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 28 Arrives With VP9 Video Decoding, HTML5 Volume Controls

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the onward-and-upward dept.

Firefox 142

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 28 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Additions include VP9 video decoding, Web notifications on OS X, and volume controls for HTML5 video and audio. Firefox 28 has been released over on Firefox.com and all existing users should be able to upgrade to it automatically. The full release notes are available. As always, the Android version is trickling out slowly on Google Play (Android release notes)." Mozilla also announced tools to bring the Unity game engine to WebGL and asm.js.

cancel ×

142 comments

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

I'm still alive (4, Funny)

kheldan (1460303) | about 6 months ago | (#46519709)

Installed the update and it didn't turn my laptop into a smoking crater on my desk; so far, so good..

Re:I'm still alive (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46519785)

Try the same test with Windows 8.1....

Re:I'm still alive (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 6 months ago | (#46519797)

Why would I want to do that? I'd sooner take a hammer to the thing and smash it to bits.

Re:I'm still alive (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46521367)

So you're retarded with zero adaptation skills. Gotcha.

Re:I'm still alive (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46522519)

No. He just likes to get work done with an interface designed for the hardware used.

Re:I'm still alive (0)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 6 months ago | (#46520447)

Try the same test with Windows 8.1....

Windows 8.1 with the newly leaked "Update 1" un-does many of the mistakes Microsoft made with Windows 8. After a bit of tweaking and wrangling, I was able to get a system that was actually usable and very similar to Windows 7, other than:

(a) An ugly, shitty color scheme
(b) A "Start Screen" that is cluttered and less useful that the old "Start Menu" and
(c) Windows Explorer (now called "File Explorer") uses the Godawful "ribbon" which makes things more cluttered, confusing and overall less useful.

Windows 8 still sucks and is pointless, but with the addition of the new Update 1 it's a lot closed to what Windows 8 should have been in the first place.

Re:I'm still alive (1)

edibobb (113989) | about 6 months ago | (#46521591)

>Windows 8 still sucks and is pointless, but with the addition of the new Update 1 it's a lot closer to what Windows 8 should have been in the first place. Closer to Windows 7, in other words.

Re:I'm still alive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46521691)

(a) All settings have a default. If you don't like the colors, change them.
(b) If you have too many tiles cluttering your Start Screen, move them or remove them. Just 2 mouse clicks to delete.
(c) The ribbon is different, but after you get used to it, becomes clearly better. It can be hidden by clicking the carrot on the upper right of the window, and the choice is remembered.

The biggest problem with Windows 8 is you.

Re:I'm still alive (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46522531)

a. there's more to an interface than color
b. the start screen is one of the problems. changing its tiles solves nothing.
c. 'clearly' traditional menus are better. I'm already used to them and they autohide after clicking an item or by clicking elsewhere. no need for carets. (see? I can do it too)

The biggest problem with windows 8 is windows 8.

Re:I'm still alive (1)

plover (150551) | about 6 months ago | (#46520701)

I'm reading this on Firefox 28 running on Windows 8.1. No issues so far, but to be fair, this is the only page I've surfed to so far.

Windows 8.1 doesn't have stability problems. It has UX problems, but the OS beneath has been fine.

Re:I'm still alive (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 6 months ago | (#46519857)

You should see what happens to websites when you upgrade IE then?

There is a reason corps are afraid of change when it comes to a new IE flavored browser.

Re:I'm still alive (2)

nmb3000 (741169) | about 6 months ago | (#46520393)

Installed the update and it didn't turn my laptop into a smoking crater on my desk; so far, so good..

Are you on Windows 7 with IE 10 installed? Or Windows 8.1?

It boggles my mind that they released the browser with this bug unresolved. Almost 500 comments on the Bugzilla entry and the end result was "ship it!" I mean, look at some of these screenshots:

https://bug812695.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=682682 [mozilla.org]
https://bug812695.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=735090 [mozilla.org]
https://bug812695.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=797936 [mozilla.org]
https://bug812695.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=720401 [mozilla.org]

Who gives a damn if a large number of users can't even read the text on a page because, OMG!, we've just gotta have an HTML5 volume control! Someone probably should mention to Mozilla that just ripping off Chrome's look and release cycle doesn't really work if you don't also have Google's engineering and QA teams.

I don't think we need any more evidence that nobody is left steering the Firefox ship these days besides the cabin boy "designers".

Maybe they (mozilla org) just don't care about (1)

Johnny Loves Linux (1147635) | about 6 months ago | (#46520629)

Windows anymore? Didn't they just ditch Firefox for WIndows 8 metro mode a few days ago?

