Firefox 21 Arrives

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla on Tuesday officially launched Firefox 21 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Improvements include the addition of multiple social providers on the desktop as well as open source fonts on Android. In the changelog, the company included an interesting point that's worth elaborating on: 'Preliminary implementation of Firefox Health Report.' Mozilla has revealed that FHR so far logs 'basic health information' about Firefox: time to start up, total running time, and number of crashes. Mozilla says the initial report is pretty simple but will grow 'in the coming months.' You can get it now from Mozilla."

Comments

furst

[Anonymous Coward]

first

Re:furst

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You do realize that you've just wasted a perfectly good opportunity to write "Twenty-first post!"?

Re:furst

[jhoegl]

Nobody realizes anything.
That is why everybody does everything!

Re:furst

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is true; everything is permitted.

Re: furst

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd only be interested in the 72th build in this case.

Meh

[zidium]

I honestly do not care about Firefox one bit.

I don't even test new web designs in Firefox; only IE, Safari and Chrome.

Their autoupdates are the most painful of any app short of Java that I know of.

Re:Meh

[Kid Zero]

Mine went painlessly quick.

Re:Meh

[0racle]

And yet you felt the need to comment on it. It would appear you care about Firefox more than you let on.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

2 posts when I started, and 2 posts when I checked back on this thread after updating so it went pretty quick for me.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even test new web designs in Firefox; only IE, Safari and Chrome.

Funnily enough, I don't use any of those three browsers when I'm on Windows (maybe 1/3 of the time); I use Opera and Firefox.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

He's passionately apathetic.

Re:Meh

[buddyglass]

I don't even test new web designs in Firefox; only IE, Safari and Chrome.

You might consider starting, since FF's 20% market share is approximately equal to the combined share of Safari and Chrome.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

With each new version since FF17 you need to disable all the social crap, sync-shit, animations, tab-behaviour, phoneHome-telemetries and pdf-viewer using "about:config".

Re:Meh

[Merk42]

I don't even test new web designs in Firefox; only IE, Safari and Chrome.

You might consider starting, since FF's 20% market share is approximately equal to the combined share of Safari and Chrome.

What website is this with these numbers??

Re:Meh

[KingMotley]

Not according to my website stats, which is all I really care about.

1. Internet Explorer 9.0 18.40%
2. Chrome 26.0.1410.64 13.07%
3. Internet Explorer 8.0 10.79%
4. Safari 6.0 10.13%
5. Internet Explorer 10.0 9.79%
6. Firefox 20.0 7.53%
7. Android Browser 4.0 3.58%
8. Safari (in-app) (not set) 1.51%
9. Firefox 16.0.1 1.50%
10. Internet Explorer 7.0 1.46%

Re:Meh

[Blaskowicz]

What auto-update? it only updates when I type apt-get upgrade, and it does so silently.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine, since Firefox users won't care about your site if you don't even test it on their browser. No need to support the users that don't care about your site because you don't care about them.

Re:Meh

[Desler]

Hate to break it to you but you're wrong.

March 2013 figures:

StatCounter: Chrome: 38%. Firefox: 20.9%. Safari: 8.5%.
Wikimedia: Chrome: 44.0%. Firefox: 18.2%. Safari: 3.2%.
W3Counter: Chrome: 30.3%. Firefox 19.3%. Safari: 16.3%.
NetApplications: Chrome: 16.5%. Firefox: 20.2%. Safari: 5.3%.
Clicky: Chrome: 35.8%. Firefox: 21.3%. Safari: 9.5%

From the Wikipedia page on browser usage share. April stats doesn't have Wikimedia or NetApplcations but the figures still don't back you up for what is there.

Re:Meh

[oodaloop]

And when the trees move back and forth, that's what causes the wind.

Re:Meh

[KingMotley]

And here I thought it was caused by clueless people spouting hot air.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you.

I do enjoy the warm breeze, but didn't realise you had the franchise.

carry on!

