2)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 9 months ago | (#45272593)

Id upgrade it just for avoiding driveby malware attacks. IE6 was/is horrible in this regard, not sure how targetted is FireFox 2.0 on Linux.

Re:I can't remember (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45271903)

'Cause it's 25 man. 25 mostly meaningless releases.

Re:I can't remember (4, Informative)

royallthefourth (1564389) | about 9 months ago | (#45271921)

Web Audio API actually is an interesting feature.

See some of it in action: http://mohayonao.github.io/timbre.js/ [github.io]

Re:I can't remember (2)

Spiridios (2406474) | about 9 months ago | (#45272253)

Web Audio API actually is an interesting feature.

See some of it in action: http://mohayonao.github.io/timbre.js/ [github.io]

This is the feature I've been waiting for since I like to write games and port them to HTML5. I have an audio-only game that only worked in Chrome until today because I had the audacity to require left/right panning.

Re:I can't remember (1)

kju (327) | about 9 months ago | (#45272481)

My favorite example of Web Audio API is Plink: http://labs.dinahmoe.com/plink/ [dinahmoe.com]

Re:I can't remember (1)

kju (327) | about 9 months ago | (#45272569)

Oh and here is a speech synthesizer using Web Audio API: http://www.masswerk.at/mespeak/ [masswerk.at]

Re:I can't remember (1)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | about 9 months ago | (#45272797)

I think what he means is there's too many releases.

Re:I can't remember (4, Insightful)

eepok (545733) | about 9 months ago | (#45271951)

A chore? How do YOU install new Firefox releases? All I do is go to Help->About Firefox->Check for Updates->Install.

It's not exactly spring cleaning.

Re:I can't remember (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45271979)

No, it was hyperbole, chill.

Re:I can't remember (4, Funny)

eepok (545733) | about 9 months ago | (#45272107)

Frozen.

Re:I can't remember (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272163)

wenis

Re:I can't remember (3, Insightful)

cOldhandle (1555485) | about 9 months ago | (#45272209)

It's a chore to find how to re-enable core features that have been removed and disable terrible additions (like the recent giant green arrow animations every single time a file is downloaded)

Re:I can't remember (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 9 months ago | (#45272317)

It's a chore to find how to re-enable core features that have been removed and disable terrible additions (like the recent giant green arrow animations every single time a file is downloaded)

Even then there are some that just don't have a way to re-enable. Like autocompleting URL bars that autocomplete entire URLs, and not just domains or partial URLs. Even more annoyingly, Firefox refuses to autocomplete ports - so if you visit http://localhost8080/ [localhost8080] Firefox oh-so-helpfully autocompletes just "http://localhost".

But I go to direct deep URLs on a lot of things.

Re:I can't remember (1)

Arker (91948) | about 9 months ago | (#45272747)

"Even then there are some that just don't have a way to re-enable. Like autocompleting URL bars that autocomplete entire URLs, and not just domains or partial URLs."

Or like the status bar. WTF was wrong with the status bar? If you didnt like it you could turn it off like all the other bars. They killed it all the way back @ firefox 4 (when the whole train seems to have gone off the tracks) and made it impossible for it to be fully reconstructed even through an extension. And, btw, that extension is now being reported as incompatible with Firefox 25.

So glad I am using ESR instead of latest Firefox right now. And still hoping someone with a brain will fork the project before the next rev...

Re:I can't remember (2)

cffrost (885375) | about 9 months ago | (#45273083)

Even then there are some that just don't have a way to re-enable. Like autocompleting URL bars that autocomplete entire URLs, and not just domains or partial URLs. Even more annoyingly, Firefox refuses to autocomplete ports - so if you visit http://localhost8080/ [localhost8080] Firefox oh-so-helpfully autocompletes just "http://localhost".

But I go to direct deep URLs on a lot of things.

FF plugin "Calomel SSL Validation" [calomel.org] has a checkbox on its Optimizations tab* to toggle the behavior you described. The prefs dialog must be accessed via the Tools menu; the toolbar button's sole functions are: 1) Changing color to indicate a weighted, aggregate measure of the security quality of an encrypted connection, and 2) when clicked, displaying score-points and the details from which they were derived (cert match,cyphers, key lengths, hash algo).

