×

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 26 Arrives With Click-To-Play For Java Plugins

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the demotion-of-java-continues dept.

Firefox 208

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 26 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Additions include Click-to-Play turned on by default for all Java plugins, more seamless updates on Windows, and a new Home design for Android. Firefox 26 has 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. Release notes are here: desktop and mobile."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

208 comments

Plug-ins (4, Interesting)

Fluffy the Destroyer (3459643) | about 4 months ago | (#45653041)

The only problem i've seen with Firefox today is the updates are way too fast. The plug-ins and extentions aren't fast enough to follow becomes obsolete and break. It's not all the updates but I've seen some of it not compatible anymore

Re:Plug-ins (5, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | about 4 months ago | (#45653115)

Depends.
A third-party web application our company uses encountered Javascript problems in Firefox 24. Waiting for five minutes until Firefox 25 showed up fixed the problem again.

Re:Plug-ins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653363)

One month and twelve days, to be exact.

Re:Plug-ins (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653409)

I know people think this is funny, (I got a chuckle) but Chrome (as of today) is on version 31, and Firefox is 11 years old on version 25. (Chrome is only 5 years old...) That means...

Chrome has a lifetime average of 6.2 versions a year
Firefox's has a lifetime average 2.28 versions a year

So I call a permanent label of troll to those that selectively criticise Firefox over version releases due to the obvious distortion of facts. Perma-troll on you, bub, get the facts straight. (funny joke though)

Re:Plug-ins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653453)

Firefox only recently started their warp-speed versioning system, so your averages are irrelevant.

Re:Plug-ins (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 4 months ago | (#45653553)

Ok, so it's highly likely this will be followed by a wooshing sound...

I'm all for fast upgrades, personally, but to Fluffy's point, it's not the straight line average clear back to Firebird 1.0 that's important, but the rate of change right now. Unless you'd like to argue that the rate of update release has not increased?

Moreover, comparing to a different software package (even another browser) is problematic because it depends on what the design team calls an update.

Re:Plug-ins (4, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | about 4 months ago | (#45653591)

Nice try, but do it again starting at Firefox 4. That was released in March of 2011, and now we're up to 26. That's 22 versions in 2 years and 9 months, or 8 a year.

Seems pretty obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653945)

Version 31 is bigger than version 26 so chrome must be better.

Re:Plug-ins (1)

Animats (122034) | about 4 months ago | (#45654197)

A third-party web application our company uses encountered Javascript problems in Firefox 24. Waiting for five minutes until Firefox 25 showed up fixed the problem again.

That's reality. I had to post this [sitetruth.net] for one of my Firefox add-ons:

"Due to Firefox Bug 886329, "drop-down list in Jetpack add-on breaks entire UI", the preferences menu in Ad Limiter is not working in Firefox version 23 only. It worked in Firefox 22, and is fixed in Firefox 24, which is now available. We suggest not using Firefox 23."

Re:Plug-ins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653281)

The only problem i've seen with Firefox today is the updates are way too fast. The plug-ins and extentions aren't fast enough to follow becomes obsolete and break. It's not all the updates but I've seen some of it not compatible anymore

Running the ESR version [mozilla.org] of Firefox might alleviate that a bit.

Unintended consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653345)

The only problem I've seen with Firefox today is the updates are way too fast.

See folks, you mod'ed people who bitched about Firefox'es fast update cycle and now we have to deal with the bitching on every announcement. Karma whoring.

Not that I can blame the parent, it IS a quick and easy way to boost karma because all of you are so easily manipulated - like everyone else in the World.

Re:Unintended consequences (2)

roc97007 (608802) | about 4 months ago | (#45653575)

C'mon, realistically, there is a rate of releases that's too slow, (critical bugs and security holes never get fixed) and a rate of releases that's too fast (add-ons can't keep up). I don't have an opinion on where the sweet spot might be, but I think it's a valid discussion.

Re:Unintended consequences (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about 4 months ago | (#45653657)

Or one could fix bugs and security issues whilst not introducing/removing/changing major features and breaking compatibility. You know, like what we had before with fractional version numbers.