Re:Meh

[buddyglass]

I just googled "browser market share" and took the first link, which happened to be this one. It lists FF at 20.3%, Chrome at 16.35% and Safari at 5.38%. That seems to correspond to the "NetApplications" row on the wiki page, which, admittedly, has the least favorable estimate for Chrome.

Re:Meh

[nmr_andrew]

You might consider how many of your Internet Explorer visitors are using something else and spoofing the user agent... Although I do think this is getting less common.

Re:Meh

[vandamme]

That's the problem with apathy. Nobody cares.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

It autoupdates about a week or two after the release date. It doesn't autoupdate initially so that any bugs still lying around can be solved before the majority of the populace gets the new version.

multiple social providers on the desktop

[Deep Esophagus]

Remember when Firefox used to be a web browser? I liked it when it was a web browser.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when Mozilla Seamonkey, a full kitchen sink web suite, was faster and more efficient with memory than the "lean web browser" Mozilla Firefox?

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked it when it was pheonix, and the other choices were mozilla or IE.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

I updated after reading this, and I have no idea what a "social provider on the desktop" means. I see no change in Firefox.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[i kan reed]

I don't have any social features in my firefox. What? Do you just install every plugin every website you visit suggests to you?

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Remember when firefox wasn't trying to complete in some stupid version race, and just tried to be the best browser it could possibly be?
I miss that too.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Mike Frett]

You know what idiotic thing they did? They combined Download and Web History. So since FF20, when you clear one, they both go. The reason they give is because Options such as that are hard to maintain. BS. Not to mention that silly, huge, Download dialog. Are they trying to scare people away or what?.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[raburton]

> They combined Download and Web History. So since FF20, when you clear one, they both go.

Really? Mine doesn't do that. I've cleared my download history many times and still have >6 months of web history.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Barefoot Monkey]

I just cleared my download history from Firefox 21. My browser history is still there.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[hduff]

Remember when Firefox used to be a web browser? I liked it when it was a web browser.

Isn't that kind of bloat what happened to Netscape?

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[VGPowerlord]

I don't have any social features in my firefox. What?

The Firefox release notes say you're wrong.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

"social provider on the desktop" means they got paid fat stacks of cash to send usage data to company-that-will-not-be-named.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[i kan reed]

Sort of? It looks like it's automatically supported plug-ins you have to activate from the relevant web-page. You wouldn't see them unless you said "activate it" or whatever dumb link exists on the page.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

I liked it when it was pheonix, and the other choices were mozilla or IE.

You just hurt the feelings of my copy of Lynx. Well, it's still waiting for 'feelings' to be added in an update, but I'm sure it will be right after image support.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[caspy7]

Firefox just comes with the Social API, as with addon APIs, you have to install something, otherwise it's just potential.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[HideyoshiJP]

If you click the download arrow, then click "Show All Downloads," it'll bring the Downloads History window up. You can then just right-click and click "Clear Downloads." It'll keep your web history. The only difference is it's now many more clicks than in the olden days. Kind of annoying, really.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, Firefox was much better before the dumb asses running the team decided to copy chrome on pretty much everything. If I wanted to use Chrome, I would just use Chrome, I don't need them to have version a million and I don't need them to copy features from other browsers unless they're actually good features.

That stupid ribbon inspired UI was never a good idea. For a desktop application.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of, but Firefox isn't bloated, it has lower memory utilization than any of the other major browsers. Where it tends to fail is that it is more susceptible to scripts causing lag and freezes than other browsers, because they aren't using individual processes per tab.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[OhSoLaMeow]

I liked it better when it was Mosaic and the other choices were ... nothing.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[H0p313ss]

Firefox just comes with the Social API, as with addon APIs, you have to install something, otherwise it's just potential.

There you go again, bringing logic and reason to an emotional argument. Won't somebody think of the delusional paranoids!

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing marketing, i.e. the fact that Firefox bumps up the major version number (to compete with Google bumping the major revision number with incremental additions which caters to the unenlightened, uninitiated, lay people, the misinformed, etc., etc.) with what's essentially a *minor* feature.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[jazzis]

Firefox just comes with the Social API, as with addon APIs, you have to install something, otherwise it's just potential.