TLS 1.1 & 1.2 were added a couple versions back, but remain off by default. This plugin adds control of some of this functionality. See WP's TLS article and it's cited notes/bug reports regarding FF's implementation details/issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security [wikipedia.org]

* This plugin's secondary functions are numerous and disparate. I'm tired, so see first link if you want to know anything else about it.

Re:I can't remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272231)

You obviously don't use firefox on android, which only supports automatic updates if you originally acquired the browser from the Google Play store. So yes, updating firefox is a chore.

And as of the last version, it STILL doesn't support the privacy options of the desktop versions. Private-browsing mode shouldn't be an 'opt-in' mode - it should be default, or at the very least there should be a setting to make it default.

(I haven't installed this version yet)

Re:I can't remember (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 9 months ago | (#45272249)

The chore comes from having to spend minutes to hours to some cases days researching how to unfuck yet another UI snafu that mozilla's designers pushed in the update.

Re:I can't remember (2)

ultranova (717540) | about 9 months ago | (#45272165)

I mean... I get that mature software doesn't necessarily deliver awe-inspiring features all the time, but

But we're talking about Firefox. It's not mature by any stretch of imagination.

why is it news?

Hype. The whole purpose of ditching major.minor.build versioning was to get the hype of a major release for every single new build. Well, that and it makes it less convenient to maintain old branches in bugfix state, thus forcing everyone to buy into every new feature and feature removal unless they want to be pwned. The developers have a vision and you will share it, dammit!

Re:I can't remember (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272313)

I don't understand why everyone complains about the Firefox release cycle when it is nearly identical to the Chrome/Chromium release cycle. And unlike with Chrome, if you want a stable version with just bugfixes, you can use ESR releases [wikipedia.org] which are supported for 54 weeks.

Re:I can't remember (1)

Arker (91948) | about 9 months ago | (#45272821)

"I don't understand why everyone complains about the Firefox release cycle when it is nearly identical to the Chrome/Chromium release cycle."

We laughed at the Chrome brain damage and the fools that used it, secure in the knowledge at least our browser wasnt THAT stupid - and then it started doing the same thing. That's kind of it in a nutshell.

I do use ESR but I would be much happier with a fork going back to version 3 or earlier and maybe fixing some of the more annoying ancient bugs instead of trying to cram new features I dont need or want down my throat while breaking the UI repeatedly.

Re:I can't remember (1)

Steve_Ussler (2941703) | about 9 months ago | (#45272401)

I agreethey change the number so much to compete w/ Chrome that is it downright silly.

Re:I can't remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273381)

Look, you don't have to be excited about a browser release. Nor does everyone have to care what's new in the release. Why can't you just ignore it if it doesn't interest you? Why must everyone pine for the good old days when they were young, and news of any software release made them wet their pants in joy?

Unfortunately... (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 9 months ago | (#45271723)

Unfortunately it's a Javascript API.

You can't actually write a web page in HTML with some kind of HTML-A audio inline, like you can put SVG or MATHML inline.

Re:Unfortunately... (4, Insightful)

tuffy (10202) | about 9 months ago | (#45271815)

What's wrong with the HTML5 audio tag [w3schools.com] for simple playback of static audio files?

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 9 months ago | (#45272837)

Nothing is wrong with the HTML5 audio tag.
What I hate it the PERLesque - There's more than one way to do it. You know there will be 15 billion ugly, unreadable javascript hacks the the API interface where the HTML interface would have been just fine, as with all other areas of overlap between HTML and javascript.

Re:Unfortunately... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45271817)

Just use the html5 <audio> tag, no js required.

The api is for playback control and advanced processing & effects.

Re:Unfortunately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45271891)

http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_sounds.asp

Re:Unfortunately... (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about 9 months ago | (#45272157)

So it's next-gen embedded MIDIs. Netscape always needed plugins for that (Crescendo! etc.)

Bloated horseshit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45271729)

Sorry, Chrome has won

Re:Bloated horseshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45271851)

Oh, that's why everyone I know uses Firefox, not Chrome?

