Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 19 Launches With Built-In PDF Viewer

Posted by Soulskill on from the they-should-use-roman-numerals-for-launch-numbers dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla on Tuesday officially launched Firefox 19 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. The improvements include a built-in PDF viewer on the desktop and theme support as well as lower CPU requirements on Google's mobile platform. You can see the official changelogs here: desktop and Android."

27 of 288 comments (clear)

  1. What about Save As PDF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would be impressed if they included a Save As or Print To PDF File option like Google Chrome browser does.

    1. Re:What about Save As PDF by cristiroma · · Score: 3, Informative

      Guess what? I have Firefox 18 and already has that. Go to File ... > Print ... > PDF > Save as PDF (also, Save as PostScript). Maybe only on Mac?

    2. Re:What about Save As PDF by MrYingster · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's a Mac thing. Any program that uses Apple's built-in printer dialog can do it. So handy!

    3. Re:What about Save As PDF by Junta · · Score: 4, Informative

      It also happens in Linux. Don't have Windows handy at the moment, but I'd be surprised if Firefox on OSX and Linux has it but Windows did not.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    4. Re:What about Save As PDF by JackieBrown · · Score: 4, Informative

      Windows does not have it (at least not XP.) Linux does, as you said. I use that feature more than I actually print.

    5. Re:What about Save As PDF by number11 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It would be handy, if you actually wanted to produce pdf. Given that Adobe's pdf tools are what most people use, and that those are absolutely the largest vector for malware IN THE WORLD, I don't want any more pdf around.

      Why is anyone using Adobe Reader anymore? There are several very nice alternatives, including Foxit, PDF-Xchange, Sumatra, Slim and others. I haven't used Adobe on any of my computers for years.

    6. Re:What about Save As PDF by sapgau · · Score: 3, Insightful

      +1
      I've been using PDFCreator for years now.

    7. Re:What about Save As PDF by Bazzargh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Windows doesn't have it because Adobe didn't want MS to do it.

      This is why MS made XPS

      Stuart Parmenter wrote an extension for firefox after it started using Cairo (FF3) which would let you print pdf - since with Cairo that came pretty much free. It never made it into the default UI (as you say - it's not needed on Linux and Mac) and since the rendering architecture moved again to azure&skia I guess rendering to pdf wasn't free any more, and the extension no longer works.

  2. Not new, and do not want by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    New? That went in a few Firefox versions back, I think at Firefox 16. I turned it off, since I use Sumatra PDF (which is dumb, but safe).

  3. Blogspam! by roboticbebop · · Score: 5, Informative

    TFA links to blogspam, below is the actual release note list from Mozilla

    http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/19.0/releasenotes/

    Come on, guys.

  4. In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! by RocketRabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are they serious? A built in PDF reader, and this is only the start of things. Meanwhile there are Mozilla bugs that are over half a decade old.

    This constant bloat of software, where a program eventually gets filled with so many features that it might as well be Ann entire OS, is one of the most dangerous diseases in the tech world. The irony is that Firefox was originally a lightweight answer to the entire Mozilla suite, because it had grown too bloated.

    Every platform out there already has a PDF reader. My operating system has a PDF renderer built in. It works great. Why jam another one in the browser? They're just increasing the attack surface, and if a vulnerability in the PDF format were to crop up now I have to worry about getting patches for yet another thing here.

    1. Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The PDF reader in Firefox is actually implemented in JavaScript. It's quite an achievement!

      It doesn't bloat the software much; it's just a .js file that gets loaded when needed. I personally think this is the RIGHT way to do it; external binary plugins are much more susceptible to security problems than simply using the already existing JavaScript engine, which has been time tested to be secure.

      Worry not, Firefox is in good hands.

    2. Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! by TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They should really make a small, light version of Firefox that only does web browsing, and does it well. They could call it "Phoenix", for example.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:In version 20 Firefox will have built-in Emacs! by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How many of you stupid fucks still do not realize that Firefox's release cycle is the same as Chrome's? And that they have an enterprise version with slightly longer time between updates so that if you don't want the new features, you can have the security fixes?

      The problem with Firefox's releases is they keep screwing with the UI. Little things here and there - like day I suddenly found muscle memory broken because the awesomebar stopped autocompleting full URLs and only did domains? (It's fine for the most part, but if you have URLs that are fairly deep... or say to get directly to a forum...).