There you go again, bringing logic and reason to an emotional argument. Won't somebody think of the delusional paranoids!

Too funny, and real true too! Please mod up!

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they say you're a tool.
They are providing new *APIs* for social feature plugins to use *if you decide to install them*

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when firefox wasn't trying to complete in some stupid version race, and just tried to be the best browser it could possibly be?

I miss that too.

Remember how impatient people were about Firefox 4 being delayed again and again, asking why they wouldn't just release it. Remember the complaints that the new versions changed too many things at once?

I don't miss that either.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[cthulhu11]

I miss having cut/paste work. I really don't know WTF they were thinking when they broke that.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[billstewart]

Lynx is a stripped-down browser, without enough artificial intelligence capability to have "feelings". EMACS, on the other hand? Sure, it's just meta-x-cokebottle and RMS's your uncle.

Re:multiple social providers on the desktop

[Deep Esophagus]

Yup, exactly. {grumble, grumble} so why does yours get +4 insightful and mine was modded down as a troll? Oh, you fickle moderators... I wan't trolling; I was seriously expressing concerns that Firefox is no longer just trying to be the best browser but has become encumbered with a ton of cruft like "social provider" nonsense.

Firebug is awesome

[schneidafunk]

Firebug is a good reason to use it. I don't really understand your justification for not testing web design in Firefox, considering it has a decent following.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[DogDude]

Firebug is a good reason to use it.

Not really, since the same functionality is built into Chrome.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[master_kaos]

while this is true, I do find firebug easier to use.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer to not use Chrome and limit my exposure to Google. I draw the line at them seeing all my email, all my web searches, and >50% of all my web traffic, through their various ad divisions & the 'we won't peek' analytics service.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[ddd0004]

If your development involves working with cookies, Firebug totally beats the Chrome development tools. With Firebug, I can edit a cookie with a click, filter them, set breakpoints on the cookie so you can see when it is modified. Chrome pretty much lets me view them and delete them individually and that's it. Chrome development tools are still very useful, but I think Firebug totally outclasses it.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Firebug does things Chrome's inspector doesn't do, and vice versa. It's worth having both tools to test with, especially if you work on a variety of projects. It's hardly worth getting "religious" about it, because both environments are free. But I suppose if you MUST pretend one is better than the other, go ahead.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Firebug is a good reason to use it.

Not really, since the same functionality is built into Chrome.

No, no it's not.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[pspahn]

A bit moot, but in general, web developers need to be familiar with the debug tools provided by all of the browsers. If you use Firebug mainly, there are times when you'll need to use CDT (Chrome Dev Tools) instead, or the incredibly feature rich and UI-tastic IE debugging stuff.

So yeah, not only did we get stuck having to support various browsers on the front-end; in order to do so, we are forced to learn multiple development platforms as well.

I mainly use CDT, but I will attest that IE's debug tools are used the second most frequently.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[BitZtream]

And safari as well.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could stop being a moron and learn how to use computers.

You can disable every single "spying" thing that you paranoid freaks cry about and have been able to since 0.3.
I know this as a fact as I still have 0.3 on this computer and checked to be sure.

Or you could be a bigger moron and use SRWare Iron.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[anasciiman]

Every time this topic comes up, someone like you mentions how you can disable every single "spying" thing... but fail to provide specific details about how/where to do so. Occasionally, they'll tell you to "google it" or "look it up yourself." I find that very curious.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I presume you're referring to IE10, because I debug on IE9 frequently and the dev tools there are still nothing to write home about. Firebug's the best of the bunch overall, but is a bit more sluggish than Firefox or Chrome's native dev tools (not that it matters much). "Forced to learn multiple development platforms" is utter hyperbole.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[cyber-vandal]

The IE10 ones are a bit less shit but still shit. I think he was being sarcastic.

Re:Firebug is awesome

[Wraithlyn]

Another great reason to use Firefox during development is it's the only one (at least among FF, Safari, and Chrome) that can shrink down all the way to 320px (and narrower), which is important for Responsive Design/Mobile... everything else seems to stop at 400px.