Re:Unintended consequences (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 4 months ago | (#45653743)

's a good point, although I can see the value in introducing new functionality quickly, especially support for new standards and codecs.

Re:Unintended consequences (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 4 months ago | (#45653775)

So are you saying that new functionality breaks the extension API every time? 'Cause if it doesn't, then even new functionality can be a minor version number.

Re:Plug-ins (2)

Tsolias (2813011) | about 4 months ago | (#45653481)

I am using nightly many years and never had any problems. there was a problem 3-4 years ago with fast dial, but only because there was a problem into the verification from the mozilla site. the rest of my 25+ plugins work flawlessly and i am in version 29 or 28, which seems more like chrome, and chrome has a bad UI. generally speaking, 20 to 25 does not change a lot of things in the plugin api. The days were 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 were completely different and had many compatibility issues are past.

Javascript is the new plugin hell (1)

ron_ivi (607351) | about 4 months ago | (#45653803)

I'd rather see "click-to-pay" the default for javascript.

It's been many years since I've been annoyed by an irritating java applet, and there a few I find useful.

But ugh - so much javascript, and so many sites that practically require it.

"Click-to-pay"... (4, Funny)

zarthrag (650912) | about 4 months ago | (#45653053)

...was the first thing I saw. Talk about a panic attack!

Re:"Click-to-pay"... (4, Funny)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 4 months ago | (#45653137)

Same here. I made some popcorn before opening the comments.

Re:"Click-to-pay"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653159)

Same here. I made some popcorn before opening the comments.

hee hee yeah stupid ppl who can't read worth a shit before they jump to conclusions are SO marvelously entertaining!

Re:"Click-to-pay"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653241)

hee hee yeah stupid ppl who can't read worth a shit before they jump to conclusions are SO marvelously entertaining!

Please tell me this is sarcasm...

Re:"Click-to-pay"... (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 4 months ago | (#45654131)

Well, since Oracle is appealing on the API copyright issue, it may eventually come to that.

great... (4, Informative)

lyapunov (241045) | about 4 months ago | (#45653075)

In the mean time they have made it substantially more difficult to configure the rejection of cookies.

Jesus... I'm actually thinking IE is better at this point.

Re:great... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653175)

Lol, actual thinking? No. That's called 1-issue pseudo-analysis followed by kneejerk punditry.

Re:great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653193)

Ctrl+shift+p

Isn't that pretty much the same ting. Mind IE11 is very nice now. Found myself using it over Firefox by mistake, wondering why the internet is suddenly faster.

Re:great... (5, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#45653219)

Are you using CookieMonster? It's much better than any stock cookie controller that I've seen.

I second this... (1)

dclozier (1002772) | about 4 months ago | (#45653753)

Cookie Monster is one of my must have plugins for Firefox. You can easily see at a glance where the cookie usage stands for the site you are on and can then adjust as needed. Using a default of rejecting all can be a bit more work though but isn't so bad once you have white listed your regularly used web sites.

Re:great... (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about 4 months ago | (#45653937)

CookieMonster is almost perfect, the only thing I miss is retroactively accepting cookies that were marked as session-only by my default policy. I guess this would need to store the original expiration date in the cookie itself, which at that point is overwritten by "till the session ends".

Re:great... (5, Interesting)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 4 months ago | (#45653247)

If you care about cookies, use an addon/extension that gives you a better interface, and finer control, than the built in systems. I use CookieMonster (set to deny all cookies by default), but there are others.

CookieMonster allows you to set per website permissions, both temporary (until you close the browser, and then permissions revert to deny), per session (deletes every time you close your browser), and ordinary (hangs around until they expire). You can also set third party cookie controls.

What makes Firefox great is the addon/extension ecosystem. If you're not going to use it, why even use Firefox? (OK, it's less evil.)

Re:great... (5, Informative)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 4 months ago | (#45653257)

Try the self-destructing cookies addon.
When you close a tab, the cookies created by that tab are removed. You can whitelist domains to prevent their cookies from being deleted.
This way, sites see cookies as being enabled, but can't track you after you close the tab.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/self-destructing-cookies/

Firefox to block 3rd party cookies by default... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653339)

Firefox to block 3rd party cookies by default... will IE or Chrome ever do this? (safari has)
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/973156

Be sure to compare how to set IE's cookie settings versus in Firefox:
http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-20042703-285/disable-third-party-cookies-in-ie-firefox-and-google-chrome/

Re:great... (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 months ago | (#45653377)

In the mean time they have made it substantially more difficult to configure the rejection of cookies.