Re:Bloated horseshit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45271949)

Everyone you know must be filthy, virgin neckbeards.

Bloated indeed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272007)

Oh, that's why everyone I know uses Firefox, not Chrome?

Who is "everyone"?

Really, and the whole "Chrome has won"

Really guys?

I'm looking for a really stable browser that will show all content accurately - and suck up the minimum of resources.

That's all.

I don't need bells and whistles or anything.

Just a browser that's stable, renders everything well, and doesn't hang - I think Fark.com should be in every browser test case. God help me, that website sucks up so much resources - and MarketWatch.com - WTF, guys!!

Re:Bloated horseshit (1)

Forbo (3035827) | about 9 months ago | (#45272417)

Please, tell me more about how your anecdotal evidence trumps statistics. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp [w3schools.com]

Re:Bloated horseshit (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45271869)

Yep, let's give in and give all our data to google. They clearly deserve it for writing a web browser.

privacy (1)

green is the enemy (3021751) | about 9 months ago | (#45272109)

This is something I'm curious about: Does Chrome send tracking data to Google? Does Firefox? Google is the main sponsor of Firefox after all..

Re:privacy (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45272173)

Chrome sends every site you visit to google. Firefox sends google searches(naturally) and awesome bar searches to google.

Re:privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272199)

This is fucking false
Learn to use tcpdump

Re:privacy (3, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45272347)

If you don't turn off "phishing protection" it's absolutely true.

Re:privacy (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about 9 months ago | (#45272501)

Nope. Not true.

Re:privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272539)

All freemium browsers gather all the info, all sites and searches, that is their business model.

Re:Bloated horseshit (2)

Forbo (3035827) | about 9 months ago | (#45272427)

Or you could use Chromium.

Re: Bloated horseshit (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45271993)

Not anymore.
The last 2 (well, now 3) versions of Firefox have been stellar. Look at the benchmark tests. These latest Firefox versions are smoking everyone else, including Chrome. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-opera-next,3534-12.html

Re: Bloated horseshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273277)

Mod parent up, someone finally uses data rather than anecdote to support their claims.

I'd care but... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45271841)

The developers refuse to release a 64-bit browser, fix bugs, keep breaking 3rd party plugins between releases, like Citrix/Xen apps for example, or create a Metro option for the kiosk market. That would be news worthy instead of this rapid release schedule of major version releases.

Re:I'd care but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272019)

I'm not sure I want a 64 bit browser. If my browser needs more than 3GB of ram, something's wrong.

Re:I'd care but... (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 9 months ago | (#45272245)

It's still a good thing. 64 bit means much more than just increased address space, at least on x86_64. More registers might increase speed for example.

Re:I'd care but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272349)

More registers is about the only thing better for a browser. More than 4 gig of memory is a waste for a browser.

However, at this point it is rather silly there is no windows 64bit version. They have had a linux and mac version for ages now. At this point is it really that big of a deal? Most of the 64 bit problems were worked out long ago...

The only thing keeping me away from chrome at this point is the adblock plus plugin and noscript plugin. The two implementations under chrome are bit underwhelming.

Re:I'd care but... (2)

royallthefourth (1564389) | about 9 months ago | (#45272557)

More than 4 gig of memory is a waste for a browser.

Obviously you are not a serious Javascript experimenter! Now that we've got canvas, WebGL, web workers, and audio, there's plenty of memory intensive stuff we can do inside the browser. The only limiting factors that distinguish web pages from real applications nowadays are your understanding of Javascript and how shitty of a browser you're willing to target.

Re:I'd care but... (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 9 months ago | (#45272813)

More registers is about the only thing better for a browser. More than 4 gig of memory is a waste for a browser.

You can routinely go over 1GB if you're a heavy user or the pages themselves are heavy. Sometimes it's tab hoarding, I'm beginning to roll that back. But I can reach the 32bit 2GB limit without problem and with a 64bit linux, 3GB ram, 1.9GB swap, 64bit firefox I managed to fill everything up.
The best reason to use a 32bit firefox on a 64bit system would be so it cannot possibly fill up all your memory and send you to swap hell.