It also has Responsive Design View, which is a godsend for precise info & control of viewport dimensions.

I used to love Firebug and hated Chrome Inspector, but am now the complete opposite. ;)

Re:Firebug is awesome

[geek]

Every time this topic comes up, someone like you mentions how you can disable every single "spying" thing... but fail to provide specific details about how/where to do so. Occasionally, they'll tell you to "google it" or "look it up yourself." I find that very curious.

http://www.chromium.org/Home

You're welcome

Re:Firebug is awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

They are actually not :(
Thats why I installed firebug lite for IE yesterday.

No. .Just No.

[kernelpanicked]

You guys have fun with that. Firefox 17 is still kickin along just fine here.

Re:No. .Just No.

[denzacar]

The only reason I'm running an 8.01 at the moment of is because I couldn't be bothered to track down a 5.0 version at the time of the installation.
Which still works just fine on my old box.

Re:No. .Just No.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just stole all your bitcoins, thanks.

Re:No. .Just No.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is so last week.

Re:No. .Just No.

[nullchar]

Pffft 8.x. Firefox 3.6 with TabKit rocks! (Well, it's pretty slow executing javascript and manipulating large DOM trees, but the side-tabs with grouping, indenting, coloring, bookmarking, searching are priceless.)

Re:No. .Just No.

[_bug_]

What are your concerns with Firefox 21 versus 17?

Is it the social api? That was introduced in 17 so you already have it. And it can be disabled in about:config, just search for "social.enabled".

Is it the health report? You can disable that as well either through the advanced tab under preferences or through about.config, just search for "healthreport".

Re:No. .Just No.

[smooth wombat]

Why should one have to disable these things? Why are they not turned off by default? Isn't that the mantra of the FOSS community, "Let me decide!"?

Or are we giving the Mozilla group a pass despite their continuing plunge into bloat and unnecessary cruft because they're Mozilla?

Re:No. .Just No.

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole gosh darned browser can be reprogrammed in about:config

about:config is a massive crutch and a heavily overplayed get-out-of-jail-free card for the versioneers over at Mozilla Inc.

Re:No. .Just No.

[raburton]

> What are your concerns with Firefox 21 versus 17?
> Is it the social api? Is it the health report?

I don't think it's anything this sensible, I think it's just the version number. I don't really understand what issue people have with it, but that seems to be what's exciting most people. If they just versioned the new releases as point releases there wouldn't be half as many comments to this story. I think having mostly small incremental changes in new full version numbers has really upset some people's sense of normal software conventions and their brains have melted.

Re:No. .Just No.

[pLnCrZy]

Why should one have to disable these things? Why are they not turned off by default? Isn't that the mantra of the FOSS community, "Let me decide!"?

If you can disable them, how are you not given a choice?

Your disagreeing with their default state is not equivalent to not having a choice.

Re:No. .Just No.

[LordLimecat]

If anyone ever asks "why do people still run IE 6", I would like to present Exhibit A.

Re:No. .Just No.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Social is disabled by default.

Re:No. .Just No.

[Anonymous Coward]

firefox 3.6 was the last good version, all downhill since then, think of it in terms of can openers, the old ones worked.

Re:No. .Just No.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not the version numbers. The version numbers are irritating but they don't slow me down. The real problem is the BLOAT. All the new versions since fast release are all about bloat. There is not one extra feature they added I like. On every new firefox installs I need to disable a binch of about:config settings and it's getting annoying.

All I want is a FF fork with all the optimization and bug fixes but none of the new crap. I think it's time to fork this project AGAIN. The problem is that FF is still the best browser for it's plugins and it's flexibility. It has just gotten way too fat lately.

Re:No. .Just No.

[kvvbassboy]

Nope, it's not the mantra of FOSS community. FOSS is about software licenses not "Let me decide!".

Re:No. .Just No.

[RocketRabbit]

Neither, it's all about money. The Mozilla Foundation is given "donations" in order to implement features that make you easier to track and monetize. Why do you think that Adblock isn't an official Mozilla subproject? Why isn't that functionality enabled by default?

