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 31 Released

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the baskin-robbins-edition dept.

Firefox 172

An anonymous reader writes Mozilla has released version 31 of its Firefox web browser for desktops and Android devices. According to the release notes, major new features include malware blocking for file downloads, automatic handling of PDF and OGG files if no other software is available to do so, and a new certificate verification library. Smaller features include a search field on the new tab page, better support for parental controls, and partial implementation of the OpenType MATH table. Firefox 31 is also loaded with new features for developers. Mozilla also took the opportunity to note the launch of a new game, Dungeon Defenders Eternity, which will run at near-native speeds on the web using asm.js, WebGL, and Web Audio. "We're pleased to see more developers using asm.js to distribute and now monetize their plug-in free games on the Web as it strengthens support for Mozilla's vision of a high performance, plugin-free Web."

cancel ×

172 comments

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

Updating NOW! (1)

Urquhardt (3529035) | about 2 months ago | (#47510563)

Now... Now Now...

Spyware companies will love it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510567)

No disabling Canvas tracking and they even included
navigator.sendBeacon by default so "analytics" is easier to send using onunload handlers. thanks Mozilla , i cant tell you how many users asked for that feature

Mozilla : comitted to your privacy*

*not applicable in your area

Re:Spyware companies will love it (4, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | about 2 months ago | (#47510643)

Some background - since I was unaware:
http://www.ghacks.net/2014/07/... [ghacks.net]

Re:Spyware companies will love it (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510655)

You mean the same thing that you could already do a number of ways, but had to be synchronous. You have to completely remove onunload and onbeforeunload to prevent such things.

Re:Spyware companies will love it (3, Informative)

roca (43122) | about 2 months ago | (#47510775)

sendBeacon was already possible with JS using XHR, just in a slower and more user-unfriendly manner. And unlike XHR, you can disable sendBeacon without breaking the Web, so it's actually better for privacy.

However, if you want to completely prevent any sendBeacon-like activity, you need to just disable JS on that page.

Re:Spyware companies will love it (1)

DaRanged (735002) | about 2 months ago | (#47510781)

*omitted your privacy FTFY ;-)

Re:Spyware companies will love it (2)

roca (43122) | about 2 months ago | (#47510859)

Preventing canvas tracking isn't simply a matter of fixing a bug. A solution would require something like "don't use the GPU" or "don't use platform font rasterization", either of which are completely unacceptable for most users due to degradation of performance or visual quality.

If you've got a simple fix to canvas tracking, let the world know what it is, OK?

Re:Spyware companies will love it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511035)

Don't let scripts read back the canvas content. That's what the TOR browser does (actually it asks the user when a script tries to read the canvas.)

Re:Spyware companies will love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511383)

Tor users are likely to understand these concerns. Average users are not. And pestering them when a site tries to use a canvas to edit an image they can then save, well, it a pain in the ass. Most users will just click an option blindly anyway, and if it's the one that "breaks" the site they'll just use another browser. What works for us doesn't work for everyone, and we're not the ones who NEED to be protected properly - we already know how.

Re:Spyware companies will love it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511445)

Read again what I wrote: Don't let scripts read back the canvas content.

Note that web browsers have previously removed features to protect privacy. For example, the ability to use arbitrary styles with the :visited selector was removed to prevent web sites from partially reconstructing browsing history.

Another feature that needs to be removed is access to all locally installed fonts except for a minimal set of default fonts. With web fonts this is hardly a limitation, but access to local fonts enables a very effective fingerprinting technique.

Re:Spyware companies will love it (1)

complete loony (663508) | about 2 months ago | (#47512633)

One of the original demo's I saw for the canvas was green screening performed in javascript. For another quick use case, a game might use pixel colours to detect collisions instead of tracking objects manually.

Re:Spyware companies will love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511005)

Did they at least put the "disable javascript" back in the menu? It's now in the config behind a warning to scare people, asshats.

Re:Spyware companies will love it (1)

lowlymarine (1172723) | about 2 months ago | (#47511311)

Why does that seem unreasonable to you? The average user shouldn't be blanket disabling Javascript, as doing so will break 99.9% of the internet (including this commenting system).