Re:Maybe they (mozilla org) just don't care about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46521455)

Hey, you're right! They never have created an interface for that ever-so-popular Microsoft Bob, either, so they clearly must be abandoning Windows. Damn! Now I'll have to use ChromeOS instead (I mean Chrome for Metro).

Re:I'm still alive (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46522151)

Are you on Windows 7 with IE 10 installed and broken R600 graphics drivers?

FTFO.

It boggles my mind that they released the browser with this bug unresolved.

You can only resolve bugs in your code. That's a bug in ATI's drivers, what they can do is to work around the bug, which they did [mozilla.org] .

Re:I'm still alive (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 6 months ago | (#46520477)

Installed the update and it didn't turn my laptop into a smoking crater on my desk; so far, so good..

Just wait till Firefox 29, aka Australisaurus (assuming they stick to their release schedule).

If you haven't had the displeasure yet, check out one of the recent beta builds. It is a marvel of stupidity and in one fell swoop Mozilla has managed to destroy almost everything that made Firefox popular in the first place.

Re:I'm still alive (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520689)

I'm not partial to Australis either, but overreact much? You make it sound like everything's changed. It hasn't. Australis is a GUI change that only really breaks some stuff for really uptight people like me and people using addons that were destined to break as Firefox modernized their code anyway.

Besides, if you're THAT offended by change, there's an addon to revert the most "offensive" changes, a planned ESR release that will buy you 9 weeks of extra non-Australis Firefox, AND you always have the option to change to one of those Firefox knockoffs like Waterfox or Palemoon.

Re:I'm still alive (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46522539)

Try making arguments without ad-hominem. Just because someone objects to change doesn't mean it's due to fear.

Automatically? (3, Informative)

agm (467017) | about 6 months ago | (#46519827)

...and all existing users should be able to upgrade to it automatically

Not for those of us running Gentoo linux.

Re:Automatically? (5, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 6 months ago | (#46519839)

Not for those of us running Gentoo linux.

Then you're in luck! You get to do it the hard way, which should please you since you're using Gentoo.

Re:Automatically? (5, Funny)

danomac (1032160) | about 6 months ago | (#46519977)

Gentoo users probably get more entertainment watching the game compile rather than actually playing the game. Go figure.

Re:Automatically? (1)

danomac (1032160) | about 6 months ago | (#46519981)

Whoops, wrong article. But it still applies! Sort of...

Re:Automatically? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520119)

Sure you can. Just download and use the official binary. You don't have to compile EVERYTHING just because you use Gentoo, you know. In fact, I'd hate to live in a world where I have to compile Firefox nightlies myself.

Re:Automatically? (1)

agm (467017) | about 6 months ago | (#46520133)

Not for those of us running Gentoo linux.

Then you're in luck! You get to do it the hard way, which should please you since you're using Gentoo.

Typing emerge --sync && emerge -uDNvt world is hardly what I would call "hard". The point of my post is that not all users can automatically update as the article summary suggested.

Re:Automatically? (1)

danomac (1032160) | about 6 months ago | (#46520271)

Have you actually used portage lately? There's so many circular dependencies that it usually breaks and it can't work them out; it's up to the user to sort it out. You used to update world, then rebuild dependencies - now portage tries to do that beforehand (which takes forever) and in most cases barfs because it can't figure it out.

Re:Automatically? (2)

sirlark (1676276) | about 6 months ago | (#46520385)

I use Gentoo on my primary machine and on my home media centre. I sync and update weekly. I've not had any circular dependencies portage couldn't work out (except in the enlightenment overlay) for months. Yes, using a high backtrace value (which is the default) means it takes a long time to calculate dependencies, but honestly, that's not time *I* have to spend figuring crap out. I can go and get a cup of tea, and gosh, since I have a multi-core machine, I can even get work done while it compiles in the background. The problems come in when you don't update regularly, and there's basically half the portage tree to update, but then updating regularly is the whole idea behind a rolling release. At least I'm not stuck with an outdated git version, or kernel, or django ... you get the point.

Re:Automatically? (2)

agm (467017) | about 6 months ago | (#46521491)

I update at least once every two days and I very rarely experience problems caused by portage. It pulls in all requred dependencies for me automatically and I can stop it from installing crap I don't want via USE flags. I've run a number of linux distributions and gentoo is my favourite.

Re:Automatically? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46522545)

Yes.. adding >=www-client/firefox-28 to /etc/portage/package.mask/firefox is extremely difficult, especially for the people who post here. Installing it is even harder as 'emerge firefox' must be typed into the console.