Look at who gives money to Mozilla and your answers are right there.

Re:No. .Just No.

[fahrbot-bot]

Is it the health report? You can disable that as well either through the advanced tab under preferences or through about.config, just search for "healthreport".

The "Enable Firefox Health Report" only en/disables uploading the data to Mozilla. To disable data collection, set the config setting "datareporting.healthreport.service.enabled" to false. To clear already recorded data, delete the "healthreport.sqlite" file under your profile folder.

Re:No. .Just No.

[Anonymous Coward]

IE6 sucks very hard compared to subsequent versions, the inverse is the case with firefox.

Re:No. .Just No.

[kcbnac]

You can update and keep TabKit:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tabkit-2nd-edition/

(If that is what was holding you back; the original dev disappeared so someone forked it and has kept it current)

Re:No. .Just No.

[UltraZelda64]

I agree actually, but I guess you could always try SeaMonkey. It supports a lot of Firefox extensions, and it still seems to have some sanity. I just can't go back to the older Netscape/Mozilla-style preferences window, but it's certainly not a bad browser. IMO Firefox should have been forked by the end of the 2.x series, or 3.6.x series at the latest. Firefox and Mozilla itself have been on a steady, sharp decline in sanity for years now.

Re:No. .Just No.

[geek]

I just tried Firefox again after a year + on Chrome. I genuinely wanted Firefox to be better but it wasn't. In two days it corrupted its cache 3 times, forcing me to manually clear it. It choked on all of my google cookies and wouldn't allow me to login to gmail until I googled the answer (manually clearing all of my cookies as well as cache). On top of that the sync barfed all over the place when I added a third machine and and somehow the plugins I had loaded, specifically lastpass, ended up taking a shit on all over the place because sync broke.

I'm sorry but Firefox is a piece of shit. It was cool 10 years ago but Mozilla hasn't done a fucking thing worth mentioning in years now. It's only getting worse too with FirefoxOS and Rust. There is no leadership at Mozilla and they are slipping into irrelevancy quickly.

Re:No. .Just No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox (Phoenix, Firebird) was all "like Mozilla/SeaMonkey, but bloat-free and rewritten from the ground up to be lean and mean!" Aaaaaand now it feels like time to start fresh again. History, doomed to repeat, etc.

Re:No. .Just No.

[hairyfeet]

I moved my users over to Comodo Dragon a couple of years back when it became obvious that FF cared more about bling than security by refusing to implement low rights mode for their browser. Low rights mode would help not just the Windows users but could be integrated with AppArmor if they wanted but the fact is it really looks like Moz don't care, its all about bling and mobile now.

At the end of the day they can't get around the fact that the browser is the single biggest attack vector on any PC and that running the browser in the same level of permissions as the user is just fricking DUMB. best practices should ALWAYS go for the least permissions required to do the task at hand but while Chromium added support for LRM less than 6 months after it came out the fact that its been 6 years and still no LRM in Firefox really is inexcusable.

Just look up the article i wrote in my Journal about the Yahoo porn bug about why running a browser in the same permissions level as the user is a BAD IDEA, its a perfect example of why LRM is an important security feature as that attack does not work on any browser with LRM, even IE, it ONLY works on Firefox because FF has too high a level of permissions. So while I wish the FF users nothing but luck until they have LRM I simply cannot in good conscience recommend using FF.

Re:No. .Just No.

[DerPflanz]

I think having mostly small incremental changes in new full version numbers has really upset some people's sense of normal software conventions and their brains have melted.

It is amazing that these so-called "smart people" and "nerds" here on slashdot cannot grasp just a different way of numbering things. I have been amazed about that before, the nerd community is extremely conservative. Every innovation or new idea is bad at first and has a really hard time getting adjusted to.

For me, the numbering scheme Firefox uses is actually easier. Firefox is "done". Every feature they add or list of bugs they find is grouped together and lumped into a new version. That new version will be oldversion+1. It is extremely simple. You see this in many other software projects, the Linux kernel being one as well. It will probably never see 4.x (and if it does, it will be arbitrary, like the 3.x release). Java is doing it, Internet Explorer is doing it, hardware like iPhone is doing it, Ubuntu is doing it. All these things are "done" and upgrading won't (shouldn't) break anything.