Re:Spyware companies will love it (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511333)

Uhh, everybody should be disabling JavaScript. JavaScript is a disease upon the web, it's a disease upon privacy, it's a disease upon reducing power consumption, it's a disease upon good programming languages, and it's a disease upon computing in general. Just because Slashdot has fucked up and used JavaScript where it totally isn't needed doesn't mean that JavaScript is somehow acceptable.

Re:Spyware companies will love it (1, Insightful)

Eythian (552130) | about 2 months ago | (#47512329)

You can stick with gopher, but the rest of the world has moved on.

Re:Spyware companies will love it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511153)

Oh cry me a river. So they gave analytics teams an easier way to send info, so they don't have to rely on really iffy hacks that often cause all sorts of stability and performance issues? And you're worried about that despite it being easier to detect AND disable this feature, so companies doing analytics in relatively good faith are easier to block?

Also, if you had a good solution to Canvas tracking then why didn't you tell them? I'm sure they would have happily implemented it by now. But nope, far easier to be a passive-aggressive little snot who contributes nothing to society but snark. Christ, you dopey shits are incapable of contributing anything worthwhile aren't you?

Re:Spyware companies will love it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511819)

Sure they did, shill. How much is Mozilla paying you to spew all of this sycophantic garbage?

We need a new browser (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511175)

I've just about had it with Firefox. For quite a while every new version included new features that resulted in one thing only: Me looking for a way to turn off whatever privacy invasion resulted from them. A freshly installed Firefox leaks information like a sieve. I would have to invest hours just to create a profile which is close to acceptable for browsing without the most egregious ad displays, tracking and annoyances. The makers of Firefox have become too focused on serving web authors, who are mostly also ad hosts. A browser should serve the user. It's software which runs on the user's computer. The web author has the server to play with.

Re:We need a new browser (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511271)

Same here. It has been one fuck up after another with Firefox lately. Each time Firefox updates, I feel like Mozilla has once again spread their collective asscheeks right over my face, and shit upon my eyes and down my nostrils and my throat. As much as I hate using Google software, I think I'm going to switch to Chromium. Although it and Firefox have the same shitty UI these days, at least Chromium isn't a slow hunk of lard like Firefox is.

Re:We need a new browser (3, Insightful)

sd4f (1891894) | about 2 months ago | (#47511441)

I certainly think so. It's a real pity that mozilla is just becoming a dud social justice warrior organisation now. I guess the people who work for them all aspire to work for google, which is probably why their trying to do an orange version of google chrome...

Since the UI changes, and getting rather annoyed with FF29 (or was it 30) which would constantly block stuff or ask for permission (like vista) to enable things, I just moved to opera. Not sure if it's good on the security and privacy side, but at least the UI, for the most part is lightweight. Needs a few improvements. I'd stick with FF28, but not very keen on running unpatched versions, and it was having many issues anyway with stability, so I guess it's better to just move along.

Re:Spyware companies will love it (1)

jopsen (885607) | about 2 months ago | (#47511709)

No disabling Canvas tracking and they even included Go to about:config and set "webgl.disabled" to true.

It's not perfect... But from what I can understand this will atleast mitigate the issue: http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~hovav/... [ucsd.edu]

Either way, this does indeed seems like a very hard problem. And disabling canvas might not be enough. See the article from before.

We are wise to this (2, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | about 2 months ago | (#47510577)

All right. What features did they remove, hide, or obscure? What part of the established GUI did they fuck with?

Re:We are wise to this (5, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47510627)

If the "malware blocking" is anything like the analogous feature in Internet Explorer (called "SmartScreen"), then it's going to be harder for end users to download and install a newly compiled executable release of an application developed and self-published by an individual, even if that program is distributed under a free software license. IE repeatedly warns users that if an executable is "not commonly downloaded" by other IE users participating in SmartScreen, it should be deleted on sight, especially if the developer hasn't paid protection money to a member of the Authenticode CA cartel.

Re:We are wise to this (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 2 months ago | (#47510843)

It isn't they just improved how they check malware databases. I don't think anything else changed.