Browsers are too heavy (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46519891)

We have come full circle. The rationale for 'puting x in the browser' is so that I wouldn't need x software for y platform...just a browser.

Nowadays browsers have so much functionality built-in they weigh a ton[in memory]. I don't want all that shit. Just show me the static content. Keep the spinning rims for the simpletons.

TLDR; I long for the days when all my browser could do display static content. All I ever wanted was standardized media formats[without DRM]

Re:Browsers are too heavy (5, Insightful)

etash (1907284) | about 6 months ago | (#46520093)

We have come full circle. The rationale for 'putting x in the pc' so that i wouldn't need to write code for y platform...just a pc nowadays pcs have so much functionaly built-in they weigh a ton. I don't want all that shit, just show me a 320x240 screen with asci chars. Keep the UI and mice and soundcards and network cards for the simpletons. TLDR; I long for the days when all my computer could do was display characters on a black and white screen. All I ever wanted was to show off my idiocy on slashdot.

Re:Browsers are too heavy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520675)

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

Re:Browsers are too heavy (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#46520971)

Reductio ad absurdum

Which isn't a fallacy unless it's a straw man argument.

Re:Browsers are too heavy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46521297)

Reductio ad absurdum is mutually exclusive of straw man not a subset. Why is this up-modded?

Straw (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#46521369)

Reductio ad absurdum is mutually exclusive of straw man not a subset.

Straw man is a common error when trying to build a reductio ad absurdum, if Wikipedia's article about the latter is to be believed. A lot of people end up reducing the wrong premise to an abomination or contradiction.

Re:Straw (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46521715)

Nothing personal against you, but anyone who you uses the term "Straw Man" is a big fag that needs to take a break from the Internet for awhile. Maybe take a shower.

Re:Browsers are too heavy (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 6 months ago | (#46520205)

I would rather have X in a browser than to use an insecure DRM plugin with security holes to make up for a lack of functionality in ancient browsers. Cough Java cough Adobe flash cough Adobe reader.

I like where the web is heading. No I do not think a chromebook with html5 apps is the equivalent of a real os but to use basic logic in javascript, use hardware accelerated media with css 3 and html 5 inside an app like an applet or even in a browser is great.

Look at the internethistory project or whatever it is called to see how horrible the IE 6 & Netscape oriented web was 13 years ago? Yahoo looked like freaking Craigslist.

It felt like a wordpad viewer with a few animations added and basic functionality. SOmething like www.weatherunderground.com or www.imdb.com or netflix is so much better and you can do advanced graphics and layout options for mobile users with css of today.

Re:Browsers are too heavy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520715)

Some people are only after the information and don't want snazzy visuals[or flash ads]. Just text and links! Nothing to exploit or distract from the 'actual' content.

Re:Browsers are too heavy (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 6 months ago | (#46520251)

Then use dillo.
I would use it much more often if it could open tabs in background and the tab bar was less thin, but it works. (within those limits. can't log in to a particular forum which is mostly "web 1.0")

Re:Browsers are too heavy (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#46520977)

I feel the same way. However note that all we have really needed the entire time is a way to position and display sets of graphic primitives. Curves, lines, gradients, polygons, rasters, audio, input, etc. and a bytecode language to control it all. Essentially a general purpose media player / platform for a game engine. We could then compile our web pages down from whatever markup language we wanted into a cross platform display system.

Instead we fixated on the high level constructs and wrote many redundant back-ends for it, e.g., Canvas, WebGL, Fonts, Box Model, Flash, PDF, etc. We could have one lightweight system to work the bugs out of and be pretty much done -- The further improvements coming from video drivers and hardware. We could then ditch HTML altogether for a visual composition tool, or have a myriad of web programming languages with different features. Think about it. You get one hardcoded set of instructions for your CPU, then you can write whatever high level language you want that compiles down into that. Time and again this is what we've been doing throughout computing history -- Until the "Web".

The web is a moronic monstrosity of a centralized static document display system with no session persistence and a hugely inefficient scripting tool for talking to Java Applets which we now demand unrealistic performance from since we've essentially ditched Java for the web as it was a huge API kitchen sink instead of a lean content rendering engine. With the centralized static stateless doc display and slow script language we attempt to leverage the decentralized Internet to build stateful high performance dynamic web applications. To this end we have elected to butcher the very systems in place creating CSS to make up for the fact that the high level systems didn't give enough control over display of primitives (and still don't), and creating ASM.js instead of just making a bytecode language for browsers. It's so ridiculous that native apps for mobile devices are actually better choices rather than the wanna-be cross platform web rendering system.

