Slashdot Mirror
Apple Quietly Releases Safari 3.2
99BottlesOfBeerInMyF writes "Yesterday Apple quietly slipped out an update to their Safari Web browser to version 3.2. The notable feature is that it finally adds anti-phishing technology, an area where Safari has lagged behind competitors. Aside from that, it provides some security fixes, improved JavaScript performance, and a slightly newer version of Webkit, pulling their Acid3 score up to 77." Apple forums across the Net are reporting frequent crashes in Safari 3.2, some possibly caused by 3rd-party add-ons, others perhaps related to the anti-phishing feature.
New version of Safari. Does this mean /. is turning into a slightly more fleshed-out VersionTracker? I don't see how this is newsworthy: maybe the addition of anti-phishing capabilities would be worth mentioning in passing, but a minor update which causes a few crashes is nothing new.
Those using pirated Tinysoft signatures(TM) are a real threat to society and should all be thrown in jail.
A bit off-topic: Both Safari 3.1 and 3.2 (@ Tiger) freezes the loading progress randomly, but ping google.com still works. I have tried to reset Safari, but it didn't help.
Personally I don't use Safari (I don't have a Mac, nor do I use MS Windows). I just thought I would take the time to rant about "anti-phishing" things.
I always turn such "features" off on my own computers, and would do so on any computer where I was the "tech support" (after appropriate consultation and education).
Why? Because blacklists don't work. Want to not get phished? Simple instructions that even the most computerphobic person can understand:
When you want to go to the website of your bank, credit union etc., type in what you see on the printed material you have in front of you! (Alternatively, for the more computer literate folks, create a bookmark/favourite after having typed in the address from the printed material from your bank. And only access it via that link.)
Never trust a link via an email, never trust a link from another website, not even if the address looks the same. (Character encoding, bad eyes and other things can make two strings look the same, even when they aren't.)
Simple advice and works for everyone whom I've told it to. (The same with, "don't download files from your email unless you were expecting them, which is a bit over the top, but the slightly more complicated, don't download executable files got reduced somehow.)
End rant.
I did have a look at the article, and to be frank, there isn't anything exciting in there. It seems that the only reason this got to the front page is that Safari crashes a lot. Umm..., I guess I don't care.
I wank in the shower.
Safari is based on Webkit, which can achieve an almost perfect acid3 score. Anyone using windows or macosx can easilly try it.
Apple forums across the Net are reporting frequent crashes in Safari 3.2, some possibly caused by 3rd-party add-on
Yep, PithHelmet (anti-ad plug-in) causes 3.2 (Mac, of course) to blow up every time when using multiple tabs. Removing its bundle from /Library/Application Support/SIMBL/Plugins/ made it stable as a rock again (no problems at with about 15 tabs open, with varying kinds of embedded content), but, sadly, I'm buried with ads again.
I'm sure they attempted to force it on every user with iTunes... hardly quiet.
I hear they're working on iLube to adress this problem.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
The WebKit nightly builds have been passing the ACID3 test for months and are still 4 times faster than Safari 3.2 according to the SunSpider Javascript Benchmark. Why is Safari so far behind?
Its odd that Apple released this version quietly. Last time a major point release was available, Steve Jobs was walking down the streets of Cupertino firing a shotgun into the air screaming, "Time to download the next motherf*cking version of Safari!" followed by USC Trojan band playing John Philip Sousa marches.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Apple Quietly Releases Safari 3.2
Great, now you've gone and blabbed their secret to everybody.
It also now supports EV-SSL. That and the anti-phishing were two major beefs of companies like PayPal.
Worse, I downloaded Safari for Windows for testing and they tried to force iTunes on me. They said it was a security update. I've since removed their update 'service' (like servicing a cow) and I guess I'll have to update Safari manually.
Admittedly, this was a while back and maybe they've cleaned up their act. Then again, Firefox 3.0.4 refuses to install because I need to run as an account with more rights than a full administrator. All I need now is Opera to give me grief.
There is something a little odd about this particular update-- Safari on my Mac had been acting very strangely lately-sucking up lots of processor, computer acting a bit odd. This is unusual. This seems to have been fixed by the update. Maybe just a coincidence?
The question is: why is Apple so quiet about rolling this update out and what it fixes, and since when does a minor Safari update require a reboot?!!
I thought it was a perfect score. Not a almost perfect score.
What I really want is some screenshots of what the anti-phishing behavior looks like. For all this talk about Safari 3.2 no one has bothered to try out the new features.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
I tell you the real annoying bug. It erases cookies sometimes. Yes, the file itself (~Library/Cookies/Cookies.plist). It was documented by unsanity and said to be fixed at least on Intel but we, poor PPC users who made the mistake of jumping to Leopard still suffer from it.
http://www.unsanity.org/archives/apple/apple_hates_bug_filers.php
Ironically, it generally hits you when you report a bug to Apple, that is where the title comes from.
I had to restore 2.2 MB of cookies from Time Machine today.
Windows version is there too and it is a serious sounding security update.
The actual release notes are at http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3298
You should subscribe to Apple Security Updates mailing list for non PR infested update announcements.
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/security-announce
TFA doesn't call this out at all - does this update the Mac version only or is Windows also at 3.2?
TFA provides a link to download the Windows version.
The Trojan marching band only knows how to play one song.
Mmmm.. Donuts
How does putting Safari 3.2 on Software Update, where by default it will be received by every internet-connected Mac OS X user in the world, count as a release that was "quietly slipped out"?
Granted, they're the new Bad Guy on /., but can we be a little less lazy and more accurate in our snide characterization of Apple's activities?
And it looks like once again I'll have to reboot my Leopard macbook because of an update in a fucking web browser application. I've been really quite happy with OS X for last five years but lately this all has become really rather pointless. Too many lock-ups, too many bugs, too many reboots. Didn't see any of that with my iBook running Panther before. Looks like Apple tries to compete with price and the quality is gone.
If a browser doesn't score a 100 on the Acid3 test, it fails. Period. A browser that scores an 18 doesn't fail any more (at least officially) than one that scores an 88.
Then why do they bother with scores instead of just putting up the word "pass" or "fail"? Each part of the test hits a problem area of rendering and the more points a browser gets, the more of those cases they are compliant for. Higher scores do translate into greater standards compliance for the tested set.
In order to pass, you need a score of 100 and the test page needs to look pixel-for-pixel like the reference rendering (which is a little redundant, but that's what it says on the test page itself).
More than that, it has to run the animation smoothly using the specified reference hardware... at least according to the authors of the test.
The higher score should raise a footnote perhaps, but you shouldn't be too concerned about it.
It's more abut how current the version of Webkit they're including is. From the fact that it scores a 77 means htmlcore is likely a version from sometime last summer. Likewise the javascript performance tells you the javascriptcore is probably more recent.