Re:We are wise to this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510951)

Yup, still using 28 here after 29 pissed me off. 'Bout time I looked into PaleMoon.

Re:We are wise to this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510953)

100% agree. Ths is why I use Firefox 17 ESR.

Re: We are wise to this (0, Flamebait)

afgam28 (48611) | about 2 months ago | (#47511893)

Once you've figured out what you're pissed off about, don't forget to go to Mozilla and demand your money back.

no thanks (3, Insightful)

xeno (2667) | about 2 months ago | (#47510623)

I'll install it when that godawful Australis interface is rolled back or replaced with something less eye-bleedingly bad. (And no, the craptastic classic plug-in is not a long-term solution.) For now, I'm holding at v28 (on Linux Mint or Ubuntu: "sudo apt-mark hold firefox"), and pondering what to do re security updates in the long run.

Firefox has gone down the ugly-UI-shuffle-for-the-hell-of-it route, Chrome sends an astounding amount of telemetry back to the hive-mind, and IE's performance is still a total joke even if I can see past the OS implications and numbingly-bad design. Are niche browsers all we have left?

Re:no thanks (5, Interesting)

xeno (2667) | about 2 months ago | (#47510639)

...and I'm not alone. According to Moz's own dev feedback tools, the Australis phelgm-globber of an interface has been trending at 80%-dislike from day one after introduction..

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2013/11/less-than-20-per-cent-of-users-like-firefoxs-new-australis-ui/
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/999831
http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/05/12/133214

Re:no thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511237)

Good, then shut the fuck up about Australis if you're incapable of doing anything substantive except whine and stomp your feet like a spoiled little child. Just use a Firefox knock-off until they change to Australis, and then continue whining about it. Apparently you're far too precious to install another addon (let alone do some coding yourself to improve things), and woe be to the person who doesn't do things exactly how you want them to do them. So many entitled dipshits these days. You'd think Mozilla existed to do EVERYTHING for us, just how we want it, without us having to contribute anything back.

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511337)

Wipe the froth off of your chin fanboi.

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511455)

You're coming off as the entitled dipshit who is stomping his feet around like a spoiled little child. All his post did was point out that 80% dislike the UI changes, which was a constructive post, your post however comes off exactly as that which you're accusing him as being.

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510681)

Chromium or any number of chromium based browsers, Chrome isn't the only option.

Re:no thanks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510701)

Seamonkey.

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510803)

Thanks for the tip, I'm done with Firefox.

Seamonkey here I come!

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510815)

'k. Have fun. I'll enjoy the new interface that I like in the mean time.

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510927)

I'll enjoy the new interface that I like in the mean time.

If that were true, you'd be using Chrome. Admit it, you just like forcing your views on others.

Re:no thanks (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 months ago | (#47510881)

Pale Moon on windows.

Seamonkey sorta kinda on linux, unless you want to build Pale Moon yourself for it.

Re:no thanks (3, Insightful)

bigfinger76 (2923613) | about 2 months ago | (#47511435)

Why not just get the Linux version of Pale Moon? I did just that yesterday when my bookmarks toolbar disappeared, and so far I really like it.

Re:no thanks (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 2 months ago | (#47512619)

I've been using it on windows since about 22 or 24 I think, and I didn't even know there WAS a Linux version of Palemoon! Thanks!

Re:no thanks (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510939)

My gripe about the new Firefox is not the Australis interface per se, but it's an example of the core problem: Firefox removes features without giving you a choice or a way to re-enable them without plugins. For example:

Separate Stop/Reload buttons. I get shivers of terror when I think back on the days of slow dial-up when a page would seem to hang when it was almost loaded, so I would go to hit the Stop button, only to realize in horror that it changed to Reload an instant before I pressed it, and the page would start loading again from scratch. I don't want buttons to change functionality due to forces outside my control. But hey, at least it saves a few pixels. (More on that later)

The Find bar. Without a plugin, it can no longer be made persistent across tabs. Whose genius idea was it to not only change the default behavior, but to make the previous default behavior impossible? Did it ever occur to them that I might want to look up the same thing on more than one tab?