Don't even get me started on the cluster fuck of security theater that is SSL. Hello, take HTTP Auth's proof of knowledge HMAC and key your stream cipher. Done, but nooo HTTP can't know about TLS... morons. Protip: If your resources were referenced by infohash then mixed content wouldn't be a problem, and you could have the decentralized anonymous web that the Internet deserves.

Long live the Internet, but fuck the web.

Stability & performance Features (4, Interesting)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 6 months ago | (#46519943)

I've had a love / hate relationship with Firefox for many years - but for about the past 18 months it's been mostly stable.
I'm an extremely heavy browser, ranging from 20 to 150 tabs open at a time.
This latest build (27.0.1) has been utter shite for stability, so I sure hope that was a priority for them. It would be nice if a single tab crashed it would just take out that tab. If that means more processes or memory, so be it. Also please copy chrome ASAP with the little microphone representing the noisy tab.

150 tabs? (1)

Chas (5144) | about 6 months ago | (#46519985)

No. Seriously?

I can see 20-40 tabs. But 150?

Re:150 tabs? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 6 months ago | (#46520029)

No. Seriously?
I can see 20-40 tabs. But 150?

GP thinks # open tabs == manliness *or* has IMAX screen for monitor and really tiny font.

Re:150 tabs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520079)

In this thread: people who never have to work on more than one thing on any given day.

Re:150 tabs? (0, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | about 6 months ago | (#46520123)

In this thread: people who never have to work on more than one thing on any given day.

In this thread: Assmunch dipshits. No one works with 150 tabs at once, and no one believes anyone who claims to.

Re:150 tabs? (4, Insightful)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 6 months ago | (#46520327)

I have tons of tabs open, because bookmarks suck. EG if I'm working on a project with a new framework I might need to reference 3-4 APIs, and 5 classes in each, and 2-3 methods per class in a given hour or two. I want a tab for each method, with a tree of the parent classes and APIs. Tree-Style tabs lets me have that, but Firefox's bookmarks don't. So I leave tabs open. That results in 50-60 tabs or so. Sure, I close the tab group when the project is done, and subsets when I'm done with them, and use different windows to separate different projects/activities, but it results in lots of tabs. "Normal" people use tabs for current pages, I like to have both the current pages and a herarchical history of how I got to those pages. I also open all links in tabs. Tab hierarchies provide a combined history (with list of what lead where,) bookmarks, and tabs, all in one convenient interface. If bookmarks supported this nicely it would be great, but they don't.

Re:150 tabs? (2, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about 6 months ago | (#46520685)

I have tons of tabs open, because bookmarks suck. EG if I'm working on a project with a new framework I might need to reference 3-4 APIs, and 5 classes in each, and 2-3 methods per class in a given hour or two. I want a tab for each method, with a tree of the parent classes and APIs. Tree-Style tabs lets me have that, but Firefox's bookmarks don't. So I leave tabs open. That results in 50-60 tabs or so. Sure, I close the tab group when the project is done, and subsets when I'm done with them, and use different windows to separate different projects/activities, but it results in lots of tabs. "Normal" people use tabs for current pages, I like to have both the current pages and a herarchical history of how I got to those pages. I also open all links in tabs. Tab hierarchies provide a combined history (with list of what lead where,) bookmarks, and tabs, all in one convenient interface. If bookmarks supported this nicely it would be great, but they don't.

That's a terrible way to work. Here's how to do it.

1: Look up what you need.
2: Do what you need.
3: Close the tab when you're done with it.

The URL bar will automatically populate shit. Need to look up a method or class again? Type that shit in and your browser will autocomplete that shit from history. But you'd rather paw through a hierarchical list of 60 tabs. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. You might as well just crawl the docs and index every link. That's not how the modern internet works. It's akin to putting one of those Post-It flags on the front of a dictionary, then one on the first page for the letter D, then another on the 2nd to last page for D, then another on that same page on the word "dumbass". You're literally rebuilding an index that already exists for no damned reason.

Re:150 tabs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46521145)

I have tons of tabs open, because bookmarks suck. EG if I'm working on a project with a new framework I might need to reference 3-4 APIs, and 5 classes in each, and 2-3 methods per class in a given hour or two. I want a tab for each method, with a tree of the parent classes and APIs. Tree-Style tabs lets me have that, but Firefox's bookmarks don't. So I leave tabs open. That results in 50-60 tabs or so. Sure, I close the tab group when the project is done, and subsets when I'm done with them, and use different windows to separate different projects/activities, but it results in lots of tabs. "Normal" people use tabs for current pages, I like to have both the current pages and a herarchical history of how I got to those pages. I also open all links in tabs. Tab hierarchies provide a combined history (with list of what lead where,) bookmarks, and tabs, all in one convenient interface. If bookmarks supported this nicely it would be great, but they don't.