Software development follows a asymptotic line; in the beginning many things change and there is the need to subclasses updates (using major.minor.build), later in the lifecycle of the project, changes are smaller or less intrusive. There simple is no need to have such large granularity in version numbers.

Hell, I don't even know which version of Firefox or the Linux kernel I am using. Everything just works and I hardly see any changes after an update.

Re:No. .Just No.

[Ash-Fox]

In two days it corrupted its cache 3 times, forcing me to manually clear it. It choked on all of my google cookies and wouldn't allow me to login to gmail until I googled the answer (manually clearing all of my cookies as well as cache). On top of that the sync barfed all over the place when I added a third machine and and somehow the plugins I had loaded, specifically lastpass, ended up taking a shit on all over the place because sync broke.

Why don't I experience your problems on Firefox?

Re:No. .Just No.

[Ash-Fox]

Why didn't you take the more secure approach and use a tool like sandboxie?

Re:No. .Just No.

[hairyfeet]

Because I need tools that any home and SMB user can use easily and SanboxIE ain't that tool, it just ain't. And why would i want to go to the trouble of downloading some other program just to make up for the fact that the FF devs are shitty when it comes to security, when I can give them any Chromium based browser instead and just be done with it?

I also don't see why you'd think SandboxIE would be more secure than Low Rights mode, with LRM the browser is running at lower than even a standard user and with Adblock Plus and the optional Secure DNS that comes with Dragon frankly I haven't seen a single infection on any customer's PCs that use it, in fact all they need me for is hardware upgrades because without having the browser open as an attack vector its pretty damned hard to infect Win 7.

Oh and FYI but if you just absolutely positively have to run FF for some reason I'd argue that using Comodo IceDragon (The Comodo spinoff of FF) with the free Comodo Internet Security would be the better way to go as not only does it sandbox like SandboxIE but it also does scan before load on every webpage and will stop those with malware from even loading.

Re:No. .Just No.

[Jahta]

Because I need tools that any home and SMB user can use easily and SanboxIE ain't that tool, it just ain't. And why would i want to go to the trouble of downloading some other program just to make up for the fact that the FF devs are shitty when it comes to security, when I can give them any Chromium based browser instead and just be done with it?

You do know that if your home of SMB user is running as a privileged user you are screwed anyway? LRM is indeed a best practice, but it should be applied at user level. If the user can write to system areas, interfere with system processes, etc. it's already game over.

Re:No. .Just No.

[Ash-Fox]

Because I need tools that any home and SMB user can use easily and SanboxIE ain't that tool, it just ain't.

Why not? I thought you were meant to be an experienced IT person, doing something like System Center Configuration Management should be trivial for you.

And why would i want to go to the trouble of downloading some other program just to make up for the fact that the FF devs are shitty when it comes to security, when I can give them any Chromium based browser instead and just be done with it?

Because you're relying on just the security provided through the browser, when you could limit the browser's capability from effecting the entire OS.

I also don't see why you'd think SandboxIE would be more secure than Low Rights mode

Why do you keep capitalizing IE in sandboxie? It's nothing to do with IE.

Say some escalation exploit is used, the exploit code has direct access registry, files on the system. Sandboxie avoids that entirely because the environment is virtualized too. It also does not suffer vulnerability issue where a plugin can effect the entire system (like the Java applet exploits that effect Chrome too).

So far, from your response, I don't think you researched the software at all.

frankly I haven't seen a single infection on any customer's PCs that use it

Says the experienced IT guy that doesn't know how to use "System Center Configuration Management" trivially. Yeah, I don't think I'll trust your 'security' audits, I actually doubt you do them.

Oh and FYI but if you just absolutely positively have to run FF for some reason

I don't care what browser is being used, I find it ridiculous to be concerned about browser security and then to not actually implement something like sandboxie, considering the attack vectors are still completely capable via commonly used plugins, especially when you're bringing in users that you imply through your use of the words 'any home and SMB user' are not technically literate and therefore likely to click 'yes' to various security prompts despite the dangers.