Then there are the defaults they changed that don't require a plugin, but you do have to go into about:config to fix them. Separate download folders for different sites? It took me 3 weeks to figure out why after downloading several files I couldn't find them. They were in the default Windows Download folder, which I never use. Then it took me another 3 weeks to figure out why it kept jumping back to that folder, seemingly at random. Finally I figured out that it "helpfully" separated the downloads by site, which is a horrible way of doing it. And not only do you have to go to about:config to fix it, but the entry to fix it isn't even there! You have to add it yourself!

Since I'm on a roll, I might as well bitch about my other issues with Firefox. How about their schizophrenic design philosophy?

They remove the menu bar because it's using up too much screen real estate. (Ignoring the fact that the menu bar is a GREAT place to put toolbar buttons so you don't need an extra toolbar) All right, I disagree with their philosophy of trying to save every pixel they can for the page itself, but at least I can understand that it's a legitimate philosophy. Then they go and make the Back/Forward buttons gigantic so that they waste pixels that could be used on the page. Not to mention the wasted space from the rounded tabs, which means you can fit fewer tabs on screen at once. They should at least be consistent. If they're willing to waste space, why not "waste" it on stuff that's functional, like the menu bar?

In short, the designers are (willfully?) ignorant of the fact that not everyone uses their web browser exactly the same way they do. They could avoid all the gripes by all the users if they did one thing: Any time they change the interface, add an easy-to-find checkbox under the options to restore the old functionality. It shouldn't require looking through about:config (and especially searching the internet for the correct item to add), or worse, a plugin, to change things back to the way they were. EVER.

Re:no thanks (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 2 months ago | (#47511177)

"Separate download folders for different sites"

I've never seen that behavior, is that Windows specific ?

___

When you say plugin, I think mean extension.

___

While I may agree or not with you or the designers, but they've changed so much an 'easy-to-find checkbox under the options to restore the old functionality' seems infeasible.

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512773)

> "Separate download folders for different sites"
>
> I've never seen that behavior, is that Windows specific ?

It's bullshit. He must have had an add-on that did that. In fact I know someone who was complaining that the add-on he specifically had for that stopped working back around firefox 21 or so because the obsolete API calls it relied on were finally disabled.

Re:no thanks (0)

roca (43122) | about 2 months ago | (#47511459)

> In short, the designers are (willfully?) ignorant of the fact that
> not everyone uses their web browser exactly the same way
> they do.

Aren't you make that mistake yourself? I know our designers collect a lot of data on what many users actually use. More data than individual Slashdot commenters have collected, I expect.

> Any time they change the interface, add an easy-to-find
> checkbox under the options to restore the old functionality.

That leads to an explosion of difficult-to-understand checkboxes in the UI, and an unmaintainable mess under the hood.

Re:no thanks (4, Insightful)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 2 months ago | (#47512733)

> In short, the designers are (willfully?) ignorant of the fact that > not everyone uses their web browser exactly the same way > they do.

Aren't you make that mistake yourself?

No, he's not making the same mistake. He's perfectly willing to let others use the new design and features - he just wants a way to keep the old behaviour, and so do I.

> Any time they change the interface, add an easy-to-find > checkbox under the options to restore the old functionality.

That leads to an explosion of difficult-to-understand checkboxes in the UI, and an unmaintainable mess under the hood.

I'm not very well qualified to comment on the 'unmaintainable mess', but it smells fishy to me. If Pale Moon can keep the old behaviour while incorporating the new security enhancements, surely Mozilla can keep the old UI and the new one without compromising maintainability. Especially since addon designers have been doing pretty much that for your users for 25 or more releases. And as for the 'difficult to understand check boxes', scratch them. Just give us a well documented set of 'about:config' entries that are already present and prefixed with something like "old behaviour" so can go to one block of entries, change them all, and be done. Heck, you could boil it down to ONE entry called 'browser.pre_australis_mode'.