To be blunt, what you're doing is using the wrong tool for the job. What you're looking for is a simple html viewer, not a full-blown web browser. I realize it's easy to just pop open a page in firefox or IE or Chrome, but considering how heavy of a user you are I'd say it's time you looked for a more appropriate tool. It's like using MS Word or Libre Office to view a pile of basic text files- you're wasting a ton of resources on overhead for features you'll never need or use.
And just FYI, if all you're doing is referencing various frameworks and API's, you can almost always find such things documented in formats other than html which are much more efficient.

Re:150 tabs? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 6 months ago | (#46521207)

Opening tons of basic html pages in a modern browser doesn't use too many resources.

Re:150 tabs? (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 months ago | (#46522397)

http://i62.tinypic.com/ienozb.... [tinypic.com] (Check tab outliner icon up to the right.)

Though I wouldn't call it "work."

Re:150 tabs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520671)

Yep, pretty much.

They can't imagine a different life than their own (0)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 6 months ago | (#46521457)

Exactly. You are working on researching one problem, but during that time are asked to look into 6 other issues.

Firefox is now (v 27.01) more unstable that it was before, and it has always been the most unstable program in common use.

Try the Pale Moon [palemoon.org] version of Firefox. Mozilla Foundation is run by a lawyer with no technical experience. The Pale Moon people seem more knowledgeable. Also, there is a 64-bit version of Pale Moon.

Firefox crash statistics:
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/home/products/Firefox/versions/27.0
(Mozilla Foundation does not allow direct links from Slashdot.)

Many crashes do not start the Crash Reporter. Those statistics show only the crashes that do.

Re:They can't imagine a different life than their (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46522079)

This spam again? Don't you have anything better to do with your time than spew this nonsense every time Firefox is discussed? Does Pale Moon really need supporters like you, who have nothing to offer beyond unsubstantiated personal attacks, and an excess of bile toward the product that Pale Moon wouldn't even exist without? I don't know what scares me more, the fact that you've convinced yourself of this tripe or that you have supporters who blindly upvote you.

Re:150 tabs? (1)

antdude (79039) | about 6 months ago | (#46520441)

I had 150 before too. Basically, I had a bunch of web page with data forms intact.

Re:150 tabs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520503)

currently have 711 open across 4 windows. and it's because as someone else said: bookmarks suck

Re:150 tabs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46522441)

I had over 1,000 open for a long while, until the session file seemingly corrupted.

Re:150 tabs? (2)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 6 months ago | (#46520565)

People use computers differently to other people, more news at 11.

Re:150 tabs? (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 months ago | (#46522363)

Tab outliner say 280 for me currently..

It happens all the time.

Re:Stability & performance Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520019)

150.

Onehundredfifty.

What do you do with your day? I sure as hell hope you're getting paid to do that.

Re:Stability & performance Features (1)

complete loony (663508) | about 6 months ago | (#46520111)

There's got to be a point where open tabs are treated like temporary bookmarks. Trying to keep all of those tabs alive and ready to click on is a huge waste of resources.

Re:Stability & performance Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520159)

It would be nice if a single tab crashed it would just take out that tab. If that means more processes or memory, so be it.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis

Re:Stability & performance Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520175)

>If that means more processes or memory, so be it

NO. Please god no. At least think about how to improve on Chrome's really basic implementation of the idea. I don't want most of my RAM eaten up because some people can't use a decent Session Manager addon and wait 10 seconds for Firefox to restart. It's really not worth it if the best they can do is copy Chrome.

>please copy chrome ASAP with the little microphone representing the noisy tab.

They are trying to, but Flash makes that very difficult (perhaps even impossible) right now. When Google and Adobe got together and designed a Chrome-specific version of Flash using PPAPI, they were able to do this. Now Firefox is waiting for Adobe to give a shit about doing the same kind of thing for NPAPI for Firefox. No news yet, so Mozilla is working on replacing Flash with their own HTML5 version called Shumway.

Re:Stability & performance Features (1)

bigCstyle (2802795) | about 6 months ago | (#46520177)

I have had issues with this for quite some time... I try chrome every now and again, only to be disgusted with the lack of decent addons. heh

Re:Stability & performance Features (2)

AbRASiON (589899) | about 6 months ago | (#46520587)

I don't like the UI for chrome, some of the decisions Google have made are quite gross, they really are becoming Apple with their "our way or the highway" approach.
No question chrome is fast, won't deny that for a second - but I just prefer FF - I can customise it to my needs.