Also, Chrome is a lot more memory hungry and can always fill up all RAM, because it uses many spawned processes. You can need 8GB ram for web browsing alone these days.
I do no ad-blocking and no javascript blocking, because I don't want to deal with blacklists/whitelists constantly. I get the full experience lol, though I use flashblock so the computer doesn't suffer denial of service by too many flash objects.

Re:I'd care but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272931)

yeah facebook chat for example omg resource hog

and what happens when we start with these hi def vids in html 5?

I would love a 64 bit version

Re:I'd care but... (1)

uncomformistsheep (2950041) | about 9 months ago | (#45273493)

Yeah, facebook chat is very resource intensive. It was the reason I first tried and then switched to Chromium. It was unbearable in firefox.

Re:I'd care but... (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 9 months ago | (#45273005)

However, at this point it is rather silly there is no windows 64bit version. They have had a linux and mac version for ages now. At this point is it really that big of a deal? Most of the 64 bit problems were worked out long ago...

Part of the Windows culture seems to be that most userspace apps are released as a 32bit version only.

Re:I'd care but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272933)

Try opening 30 tabs of heavy media pages in FF. Just because you use lynx to browse on your 386 doesn't mean some of us would like a nice 64bit browser that can handle more modern demands.

Re:I'd care but... (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 9 months ago | (#45273727)

Why? computers with 12GB of RAM are getting cheap, I don't see how it's bad to have that much of a RAM cache.

Re:I'd care but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272125)

Calm down, version 26 will be out tomorrow and it will include new playback options for flash encoded video.

Re:I'd care but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272241)

They're not major version releases. They're more like 0.21, 0.22, 0.23. Small increments of new features.

Re:I'd care but... (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 9 months ago | (#45272293)

$ file -L /usr/bin/firefox
/usr/bin/firefox: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.26, BuildID[sha1]=0x351721d7eba5940fb79872c01865bfcf86eda51d, stripped

Looks 64-bit to me.

Re:I'd care but... (1)

dk400 (1099671) | about 9 months ago | (#45272361)

well... though i agree that extensions. addons and apps are quite an interesting addition to the basic browser experience... I am fairly skeptical that the developers should be constantly worrying about breaking these addons/apps/extensions every time they update a version. That would be quite clumsy and would probably come in way of actual browser feature development...

Re:I'd care but... (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 9 months ago | (#45272379)

The developers refuse to release a 64-bit browser

64-bit is available in the nightly builds. It's not in the main tree because more people would have problems with it (most plugins, like flash, are 32-bit only)

It's why the default browser even on 64-bit OSes is 32-bit - plugin compatibility. Unless you're Google which ships Flash with every version of Chrome and can thus ship a 64-bit version with the 64-bit version.

Doing so in Firefox would just lead to a bunch of support tickets on why Flash refuses to work.

Re:I'd care but... (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 9 months ago | (#45273103)

At least on Linux, Adobe provides a 64-bit flash player which runs fine in 64-bit Firefox. That's the only plugin most people care about.

Re:I'd care but... (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | about 9 months ago | (#45273409)

And on Linux 64 bit firefox is available by default, usually packaged by your distro.
And it isn't the only plugin people care about. At least over here, the ones people care about seem to be Adobe PDF, Adobe Flash, Oracle Java.

Re:I'd care but... (2)

Arethereanyleft (442474) | about 9 months ago | (#45272559)

Same here. I'm really tired of the almost-daily random crashes. And why is it that when I start after a crash or reboot, it tells me it can't restore my session, but then when I click the button it does so without fail?

Re:I'd care but... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273543)

What? They refuse to fix bugs? Oh, you must mean they haven't fixed YOUR pet bug yet, and you just wanted to make it sound like refuse to fix any bugs at all. Why not ask why YOU haven't moved to a 64-bit OS that's supported by Firefox? Because that's inane? Well, same goes for claiming they have no 64-bit browser when they do, it's just not for your pet OS.

Besides, it's not that they refuse, they're just not equipped with endless supplies of coders to do the work and they have lots of things to do. But surely you realize that, since you want a Metro version. Surely you've at least tried their development Metro version, yes? Or are you just whining because it's easier than doing something?