I'm pretty sure that won't happen though, not because it's too much work, but because Mozilla is hell bent on me-tooing their way into the future with all the other browser makers whose attitude is 'screw the users'. So in the meantime I'm using Pale Moon. Yes, I see the apparent hypocrisy in that decision. I hope Mozilla sees the hypocrisy of bringing private corporation attitudes to their ostensibly FOSS organization.

Re:no thanks (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511097)

I switched to Pale Moon [palemoon.org] , and I am very pleased. I used Firefox and its Mozilla predecessors since about v. 0.92, and I was horrified and traumatized by FF v. 29. PM is the browser Firefox should have been. The following is taken from the Pale Moon home page.

Pale Moon is an Open Source, Firefox-based web browser available for Microsoft Windows and Linux, focusing on efficiency and ease of use. ...
Pale Moon offers you a browsing experience in a browser completely built from its own source with carefully selected features and optimizations to maximize the browser's speed, stability and user experience, while maintaining compatibility with thousands of Firefox extensions many have come to love and rely on. ... ... contrary to what Mozilla has done with their redesign of the user interface, Pale Moon will continue to provide a familiar set of controls and visual feedback similar to previous versions, including grouped navigation buttons of a decent size, a bookmarks toolbar that is enabled by default, tabs next to page content by default (easily switchable) and not in the least a functional status bar and more freedom in customization, to name a few things.

I switched to Pale Moon right after FF v. 29 came out. I was able to copy my FF user profile into the Pale Moon user profile directory and it ran without any particular problems. I have not used FF since then.

Four Stars and two thumbs up for Pale Moon.

AC above (1)

rssrss (686344) | about 2 months ago | (#47511121)

I forgot to sign in before posting. I apologize.

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511109)

xombrero

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511217)

I also hate the new interface. If I liked that I'd use chrome instead.

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512085)

I am still on v.14... I have not bothered with a number of updates, and when I tried it (at around v.20) it was just too awful. My v.14 does pretty much all I need to do. Gosh! Why is this "news"? They have a new version pretty much every other day! Sigh...

Re:no thanks (1)

Etcetera (14711) | about 2 months ago | (#47512589)

Firefox has gone down the ugly-UI-shuffle-for-the-hell-of-it route, Chrome sends an astounding amount of telemetry back to the hive-mind, and IE's performance is still a total joke even if I can see past the OS implications and numbingly-bad design. Are niche browsers all we have left?

It's rather ironic that seamless integration with the OS is much less of a privacy issue than seamless integration with remote servers nowadays....

Re:no thanks (3, Informative)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 2 months ago | (#47512609)

I'll install it when that godawful Australis interface is rolled back or replaced with something less eye-bleedingly bad

If enough of us move to Pale Moon, (it's all I've used since shortly after Australis first shat all over my computer screen), then perhaps Mozilla will get the hint that we love Firefox, but hate what it's become. And if they don't get the hint, well, then we're supporting a viable alternative for the time when Mozilla gets eaten by the shark it just jumped.

BTW, although the Linux version of Pale Moon is 'unofficial' and maintained by somebody outside the organization, I've had no trouble running it under Debian Jessie with all of my usual addons.

Malware blocking for file downloads (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510653)

The "malware blocking for file downloads" is a severe invasion of privacy. It works by sending the URL of nearly every downloaded file to Google.

When a binary file is downloaded, the user-agent extracts several pieces of metadata about the file, including:

        The target URL from which the file was downloaded, its referrer URL and any URLs in the redirect chain.
        The SHA-256 hash of the contents of the file.
        Any certificate verification information obtained through the Windows Authenticode APIs.
        The length of the file in bytes.
        The suggested filename for the download.

...

  Remote lookup (present in FF 32)

The user-agent stuffs all file metadata into a ClientDownloadRequest protocol buffer and sends it to the remote service.

This remote service is https://sb-ssl.google.com/safe... [google.com]

Re:Malware blocking for file downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510917)

I hope this can be disabled. I definitely do not want every file I download being sent to Google. Has there been any new change in FF in the past few years that hasn't needed to be disabled!? It's like everything they do is crazier than the last thing. A few random examples: You have to install an extension to get the flaming status bar back, one of the most basic features of a browser (seeing the URL before you click on it). You have to install an extension to get rid of the horrific FF29 user interface disaster. And now this. Is this a plot to destroy FF, the only browser that you can customize with extensions like AdBlockPlus and NoScript?