      If Mozilla updated firefox like chrome - where they don't mess with UI things at all (or default them to "off" for upgrade installs so it behaves exactly the same as it did pre-update) then a lot less people would care. But they don't. I don't care what version Chrome is at because it works the same today as it did yesterday. But every new update to Firefox brings trepidatoin in the form "what did they screw with now? And can I disable it?"

      Ars Technica periodically runs browser wars charts that show how each version of a browser is adopted. Consistently while a large number of people update, a significant number of people don't, much more than Chrome.

  5. Re:Still exists? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. it's got adblockplus
    2. it's the only browser left that isn't directly targeted at marketing interests over my privacy (you worry about holes, but then trust google??)
    3. a useful library of plugins. sure other browsers have this now, but not like firefox.

    does that excuse the performance issues? hell no.

  6. Re:Still exists? by realmolo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Firefox uses less memory than Chrome these days.

    Plus, Firefox is just as fast as Chrome, typically.

    And, finally and most importantly, Firefox has a zillion useful extensions. Like NoScript and Adblock.

    Chrome is fine, but I don't like how it handles tabs (I use TabMixPlus on Firefox), and I *really* hate how hard it makes it to access bookmarks. Yes, you can solve the bookmark issue with extensions, but none of them are *quite* right.

  7. Zombie compartments, four versions ago by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    We banned it from our company after waiting years for various memory leaks to be fixed.

    That was fixed. The Firefox memory heap is now divided into "compartments", and Firefox 15 changed memory management to be more aggressive at purging compartments associated with closed pages.

    1. Re:Zombie compartments, four versions ago by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 3, Informative

      After some cursory googling around, I can only find benchmarks showing firefox using significantly less ram than other browsers. A couple of examples.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  8. I hate PDF readers, embedding suckssssss by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just let me damn well download the files, never open in a tab and render it.
    Yes I know you can set this option but I use 3 damned PC's - and FF updates regularly (or dies and I need to do a clean profile) I'm sick of adjusting things to make things work properly.

    Like the ridiculous copy and paste http:/// bug - they strip it from the URL (breaking bloody standards) and I copy and paste it elsewhere. 95% of the time it auto-adds the http:/// as it should, however 5% of the time it doesn't and it's frustrating (because it should never be removed in the damned first place!)

  9. Re:Page Numbers by oji-sama · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, it displays page numbers and supports jumping. Also includes buttons for moving a page up or down (left and right keys work as shortcuts)

    --
    It is what it is.
  10. Re:Still exists? by kthreadd · · Score: 3

    Chrome is built on good technology, but since it is proprietary closed source I prefer Firefox.

  11. Re:Wow! by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Definitely faster than PDF plugin. I've been using the pdf.js plugin since it first appeared. I'd never go back to the plugin.

    --
    I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
  12. Re:Still exists? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Firefox uses less memory than Chrome these days.

    That's not a good thing. For example Firefox doesn't decode images until they are displayed to reduce memory consumption. The result is that it judders as you scroll and switching tabs introduces a noticeable delay.

    My laptop has 4GB of RAM. My desktop has 16GB RAM. Even the graphics card has 3GB. I bought lots of RAM because I want performance, not pointless memory saving that slows me down. Memory benchmarks are not a good way to evaluate a browser.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  13. Re:Wow! by number11 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are they giving everyone a leg up by breaking all the add-ons?

    Didn't break any of the 24 I have installed. YMMV, of course.

  14. Great, more bloat by xiando · · Score: 3, Informative

    My 800 MHz ARM Android phone can't even run Firefox because of it's resource requirements (I'm glad there's Dolphin) and it's getting bigger and slower, not faster and learner, on my desktop. I'd rather see JavaScript speeds improvements and fat cutting. There's plenty of good external programs for opening PDF files already (okular, evince, etc), the browser does not need to open PDF files itself any more than it needs to open OpenDocument spreadsheets.

    --
    9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
  15. Re:Still exists? by bjwest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Biggest annoyance keeping me from using Chrome more is the lack of a clear address bar plug-in. Linux has this wonderful feature of being able to highlight something then middle clicking to past it. Takes a couple of clicks away from a cut-n-paste action and is real easy to do while surfing around. Without a way to clear the address bar, this is useless. I've been using Linux for over 15 years, don't remember when it was introduced but I've become so accustomed to it, I really can't do without it.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
  16. Re:Its quite amusing..... by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That people are commenting on firefox 19.

    Since this is slashdot, I kind of expected everybody to be on firefox 20+ (Aurora channel) or atleast the Beta channel.

    Why? It's a fucking web browser, not a fantastic new game. Not everybody regards updating software as their main pleasure in life.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it