Stop pretending that the world revolves around you, and complaining about them releasing new versions without your pet features. Without these updates you probably would never even know it when they solve your pet bugs, because you're so good at keeping informed.

Android version sucks. (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 9 months ago | (#45271875)

Its had too many features removed and freezes for up to 20 seconds if you stop a page load, pages screw their formatting up, it has no solution for popup boxes that center themselves offscreen. gmail.com, mail.com both pretty unusable. (galaxy note 2). no undo close tab. most options removed.

Re:Android version sucks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272097)

You forgot you always have to force kill its process when you're done with it or else your battery is dead in 45 minutes.

Another day... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45271947)

Another Firefox release
Another economic crisis
Another

(your turn, guys...)

Re:Another day... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 9 months ago | (#45272309)

Another Firefox release
Another security hole in Microsoft products
Another Firefox release
Another security hole in Apple products
Another Firefox release
Another security hole in Adobe products
Another Firefox release
Another Firefox release to fix a security hole in the previous three releases
Another Firefox release just to catch up to the Chrome version

Re:Another day... (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 9 months ago | (#45272705)

Another Firefox release just to catch up to the Chrome version

Yet that would only be necessary if chromw was updating continuously.

Only you didn't complain about that.

Massive double standards there.

Re:Another day... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 9 months ago | (#45273571)

My last line was targeted at Chrome. It's Google's fault that we have insane major versions of browsers today.

Slow as el (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45271973)

Fix that. I used to be able to have 25 tabs open and it just went along fine, now things start to seize up with just a few in a very short time.

Only Version 25? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45271997)

Screw that. The googles browser is +5 better! Long live the googles!

Re:Only Version 25? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272211)

What are the googles for?

Where did you get the stop sign?

Re:Only Version 25? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272411)

What are the googles for?

The Googles do nothing!

Re:Only Version 25? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 9 months ago | (#45272259)

At this point, microsoft's browser is actually better. Sadly.

The only thing that keeps many of us on FF are add-ons.

Re:Only Version 25? (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | about 9 months ago | (#45273001)

Screw that. The googles browser is +5 better! Long live the googles!

I, for one, embrace our new chromey browsing overlords.

Firefux (0)

benjfowler (239527) | about 9 months ago | (#45272093)

Do they still have that annoying memory leak? I gave up after waiting 10 years for the neckbeards to fix Firefox and just switched to Chrome.

Re:Firefux (4, Informative)

Grant_Watson (312705) | about 9 months ago | (#45272561)

Your tone is flamebait, but your question is valid. Firefox has a project called MemShrink [mozilla.org] whose focus has been on reducing memory usage. In the time they've been going they have found and fixed leaks in Firefox; come up with better ways to find leaks in add-ons, which were the biggest culprit; changed how Firefox handles memory used by add-ons to eliminate virtually all such leaks; and optimized Firefox's memory management in a bunch of non-buggy cases.

So yes, if memory usage is what drove you away from Firefox you should take another look.

TLS 1.2? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272113)

How about support for TLS 1.2? Or even 1.1?

That's the main feature I'm looking at for most browsers.

Re:TLS 1.2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273635)

Good lord. Check out Bugzilla already, it's not like it's hard to search for "tls 1.2" in their search bar, is it?

TLS 1.1: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733647 [mozilla.org]
TLS 1.2: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=861266 [mozilla.org]

Can't Slashdotters be arsed to even try the most basic things on their own anymore?

Nice one, Mozilla (1)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | about 9 months ago | (#45272175)

Funny - I switched on my computer, intending to look up whether Firefox has the audio API implemented so that I can use it for my next project, and the first thing I saw was this update which added exactly that :P

The things I'm hoping to see soon from Firefox are CSS3 grids and support for multiple cookie jars.

Performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272263)

Have they improved graphical performance, especially related to SVG? WIth our custom SVG app, Firefox lags a long, long way behind Chrome and even IE10.

I love FireFox but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272343)

I love FireFox but Safari gives so much better battery life on Mac OS X. I'm talking 30-50% difference. How is this even possible?