(Disable tabs on top, add "tabs menu" addon, use tab mix plus - with very specific open / close / foreground and background ruleset) - stuff like that.

Re:Stability & performance Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520331)

Also please copy chrome ASAP with the little microphone representing the noisy tab.

The problem seems to be with Flash. Chrome has native Flash rendering, Firefox still uses an Adobe plugin that has no interface for the browser to know if it's rendering audio. bugzilla discussion One more reason to get rid of Flash. Of course what Firefox could do right now is indicate the tab with the noisy HTML5 player.

Re:Stability & performance Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520617)

"bugzilla discussion" was supposed to link to the bugzilla discussion [mozilla.org]

about the microfone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520345)

You may want to read this: http://www.ghacks.net/2014/01/15/main-reason-chrome-tab-audio-indicators-firefox/

Re:Stability & performance Features (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 6 months ago | (#46520613)

I've had a love / hate relationship with Firefox for many years - but for about the past 18 months it's been mostly stable.

Unless you're going to be submitting bug reports about the browser, or need bleeding-edge features (like VP9), you should just stay on the ESR branch:

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/... [mozilla.org]

They make it hard to find, but I wouldn't use anything else... Those are the REAL stable releases, while their numbered releases are just betas.

With distros like CentOS/RHEL, the ESR version is in the yum repo, so you get a stable browser, updates are seamless, and you may not even notice the change when a new version gets installed.

Re:Stability & performance Features (1)

HatofPig (904660) | about 6 months ago | (#46521601)

I use the Tree Style Tab [mozilla.org] plugin and usually have over a hundred tabs open as well. I'll keep the session open for days, too. It's easier than searching through your history to find that thing you saw a few days ago and the page is intact from when you loaded it last which is useful for dynamic content. Plus, everything is automatically hierarchically sorted, so it's easy to push and pop my browsing stack! Since I no longer own a a 4:3 monitor it's the perfect way to fill up the extra vertical space. It's an essential plugin for me now, up there with Noscript, Autopager, AdBlock+ and Ghostery.

Re:Stability & performance Features (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 6 months ago | (#46522375)

Right now I have Chrome running and tab outliner say 280 tabs.

This machine only have 8 GB of RAM but the idea was to get a new one with 32 GB and as such I have 16 GB of swap allocated on the HDD. Once it reach 5-6 GB the machine get awfully slow though so the 50% recommendation (Linux partitioning) is likely good.

I like Firefox but I use to kill -9 it to free up RAM and if necessary be able to go back later by using restore (eventually it will stop saving such info though, I have no idea why.)

The thing with Chrome (unstable) as I run now is that either some tab died or I killed it and I got that message about bla bla killed or ran out of memory. But you had a reloadbutton to get back!

Awesome. So now I run chrome and when the machine starts trashing I run top and sort after memory usage and kill a bunch of chrome threads and back my memory comes and I can keep on running.

Sure the tabs belonging to processes I killed will unload but it's no worse than just reloading them later.

So that would be my recommendation for you I guess :)

Re:Stability & performance Features (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 6 months ago | (#46522559)

Killing -9 is not nice, I suggest you install a "restart firefox" extension like I used to have.
Or may be you do that too for getting the start up dialog that allows to clear the junk by unticking tabs.. Sucks that Firefox doesn't allow that without force killing it!, and there's no command line argument for that. There's probably an extension but it should be part of the default software. Or I need a "Crash" menu item.

I'll take a plugin over FF's WebGL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520017)

Mozilla also announced tools to bring the Unity game engine to WebGL and asm.js.

I think I'll stick with the plugin. I've never had that crash on me. WebGL, on the other hand, crashes every time it is used. I can't even get through the conformance test with a FAIL, it crashes in multiple places and tests (and not the same one each run). And don't say it is my graphics card driver. IE makes it through just fine without crashing and FF used to not crash up until a few versions ago. Maybe they should fix whatever is wrong with the WebGL implementation before they start making people actually use it.

Re:I'll take a plugin over FF's WebGL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520333)

Maybe you should fix whatever's wrong with your system before blaming it on Firefox. See how easy it is to make an unfounded assertion? Not stop doing it and let them work the kinks out of their technology while you use that "stable" plugin that's causing crashes on MY system.

VP9 (2)

NapalmV (1934294) | about 6 months ago | (#46520103)

So what's the use for VP9, I just tried youtube and it still wants adobe flash...

Re:VP9 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520233)

It's for Google to get everyone to spend a lot of time supporting a promising new codec to replace h264, so they can then never replace h264 in Chrome and waste everyone's collective time. But it's ok! It'll be useful for WebRTC! They promise!