Re:Malware blocking for file downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511013)

Yes, it can be disabled. You have to use the "about:config" page, which means that disabling it is considered a completely unsupported operation. There is no checkbox in the main GUI to disable it.

Re:Malware blocking for file downloads (2)

antdude (79039) | about 2 months ago | (#47511087)

Can it be disabled at least?

Re:Malware blocking for file downloads (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511101)

Yes, it can be disabled. You have to use the "about:config" page, which means that disabling it is considered a completely unsupported operation. There is no checkbox in the main GUI to disable it!

Re:Malware blocking for file downloads (5, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | about 2 months ago | (#47511187)

How to turn off this feature

Do any one of the following:

        Turn off browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled in about:config or in the Preferences > Security > "Block reported attack sites." This disables all Safebrowsing malware protection, including the warning interstitial that appears when the user navigates to a malware site.
        Replace browser.safebrowsing.appRepURL in about:config with an empty string. This disables application reputation checks but leaves other Safebrowsing malware protection intact.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Secur... [mozilla.org]

Re:Malware blocking for file downloads (1)

antdude (79039) | about 2 months ago | (#47511249)

Thanks. :)

Re:Malware blocking for file downloads (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 months ago | (#47511309)

It can be disabled, but can you trust that they won't "accidentally" turn it back on with an update? If you must use Chrome, use Chromium instead. The only practical difference besides that it doesn't spy on you for Google is that you need to install a Flash player (if desired) manually.

Redundant search bar on newTab is redundant (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510675)

After the update, the newTab page proudly displays 3 search bars - center screen, awesomebar and the search bar. No new easily found option in about:config to turn off...

Misfeatures (3, Informative)

Arker (91948) | about 2 months ago | (#47510679)

"Malware blocking" = yet another bad signature/reputation based scanner. If I wanted one, I would have one installed - and Firefox versions without this misfeature would still use it to scan, so in what universe was this worth doing?

If you really want to do something about malware, disable javascript by default.

"Automatic handling of pdf and ogg files" - I have a pdf reader already. I dont need another one, and I dont need one 'integrated' in my browser, period.

"loaded with new features for developers." Pretty sure that means for advertisers.

Re:Misfeatures (1)

roca (43122) | about 2 months ago | (#47510913)

> "Automatic handling of pdf and ogg files" - I have a pdf reader
> already. I dont need another one, and I dont need one
> 'integrated' in my browser, period.

From the release notes: "audio/video .ogg and .pdf files handled by Firefox *if no application specified*" (emphasis added).

> "loaded with new features for developers." Pretty sure that
> means for advertisers.

You just made that up.

Re:Misfeatures (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 2 months ago | (#47512643)

From the release notes: "audio/video .ogg and .pdf files handled by Firefox *if no application specified*" (emphasis added).

Does the bloat in the browser go away the moment I install Sumatra?

Re:Misfeatures (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47511039)

If you really want to do something about malware, disable javascript by default.

What if you want to do something about malware, but don't want the hassle of re-enabling javascript when you actually want it to work (because, contrary to popular belief, it can actually be employed usefully)? What if you're too lazy to install another piece of software, or just don't want to install another piece of software? What if, god forbid, someone has different an idea on what to do about malware to you?

"Automatic handling of pdf and ogg files" - I have a pdf reader already. I dont need another one

Well, good news! Because as you carefully omitted to quote, "...if no other software is available to do so." So it'll be just like you don't have another PDF reader.

TL:DR; this isn't how I use computers, therefore this isn't how anyone should use computers

Re:Misfeatures (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511041)

I'm just trying out xombrero, seems pretty good.
https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/xombrero

Re:Misfeatures (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511589)

Speaking of misfeatures, your entire post is in tt.