OSS Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272359)

You give us web audio, something none of us care about given that we are delivered audio via a number of different plugins/interfaces already -- why not continue to support Open Source Sound? It's the only audio subsystem with a decent software mixer and some of us rely on it where ALSA and/or sound(4) drivers are not provided.

I'm still holding out on going to chromium, but I can't help but feel alienated by this move. If I play anything with audio in the browser, it just crashes.

Please, bring back OSS support and dispense with adding all of this social crap that no one in their right mind actually wants.

Thanks.

Re:OSS Support (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 9 months ago | (#45272905)

Web Audio seems to be about actually generating audio i.e. synth, mixing, filters, in javascript games or apps. That's different from providing dumb playback of sound files. OSS or ALSA would come after it in the chain, hopefully with the work they're doing the output sound server would end up being transparently selectable, i.e. choosing between ALSA, Pulseaudio, OSS, dummy, other..

BTW I tried to like OSS but have a few issues. No panel applet for xfce, mate, lxde etc., doesn't seem to work with my Xonar, and if I can't have an OSS + Pulseaudio system just by installing a package. It would take me a week or a month to learn how to modify distro scripts or crap like that.

Make sure you patch Java if you use it (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 9 months ago | (#45272365)

I found it went from version 40 to version 45 for both the 32 and 64 bit versions that work as Firefox plugins when the Firefox patch was added.

Maybe I'll go Android (2)

omfglearntoplay (1163771) | about 9 months ago | (#45272385)

I find browsing on the vendor built in browsers to be TERRIBLE. All the adds and crap flying around is twice as bad on a little tablet or phone because it is too easy to misclick. And browsing is already slower b/c of all the ads loading, it just ruins the experience for me.

Thank GOD for Firefox and the tweaks you can apply with 3rd party pieces. LOVE IT and I will NEVER change to something else.

Re:Maybe I'll go Android (5, Informative)

c0d3g33k (102699) | about 9 months ago | (#45273139)

Recommended. Firefox on Android still has many issues, but recent stable versions are much, much better than the first beta versions. There aren't that many add-ons available, but the ones that are available make the Android tablet browsing experience much more pleasant. The ones to look for: Adblock Plus, Self-Destructing Cookies, Ghostery and NO Google Analytics. Visit your favorite sites with the stock/vendor browsers, compare with Firefox+addons and decide for yourself.

Please improve themes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272387)

I really see no point in UPDATING my themes with every firefox release - for god damm, it's just colors and pixmaps, that go into certain places.

New interface? (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 9 months ago | (#45272415)

The release notes do not mention Australis or any major UI changes. Are they keeping mum, or was the Chrome-alike change pushed back?

thanks for posting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272523)

i just realized that I am using version 20, not 24

WO Chrome or IE how do I get off the Firefox train (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45272805)

I switched to Firefox back when because it was lightweight, fast, easy to use, and stable as a table without monthly major releases. / necessary updates.

So what should I switch to now as a lightweight and fast browser that understands that users don't want to spend their time loading meaningless updates?

And Still No Flexbox Support (1)

Piata (927858) | about 9 months ago | (#45272923)

Why is Mozilla taking so long to fully implement Flexbox? Even IE11 supports it: http://caniuse.com/#search=flexbox [caniuse.com]

It feels weird to say it but Firefox is holding back the web. This is probably one of the most important changes to layout since designers/developers abandoned tables and moved to pure CSS based layouts.

Re:And Still No Flexbox Support (1)

BZ (40346) | about 9 months ago | (#45273197)

Mozilla fully supports single-line flexbox (that is, flexbox in which the child flex items are all layed out in a single row or column), which is what most flexbox use cases want, and has for a while.

What's missing is support for multiline flexbox.

android 2.3.6 ? no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45273231)

Firefox for android 2.3.6 ? no. why?. lame.

And Stil (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 9 months ago | (#45273697)

Every stinking time I go to upgrade Firefox I have a laundry list of incompatible extensions and add-ons. So I get to wait a month or two and try again. Hey Mozilla, why not incorporate a little backward compatibility to allow the add-ons and extensions to work? That way we can accept a new update without losing functionality we had with the old version!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>