Re:VP9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520403)

The VP9 codec is actually a really good codec. I see comparable quality in h264 but h264 requires a lot more hand tweaking to match the file sizes.

Re:VP9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520545)

Yes, shame that trusting Google has lead to a seriously messed-up video solution on the web, where Google dictates how it moves forward and always have the only "working" browser (especially when it comes to Youtube), while Firefox and others are left scrambling to figure out the rat's nest they've come up with and are routinely broken whenever Google chooses to push some new streaming format, thus leaving users to just say "screw it" and switch back to Flash for video. The word clusterfuck might as well have been invented for how Google has handled this responsibility.

Re:VP9 (1)

Jack Griffin (3459907) | about 6 months ago | (#46520347)

I long for the day when websites will stop asking me to install Flash. I thought we had this debate already and Steve Jobs won?

Re:VP9 (1)

Trongy (64652) | about 6 months ago | (#46520847)

I have flash installed but disabled in Firefox on my work machine (because it made Firerox lock up). It's surprising how little I miss it. Embedded videos on most sites play just fine.

I often find an embedded Youtube video will play fine, but if I try to watch the same video on Youtube (because I want a higher resolution), it won't play without flash because Google wants to display advertising.

Vector animation (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#46521007)

Good luck watching vector animated short films on Newgrounds or Albino Blacksheep or Dagobah without Flash. Rendering them to video (such as for YouTube) just makes them ten times bigger in my experience.

Re:VP9 (3, Informative)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 6 months ago | (#46520357)

You have to enable HTML5. https://www.youtube.com/html5

Videos with ads or claims (1)

tepples (727027) | about 6 months ago | (#46521011)

I was under the impression that Partner videos and videos with music in them didn't play in HTML5 mode.

Re:VP9 (4, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | about 6 months ago | (#46520411)

Have you tried enabling it ?:

http://youtube.com/html5 [youtube.com]

It has been improving, but only very slowly.

Re:VP9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46521747)

It has been improving, but only very slowly.

Yes, the only logical conclusion is that Google wants developers to think, "if Google can't make this work, I don't stand a chance."

Now is the time to turn automatic updates off (0)

Dagger2 (1177377) | about 6 months ago | (#46520109)

If you currently have automatic updates on, this release of Firefox is the one where you probably want to turn them off.

Re:Now is the time to turn automatic updates off (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46520247)

Is it supposed to be obvious why?

Re:Now is the time to turn automatic updates off (3, Informative)

Dagger2 (1177377) | about 6 months ago | (#46522051)

As covered on Slashdot previously [slashdot.org] : Australis is landing. If you read the official blog post [mozilla.org] you'll get the impression that this is all about improvements, but if you pay a bit more attention [ghacks.net] you'll see it's actually more about removing most of the in-browser customizability.

That's such a big change in direction that I don't think it's reasonable to consider Firefox 29 the same browser as previous versions, and I don't think anybody should automatically move from one to the other.

Re:Now is the time to turn automatic updates off (2, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 6 months ago | (#46520267)

If you currently have automatic updates on, this release of Firefox is the one where you probably want to turn them off.

You would be INSANE TO DO THIS. Ask any security guru about holes. Firefox 3.6 has +100 exploits! Think about that one when tempted to go back to the old good old days?

Here is what I use aka ESR release which gets updated only once a year [mozilla.org] . But for regular viewing I have upgraded to Chrome. FF is for corporate sites these days and firebug. Though it has improved vastly and plugins do not break as much like they used too.

Chrome and IE 9+ (no you did not misread that), both have multiprocess models and lowrights mode in WIndows 7 and higher. They are modern in that all cpus are used for each tab. One bad site wont take down the rest of your 60. It means increased security as privilege escalations are issues with firefox even with a standard user. I like the fact that my 2010 era cpu which is a 6 core phenom II can distribute loads since it is aging but can scale well. Firefox is getting slower on it as a result, chrome and IE both can distribute the loads on all cores.

There is adblock plus for IE now too and it has been in Chrome for ages.

Until Firefox gets modern I will stay away. It is old and out of date. Yes they add element support for newer things but the rendering engine, memory, security, and even the plugins are not modern.

Re:Now is the time to turn automatic updates off (1)

bolek_b (246528) | about 6 months ago | (#46520907)

I'm writing this on Firefox 22.0 / WinXP. Updates disabled for both. No antivirus, unless Sysinternals tools and system debugger count as one. Running it this way for more than ~3 years. Would you point out how exactly is a virus going to infect this machine, if I strictly adhere to a couple of basic information hygiene rules?