What version would be this (1)

Flavianoep (1404029) | about 2 months ago | (#47510709)

Is anyone keeping track of Firefox versions as they would be numbered the traditional way ([major].[minor].[release])? Those simple numbers they are using nowadays are meaningless to me.

Thanks.

A n00b

Re:What version would be this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510807)

31.0.0

Re:What version would be this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510835)

> Is anyone keeping track of Firefox versions as they would be numbered the traditional way ([major].[minor].[release])?

No. Those numbers were just as arbitrary as these numbers.
There was never any consistent standard for the thresholds of each field in the old numbering system.
At least with the new versioning system the numbers are consistently date based - every six weeks, give-or-take a couple of days.

Re:What version would be this (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 2 months ago | (#47510855)

The version I'm running is numbered 29.0.1, which makes some sense (major.minor.patch). Do you mean "Is anyone keeping track of which versions break the API (maj), extend the API backward-compatibly (min), and fix bugs (pat)"? I don't think anyone is, in those terms.

Re:What version would be this (0)

Arker (91948) | about 2 months ago | (#47511027)

They deliberately make this difficult to calculate, but by my reckoning the current version should probably be Firefox 7.6.

I would like (just) a web browser please (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510773)

Any chance we can just have a web browser which just does normal browsing, doesn't take hundreds of MB to run, and starts in under a couple of seconds ?

A really nice feature would be a standard (non-artsy) user interface with everything needed out in full view of the user.

Such a browser would allow one to add additional modules (we could call them extensions) so it could be configured as required.

I believe that in the old days such a browser existed.

Re:I would like (just) a web browser please (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510877)

http://breach.cc/ [breach.cc]

Re:I would like (just) a web browser please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510941)

http://breach.cc/ [breach.cc]

PaleMoon.

Re:I would like (just) a web browser please (3, Interesting)

ultranova (717540) | about 2 months ago | (#47510935)

Any chance we can just have a web browser which just does normal browsing, doesn't take hundreds of MB to run, and starts in under a couple of seconds ?

Next you'll be asking it to not leak memory like a sieve.

Support for Vorbis OGG? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510785)

Mozilla can play OGG files now? Do people upload OGG voice or music clips onto the internet? Just asking because I don't think I have ever seen an OGG file on a website before.

Re:Support for Vorbis OGG? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 months ago | (#47510891)

Wikimedia.

Some test cases for your Vorbis player (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47511113)

Well you have now. Often I've made musical recordings as proofs of concept for posts to web forums related to Dance Dance Revolution and classic NES games. And when these aren't in tracker format, they're in .ogg format. Here are some test cases:

You know where else I could've read about this? (1)

Dimwit (36756) | about 2 months ago | (#47510849)

And also seen if there were any other interesting projects out there, and check on the latest versions of other free software that I use?

Freecode.

Re:You know where else I could've read about this? (1)

vux984 (928602) | about 2 months ago | (#47511367)

Erm...

"Effective 2014-06-18 Freecode is no longer being updated (content may be stale)"

Or were you making a joke that just whooshed by me?

When will firefox support TLS-SRP? (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 months ago | (#47510867)

It's 2014 and we are all still transmitting passwords in clear text web forms over SSL.

Re:When will firefox support TLS-SRP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510957)

Does Chromium include this?

Re:When will firefox support TLS-SRP? (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 2 months ago | (#47511095)

No major browser supports this today.

Re:When will firefox support TLS-SRP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512087)

What is wrong with transmitting clear text passwords over SSL?

Re:When will firefox support TLS-SRP? (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 2 months ago | (#47512713)

No support for DANE (certificate information stored in DNS and secured with DNSSEC) either. And the bug on the issue just says "we have no plans to support this" rather than "patches please"

Trash (0)

whodunit (2851793) | about 2 months ago | (#47510915)

As I watch Firefox download the update, I contemplate how useless it is. With a fresh install, no add-ons enabled and javascript/flash/etc. all updated and working properly, Firefox still crashes more than Malaysian airliners. If Chrome's devs could pull their heads out of their asses just long enough to implement a tab bar that wasn't a total pile of shit, I'd be using Chrome right now. As for the Android version, it is quantitative worse than the Android default browser. Chrome has it beat hands-down for mobile. Farewell, Firefox. We hardly knew ye.