Their intention is to outsource fine-grain cookie control to extensions. I think it is a good idea, but only half-baked. I would like to see them come up with a list of recommended privacy extensions (including cookie handlers), a sort of "Mozilla Recommended" list to make it easier for newbies who care about privacy but don't know enough to necessarily ask the right questions.

Re:great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45654295)

to make it easier for newbies who care about privacy but don't know enough to necessarily ask the right questions

Yeah if we don't dumb everything down then ... someone might ... use Google, and then... then you know what happens next?! DO YOU KNOW?! Why, they might even LEARN SOMETHING NEW! NOoooooooooooo!!!111!!!111oneoneone

Re:great... (3, Informative)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about 4 months ago | (#45653451)

Try out Self-destructing Cookies. It allows cookies to be set, but once you close the tab they are deleted, or deleted on a timer, or both. You can whitelist sites with a toolbar button. Then set Firefox to always reject 3rd party cookies and you're safe as far as cookies go.

Re:great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653509)

Jesus... I'm actually thinking IE is better at this point.

IE has been better than Firefox since IE 8. Unlike Mozilla, Microsoft has actually been improving the OS, partially because they had to counter the memetic legacy of IE being a slow virus downloader rather than a browser.

Firefox with the right plugins still has some advantages, but Mozilla has become so dependent on the plugin system that they have done very little real work on the browser. Minor sub-sub-subversion numbers have become new Slashdot article releases to disguise the fact that Firefox has had fewer meaningful patches, fixes, and feature additions than any other browser available.

Re:great... (1)

Fluffy the Destroyer (3459643) | about 4 months ago | (#45653557)

uhh, Just remember that updating a browser just like anything else on your computer is NOT mandatory. it's optional. Reading patch notes is a must for any pc owner as it teaches you a lot about the software or what you use.

Re:great... (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 4 months ago | (#45653675)

... updating a browser ... is NOT mandatory. it's optional.

Don't tell that to some of the people on here who will immediately whine, "But this version fixes bugs and closes vulnerabilities. Don't you think about the children?"

It's the same thing with XP. It's a great OS which satisfies the needs of 80% of the users on the planet, yet people will whine about them not jumping all over W7.

Just because something's new doesn't make it better.

Re:great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653913)

It's fine to wax nostalgic, but don't turn it into waxing idiotic. Rose-colored glasses and all that. There's a very real reason that XP isn't "good enough" for 80% of users, and that's why people have shifted to other operating systems. Just because it could do 80% of what people need doesn't mean that better solutions don't exist, albeit with their own quirks, bugs, and instabilities. If you're happier living in something that makes you do more work, go right ahead. But don't try to convince me that an older version of Chrome or Firefox isn't basically asking for more problems than its worth. This isn't the same web it was even five years ago.

Re:great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653999)

Reading patch notes teaches you next to nothing. But one doesn't expect anything but idiocy from a Twatter user.

Re:great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653691)

I'd like to be able to set the maximum lifetime of a cookie to about 30 days instead of the 100 years that most sites use. If I haven't been back to the site in 30 days the cookie can die.

Re:great... (1)

cffrost (885375) | about 4 months ago | (#45654111)

In the mean time they have made it substantially more difficult to configure the rejection of cookies.

Jesus... I'm actually thinking IE is better at this point.

Pay no attention to Firefox's built-in cookie-handling interface; it's designed for Joe Kegger — not computer nerds and/or privacy control-freaks. Get whatever cookie-handling plugin(s) that'll give you the level of control you need.

I use CookieSafe v3.0.5*, which I have set to block by default, and then "allow" and "allow for session" sites I want to white-list. Also provided: "allow temporarily" (for current session, then block), which is handy for determining if a site requires cookies to function, and "remove" (to get rid of domains' cookies that I used to allow).