Re:No. .Just No.

[Luckyo]

FF's developers' mantra has been "you'll take it and you'll like it!" ever since 4.0.

Oookkkaaayyy....

[magic maverick]

You know, I feel like I only just upgraded to Firefox 20. In fact, there hasn't even been a 20.1 yet. I really like Firefox, I do. Some of the new web development tools (which I've only just discovered) are really nice. But, to be frank, apart from those, I can't tell the difference between 18, and 20. And looking at the changelog, I can't see anything that says, "I'm a major new version that breaks compatibility with previous versions".

So, I want to ask again (and I'm beating a horse that is not only dead, but buried, and decomposed, with only a few bones and other hard items left), what's the point of these fast track updates?

Many of the new features (e.g. the web developer tools and the Social API (only useful for people who actually use "social websites", i.e. not me)) would be better off as plugins. Instead, Mozilla should be focusing on things that actually improve both the user experience and the safety of browsing the web. So, perhaps blocking third party cookies by default, building in a simplified RequestPolicy-like tool (with a blacklist of ad networks and trackers), and maybe even improve the shitty bookmark system. But no, they want to improve the Social API.

I'll continue to use Firefox, it's better than the alternatives. But it's the plugins that really make it better, not the superfast increase the numbers (and hide useful UI - luckily that can be fixed with plugins).

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[gman003]

The point was supposed to be that one of the three version numbers wasn't really being used - the first number changed maybe twice, while major updates were just bumping up the second digit over and over.

However, as you've pointed out, now they've started ignoring the second digit, going straight from 20.0.1 to 21.0.0. So nothing's really changed at all.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[tlhIngan]

But, to be frank, apart from those, I can't tell the difference between 18, and 20. And looking at the changelog, I can't see anything that says, "I'm a major new version that breaks compatibility with previous versions".

FF20 added that horrendous download box, for starters...

Of course, you can revert it back to the more sane old download list by setting browser.download.useToolkitUI to TRUE.

It isn't that hard to miss in FF20. Not sure what UI breakage they did in 21, though.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't win browser wars developing toward you and me, you win my developing for them. *shudder*

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[godrik]

I am taking the debian approach to it. Apparently, I am using firefox 10.0.12

And you know what, I so much do not care which firefox I am using...

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

They did it to catch up to Chrome's high version numbers and give the illusion of a more mature product.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it really matter if its name is 20.1 or 21?

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[globalist]

Thanks for the "browser.download.useToolkitUI" tip! The new download box was truly horrendous. And LOL @ "UI breakage" - because that's really the only thing they're good at nowadays at Mozilla.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell the difference between 18, and 20. And looking at the changelog, I can't see anything that says, "I'm a major new version that breaks compatibility with previous versions". So, I want to ask again (and I'm beating a horse that is not only dead, but buried, and decomposed, with only a few bones and other hard items left), what's the point of these fast track updates?

According to what a Firefox dev told me in a previous /. thread, it is technically impossible for them to release the same set of patches as anything other than a major-version upgrade. The build process and the version numbering are tied together such that they literally can not package and release a new version of the software without giving it a new major version number. The build process is incapable of supporting minor version numbers, patch levels, and milestones. I don't buy it, but that's one excuse that they've used.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[magic maverick]

The first number says "I'm incompatible with previous versions", which in Firefox's case, probably should mean with regards to plugins and extensions. So, if there's no need to increase it, don't! The second number, that's for additional functionality, and various changes that don't break compatibility, and the third number is for patches (bug fixes).

It's also plausible to upgrade the first number for major rewrites, or other major changes in the software's life cycle. A change from a SGML/XML based renderer to a HTML5 based one could justify a major version increase.

But it's "keeping up with the Jones'" versioning isn't it. Chrome has auto-updating and silly numbers, and so Firefox needs to have them to; to keep being "relevant".