Re:Trash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511045)

The only thing keeping me from Chrome is this nice addon. https://code.google.com/p/tabgroupsmanager/ SIGH

Better support for Web Components, nope not yet :/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47510999)

It would have been really nice to get that Shadow DOM and HTML Imports natively without using slower polyfills.

Those that sounded gobbledygook, should check where web is heading with Web Components development. This is major shift how web apps are being built in future.

As tt's not simple to put it just few words so that it would cover issue adequately, it's better to catch up and watch Google IO videos from Polymer project [polymer-project.org] site.

Memory hog on Linux (1)

DF5JT (589002) | about 2 months ago | (#47511053)

Thank you for turning my notebook into a feels-like-a-286 machine by now.

With 10 tabs open it hogs almost 2GB of RAM. Used to be a fraction of it and I haven't noticed any functional improvements between now and then.

Basically it now renders an obsolete machine (T60p) into an obsolete piece of hardware without the need to do so.

Congratulations.

Re:Memory hog on Linux (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 2 months ago | (#47511161)

But is it really Firefox's fault? I mean, while I also think that Firefox is a memory hog compared to others, at least on OS X, something did change over the years: the weight of web pages.

It used to be that most website would only require a few dozen kilobytes, or a few hundreds at the most. But these days, people who think they understand responsive design take the easy way out and just send 4 megapixel images and let the browsers resize them as needed.

Re:Memory hog on Linux (1)

ichthus (72442) | about 2 months ago | (#47511185)

What kind of tabs do you have open? 2GIGS?! 9 Tabs for me, and I'm at 285 megs:

This page
This one [slashdot.org]
This one [slashdot.org]
Dealnews [dealnews.com]
This one [freebsddiary.org]
This one [microchip.com]
And, a couple of intranet pages.

I use Flashblock (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 months ago | (#47511219)

Same here. I've routinely had ten tabs of Cracked.com, which is fairly heavy as far as I can tell, fit in half a GB. But then I use Flashblock to keep SWFs from starting automatically on most sites, and I have a few Facebook hostnames blocked in my /etc/hosts.

Re:Memory hog on Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512381)

There is an addon that "suspends" all unused tabs after a configurable timeout, its called "Suspend Tab".

There is another one called "Flashblock", which blocks all flash from running until you do it manually.

With leadership like this, who needs enemies? (2)

Hello Kitty (62674) | about 2 months ago | (#47511239)

As Stephen Elop to Nokia, so Google to Mozilla. We should have known. Actually, we knew and there wasn't a damned thing anyone could do about it.

almost-4 year old bug report addressed! (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 2 months ago | (#47511457)

My bug has finally been fixed - if you've always wanted to vertically center text in a select box, you're now good to go. Seriously, filed it in November of 2010, as as I can recall.

Re:almost-4 year old bug report addressed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511527)

No time to look up sources, I see.
Yes, you filed [mozilla.org] that on 9 November 2010.

Definitely posting as AC, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47511603)

I gotta say it, IE11 is a damn fine browser.

Firefox is dying a slow demise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47512539)

I find nothing about Firefox interesting anymore. At one time I could say Firefox and Mozilla were on target to make a open source browser that truly was better
then anything from Microsoft or Apple. But then came Google Chrome and it brought what most want in a browser. That is speed, and it has slowly gained popularity so much so that one has to wonder when Google will simply pull the plug on Mozilla by way of ad revenue and proceed to let Mozilla and Firefox become just another Netscape redux. Firefox has become what Safari has become, irrelevant because they both do things that basically piss off many of its users.
I sit here typing on my Macbook Air with Chrome and have not entertained using Safari for anything. Its not that Safari is bad, after all it uses WebKit just like Chrome does. But its the little things that mess you up. Like changes of key buttons, or features, or to burry them in sub menu's. Gee, that's supposed to be better?
I am not all about Google, I hate some of their privacy policies. But for a browser, they do pretty well with it. Mozilla is totally involved in change for nothing more then a whim.

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>