Another cookie plugin I like is Self-Destructing Cookies, which provides "delete-on-tab-close;" "delete-on-browser-close;" and "never delete." Unlike CookieSafe, however, it lacks a function for viewing the complete rule-set — only the rule in use for the currently-selected tab's domain.

* If I remember correctly, there's a different version or branch of CookieSafe that's incompatible with recent versions of Firefox, plus a "Lite" version that's little better than Firefox's built-in level of control.

Awaaaaaaay we goooooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653081)

Pssshaw!! I'm already on Firefox 37. Only noob still run that ancient version 26.

Re:Awaaaaaaay we goooooo! (3, Funny)

jez9999 (618189) | about 4 months ago | (#45653695)

In the time that you posted that comment, Firefox versions 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 were released.

mo3 do3n (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653167)

unless you can work sa3id one FreeBSD Become an unwanted ~280MB MPEG off of

The Angels Have The Phonebox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653173)

Bring back the blink tag!

My brain hurts (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653215)

all existing users should be able to upgrade to it automatically

"able" means I have a choice.
"automatically" means I don't have a choice.

Java should just die (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653221)

This is 2013 and I'm really tired of having my browser freeze for 2 seconds with a grey box every time a Java app has to load. With the latest JavaScript features there's no reason to be using Java in web pages anymore.

Re:Java should just die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653621)

How many sites still use java applets that aren't just embedding some exploit kit?

Re:Java should just die (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45654063)

This is 2013 and I'm really tired of having my browser freeze for 2 seconds with a grey box every time a Java app

I had Firefox freeze for hundreds of reasons, I would not be surprised if this was mainly a Firefox problem that the Java plug-in just happens to trigger. An applet developer can still avoid most of it by using/writing a loader for the resources instead of just hoping that both plug-in and browser act anywhere near sane.

With the latest JavaScript features there's no reason to be using Java in web pages anymore.

Not even close, unless you consider asm.js and even then JavaScript still misses a lot of features or is otherwise limited by having very few actual APIs to do stuff. Also new JavaScript APIs do not support existing/older browsers - a death sentence in the corporate world.

Had to access specific folders on a user system for a project once (with signed applet + permission request), tried to do it in JavaScript only to find out Firefox scrapped the Firefox specific API for it with no replacement (write a plug-in and have your users install it is not a replacement) since doing so made their internal security model simpler. Even if JavaScript now had an API for accessing folders on a user system/executing programs which I am quite sure it does not it would not work with half the systems I have to support.

my dream browser (2)

csumpi (2258986) | about 4 months ago | (#45653233)

My dream browser would:

- render text
- render static images
- block ads

My dream browser would NOT:

- play sounds
- play movies
- animate anything
- open up additional windows
- support java/javascript/whatever code
- support cookies
- store any information

Oh well, I guess it will never happen.

Re:my dream browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653283)

i second this, from albuquerque, New Mexico, 87131 bldg #46

Re:my dream browser (5, Interesting)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 4 months ago | (#45653315)

- support java/javascript/whatever code.

As someone that runs NoScript, almost all of the websites on the modern Internet just don't work without JavaScript. They aren't even written to fail gracefully if JavaScript support isn't detected.

Re:my dream browser (2)

sqrt(2) (786011) | about 4 months ago | (#45653523)

If you're just reading an article, the body text is usually still legible. That's all I need, usually. I ignore the site's protestations that it's intended to work only with javascript.

Re:my dream browser (4, Insightful)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | about 4 months ago | (#45653737)

Some sites don't even get that far. It requires you load 3rd party JS to even load the content. Until then, it happily displays a blank page. WTF?

Re:my dream browser (1)

steelfood (895457) | about 4 months ago | (#45653573)

That's what happens when you have the perfect trifecta of greedy companies, lazy developers, and uneducated users. It's kind like the U.S. government right now.

Re:my dream browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653667)

Those darn lazy developers not writing their entire site to work perfectly for the 2% of users who don't have javascript. I bet they don't even support netscape navigator!

Re:my dream browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653725)

2%? Don't you mean .02%?

Re:my dream browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45654323)

Oh, we've got javascript, but we don't choose to let just any random website run their code in our browsers.

(Let's hear it for NoScript!)