Re:Now is the time to turn automatic updates off (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46521017)

The moment someone hacks a site you trust, which exploits an old browser vulnerability? The moment that an un-updated XP box is attacked by a machine through some ancient vulnerability you haven't patched? Maybe you'll open some attachment by accident that likewise ruins your day?

These kinds of things DO happen. Just because it hasn't happened to you yet doesn't mean you're safe. Do revel in your luck, but don't revel in false security. For all you know your PC is already part of a botnet.

Re:Now is the time to turn automatic updates off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46521711)

I'm writing this on Firefox 22.0 / WinXP. Updates disabled for both. No antivirus, unless Sysinternals tools and system debugger count as one. Running it this way for more than ~3 years. Would you point out how exactly is a virus going to infect this machine, if I strictly adhere to a couple of basic information hygiene rules?

That doesn't sound good at all.

Re:Now is the time to turn automatic updates off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46521705)

It almost sounds like you have no real idea how far Firefox has come in just the last two years. It's multi-threaded (not multi-process, for the idiots who don't know the difference) and takes advantage of multicore systems just fine. The Firefox rendering engine has vastly improved, memory use is incredibly low compared to other browsers, security is ultimately no worse (and arguably better if you're paranoid) and saying "plugins" and "modern" in the same sentence just boggles my mind. What few things they haven't adopted they ARE adopting, with no help from the peanut gallery.

Frankly it just sounds like you just want to badmouth Firefox in blissful ignorance, because it murdered your puppy or something. That I can understand at least understand, but this recent Firefox misinformation campaign seems ripped straight from 2008... it's like the people who dislike it are still living in 2008, or will simply never be happy with Firefox until it's Chrome. Which is fine, but the more you repeat your misinformation the more obvious it becomes. What are so upset or scared about that you feel compelled to repeat this stuff every chance you get?

Re:Now is the time to turn automatic updates off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46522555)

Firefox 3.6 has +100 exploits!

How many do you think Firefox 28 has?

Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520153)

I know slashdotters are probably sick of seeing comments like this, but can we get some actual hardware acceleration on Linux already?
HTML5 is never going to be a viable replacement for flash while the renderer only draws in software via cairo.

Re:Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520263)

uhm n00b here, but don't you mean "as long as it renders in x86 instead of openGL (which has a nice window manager)?"

Re:Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520485)

They've been working quite hard to fix this, actually. It's just a tremendously large project (adopting Skia). It's finally starting to pay off, though. They're also getting a GTK3 build prepared, and are working on Shumway, so that as Adobe abandons Flash in Linux we still have an option to use it just in case.

Re:Linux? (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 6 months ago | (#46521293)

"3D hardware acceleration" on linux may mean any of slowness, glitches, instability, overheating, high CPU usage. e.g. folks with a Radeon 4000 series graphics card encounter problems with the 3D accelerated desktops (Gnome 3, Cinnamon). Or I don't really want my 8 year old GPU to be constantly used.

So, maybe hardware acceleration can be of use for some people. I don't care about it much but it might be useful.. But given the problems with drivers and old hardware (and possible lack of any GPU power management on a lot of machines) it would be best disabled by default I think.

Re:Linux? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#46521759)

"3D hardware acceleration" on linux may mean any of slowness, glitches, instability, overheating, high CPU usage. e.g. folks with a Radeon 4000 series graphics card encounter problems with the 3D accelerated desktops (Gnome 3, Cinnamon).

I have similar experiences with newer low-end Radeons (6290 and 6320). Even the basic desktop effects are choppy. Not to speak of games: for example Half-Life 2 has terrible frame rate. Both the open source and fglrx drivers are kind of crappy.

Upgrading sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46520355)

... until they've finally commited to a stable API regarding themes and extensions.
When I do upgrade I only find that NONE of my two (!) extensions work for weeks.

So f*** you, upgrade path.

New Firefox Sync pairing method? (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 6 months ago | (#46520965)

What happened to that new, easier method of Firefox Sync device pairing that was supposed to come out in Firefox 27?

The big issue with the current method is to add a new Firefox instance to the group, it pretty much requires you to have access to both your new device and an existing device simultaneously. Unless you save the authentication key file it's impossible to sync different Firefox installs on a dual/multi-boot computer or recover your saved passwords and bookmarks if a device is non-usable from damage or outright lost/stolen.

Windows 7 and 8 users -- read Known Issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46521737)

Users of Windows 7 and Windows 8 should pay close attention to the Known Issues section of the Release Notes [mozilla.org] and and apply the workaround mentioned. The text rendering issue is quite severe [mozilla.org] .

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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