Re:my dream browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653723)

I assume you mean the US government is greedy, lazy, and uneducated?

Re:my dream browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653677)

This is true, but I feel that NoScript is pretty much essential for safe browsing. Nearly all browser based exploits (That attack plugins or otherwise) are delivered via JS. It's often used to osbsuficate payloads that would otherwise be caught by simple safegaurds.

I feel that the commonly accepted security model in most browsers is dangerous. When has it every been good practice to execute program code from untrusted sources? Worse, who's brilliant idea was it to load and execute code from external domains? JS should be run whitelist only. Too complicated? Setup a reputation service. Only don't fuck it up like we did with SSL certificates. Your ad vendor wants to load scripts from their ad servers? Too fucking bad. It's too much of a security risk.

Re:my dream browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653359)

Go back to bed grandpa.

Re:my dream browser (1, Insightful)

freeze128 (544774) | about 4 months ago | (#45653365)

I can tell from your requirements that you really don't do anything useful with your browser except read news websites.

The rest of us who use web browsers to watch youtube videos, do any online shopping, or online banking will need something from this century. You can get along just fine with lynx.

Re:my dream browser (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 4 months ago | (#45653629)

> I can tell from your requirements that you really don't do anything useful with your browser except read news websites.

...and pr0n...

But seriously, what's wrong with using a browser primarily to read news websites? How many cat videos can you watch anyway?

Re:my dream browser (1)

steelfood (895457) | about 4 months ago | (#45653671)

Besides YouTube, is there any ability that javascript and cookies give for your other purposes that SSL and regular plain old HTML doesn't?

And I gotta say, watching YouTube is a much poorer activity than reading news websites. Sorry, I remember when I was able to download the embedded videos I wanted to watch, and watch it on the player of my choice.

Re:my dream browser (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#45653871)

I can tell from your requirements that you really don't do anything useful with your browser except read news websites.

The rest of us who use web browsers to watch youtube videos, do any online shopping, or online banking will need something from this century.

So, you don't do anything useful either then?

For most web-sites, I'm willing to interact with them at a level of Lynx. For some of them I'm willing to grant permissions for some of this stuff (all of the blockers allow site based permissions). For many many sites, if I would need to enable anything to view it ... the back button solves that.

Most of the crap web sites have on them is so heavily geared towards tracking and analytics companies, treating them as untrusted until you're damn sure you want to is a good idea.

If I need to allow Google Analytics to look at the content of your web site, then the content of your web site is shit.

Re:my dream browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653391)

Do you also still tie an onion to your belt, Lieutenant Luddite?

Re:my dream browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653463)

It already happened. Take Mosaic 0.1 and shut up

Re:my dream browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653467)

My dream browser would NOT: ...
- support cookies

You know that you could not login to sites like Slashdot without cookies?

Re:my dream browser (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 4 months ago | (#45653769)

You know not every site requires you to log in? Of course you do, AC.

Re:my dream browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653889)

Sure , but he is logged in to this site and only because of cookies.

Re:my dream browser (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653477)

My dream browser would:

- render text

- render static images

- block ads

My dream browser would NOT:

- play sounds

- play movies

- animate anything

- open up additional windows

- support java/javascript/whatever code

- support cookies

- store any information

Oh well, I guess it will never happen.

Oh, I think you really ought to actually configure Firefox this way and try it out.

Set all plugins to never activate in Tools > Add Ons
Set "Accept cookies" to never, and clear all offline data under Advanced.
Go into about:config and turn off audio and video, set cookies to never in preferences
Install Adblock and Noscript. (You could turn off javascript for reals, but that would prevent Adblock from working. Noscript can do muc the same thing if configured right..)

Try it. Try to get through one day on the real web with your browser set up this way.

You'd need a fantasy dream Internet to make your dream browser work.

Re:my dream browser (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 4 months ago | (#45653603)

So, basically, what you're looking for is Lynx with images. Interesting idea. I bet it'd render really fast.

Re:my dream browser (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 4 months ago | (#45653845)

I actually have Iceweasel and Chromium configured to run that way on an old laptop with 256MB of RAM. It's still slow anyway.

Links2, by the way, is entirely incapable of rendering modern websites in a readable way.

Re:my dream browser (1)

Sigma 7 (266129) | about 4 months ago | (#45654115)

My dream browser would NOT:

There are early versions of Mosaic if that's what you want.

The problem with modern browsers isn't because they do all that stuff, but because they do that stuff without you knowing about it or even controlling it. Anything relying on plugins can be set to Click-to-play (or via exception), popups can be blocked through similar tactics, and cookies/local store use can be identified through a simple icon or status bar message.

A good start.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653239)

NOW... Make flash click to play as well!

Re:A good start.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653431)

NOW... Make flash click to play as well!

Flashblock extension does this to Flash. You can also white list sites you want to automatically run Flash (Youtube for example).

Re:A good start.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653583)

And noscript does what the article is talking about for java.

The point is to make it the default of firefox so we can put an end to this shit. If the features of flashblock were the default for firefox. We MIGHT start seeing less stupid flash spewing out of the web.

Re:A good start.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653445)

And HTML. I heard that be really dangerous and/or resource intensive.

Re:A good start.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653561)

Firefox:
Tools > Add Ons, click Plugins, find Adobe Flash, choose Ask To Activate.

Safari:
Safari > Preferences, click Security, find Adobe Flash, click the list, choose Edit > Select All, click the minus (-), choose When visiting other websites: choose Block (no, not Ask.)

Re:A good start.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653681)

Use the Flashblock extension, I can't live without it. One sorta confusing thing to watch out for is that it also blocks real HTML5 videos by default, but shows the same Flash logo for both. I was very confused as to why websites were only serving me Flash videos, when they were really serving real videos which I thought were Flash plugins.

Re:A good start.. (1)

Windwraith (932426) | about 4 months ago | (#45654293)

Firefox supports click-to-play for Flash since...I don't know, but feels like a long time ago, at least 6 months. One of my favorite things really, so convenient.

Really?, What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653287)

Click-to-Leak (Memory)?

And version 26.0.1 arrives Thursday? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653423)

Even after all the nightly and beta releases there is still the "final" beta known as the "x.0" with the "real" release known as the "x.0.1" coming out a day or two later.

Java in browsers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653663)

People still use Java in web browsers? Just asking. I haven't loaded a Java applet in years. I haven't even used Silverlight either. I must be visiting the wrong websites. lol

TLS 1.1 and 1.2 (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45653899)

TLS 1.1 was supposed to be released with this version by it had to backed out because there were some compatibility issues with a small number of sites:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733647

The code is still in there, you just have to enable it manually via about:prefs: security.tls.version.max=2

TLS 1.2 is also present:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=861266

Just set security.tls.version.max=3.

Not sure if they're shooting for release 27 or 28. By default only TLS 1.0 is negotiated.

JAVA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45654017)

Dont you mean 'Click and Pray' JAVA plugins?

NOT upgrading. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45654047)

And as-usual I will NOT be upgrading.

Since Mozilla has followed in Google's path of removing useful functions with each new version. I do not upgrade any Google, Android, or Mozilla applications.

I can't upgrade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45654071)

for some reason, the download page thinks that I am using the latest version of Firefox.

"Congrats! You’re using the latest version of Firefox."

No, I am using Firefox 25. Is 25 the latest version?? I thought 26 is.

Download Window Completely Removed? (5, Interesting)

LeRaldo (983244) | about 4 months ago | (#45654167)

Starting somewhere around version 21 of Firefox, they turned off the "downloads" window and took the ability to turn it on/off out of the options. In order to turn something on that had been in Firefox since it was called Phoenix, you had to go into about:config and change "browser.download.useToolkitUI" to true. Now for some reason, it appears to me that Firefox v26 has completely removed the download window altogether. I cannot for the life of me get the old downloads window back. Maybe I'm just blind/dumb, but I can't imagine why Mozilla continues to make changes like this.

Re:Download Window Completely Removed? (4, Interesting)

xombo (628858) | about 4 months ago | (#45654245)

I suspect that as apps are rewritten to improve support for "Metro" interfaces, most windowed dialogues will be phased out.

Re:Download Window Completely Removed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45654261)

I'm also pissed. If you find how to get it back do tell, please.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...