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Cochonou]

There is supposed to be an important new feature in Firefox 21 (which was not talked about in the summary): h.264 playback with system codecs enabled by default. It is present in Firefox 20, but needed to be enabled manually through about:config.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[rudy_wayne]

According to what a Firefox dev told me in a previous /. thread, it is technically impossible for them to release the same set of patches as anything other than a major-version upgrade. The build process and the version numbering are tied together such that they literally can not package and release a new version of the software without giving it a new major version number. The build process is incapable of supporting minor version numbers, patch levels, and milestones. I don't buy it, but that's one excuse that they've used.

What a load of shit. Why is there a version 3.6.23? They never had a problem with minor version numbers for the entire history of Firefox. Now all of a sudden they have a problem.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[olivebridge]

I can't tell the difference between 18, and 20...So, I want to ask again (and I'm beating a horse that is not only dead, but buried, and decomposed, with only a few bones and other hard items left), what's the point of these fast track updates?

I was happy when Firefox 19 added its own PDF reader like Chrome did long ago. Now Firefox is the default PDF reader on my machine -- I uninstalled Adobe Reader.

At some point recently Firefox made insecure plugins (Flash when outdated, for example) click-to-play by default, which is also nice.

I guess the point is that after the ~6 month wait between Firefox 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. now we no longer have to wait half a year for these small but helpful new features. Security patches are going to happen regularly (monthly?) anyway, so now Mozilla just bundles new features along with the patches.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Bengie]

I can't tell the difference between 18, and 20...what's the point of these fast track updates?

Many small updates allows them to keep adding features without causing huge breaking changes. It gives everyone enough time to implement the new ways before the old ways are dropped.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

The first number says "I'm incompatible with previous versions"

Every single company/project/whatever out there has its own way of what that means. Even linux for the longest time resisted calling itself 1.0 even though it was pretty ready by .98. When the reality is they had released ~200 different versions. I have run projects both ways. You know what? Most real people get Y > X. The second you start attributing meaning to the version numbers it goes crazy and everyone wants to change the meaning. Hours of meetings about what the 4th place means.

The only things I care about is 'do I have the latest version' 'can I tell if this version is the latest version'. 1 number sure makes that a hell of a lot easier.

The next version (or is it the one after this) is the one I am interested in. With their new ION JS compiler. Also I do not have to wait 2 years before I will see it. It is 6 months at most out. Less if I am willing to use the beta version.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[hduff]

Thanks for the "browser.download.useToolkitUI" tip! The new download box was truly horrendous.

What good is a browser that makes you use about:config to undo all the "improvements"?

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[The Mighty Buzzard]

You know, you're absolutely right. I'm swearing off Firefox. Which browser did you say was as user-configurable as Firefox again?

Until Mozilla's douchebaggery rises to the level of anyone else's, we're all going to sit right here and take the ass-fuckings Moz keeps handing out every few months.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Fuck winning, I just want a browser that does what the fuck I tell it to.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

The first number says "I'm incompatible with previous versions"

Every single company/project/whatever out there has its own way of what that means.

Nope, that's been a standard for decades, with a few oddball outliers. The children took over the ranch at Mozilla though.

[ ] No Karma Bonus [X] Post Animositily

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[ssam]

gstreamer support has been there (but disabled by default) since fedora 14. on gentoo you just add gstreamer to your use flags and you can watch h.264.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox has been steadily improving it's under-the-hood tech as well. Never forget that. The plugins are handy, but the browser itself is improving, almost in leaps and bounds.

Just because there are teams at Mozilla who work on less routine stuff doesn't mean they're ignoring the basic browser. Far from it, they're hard at work making the core browsing experience vastly better than it was a year or two ago.

Besides, the major version number of a browser doesn't matter much anymore. This could be called Firefox 3.7.13 instead of 21, and the end result would be the same. It's not the numbers, it's the frequency of releases, right?

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[InvisiBill]

What good is a browser that makes you use about:config to undo all the "improvements"?

It's better than a browser that doesn't give you a way to undo all the "improvements".

I don't expect any browser to ever match exactly what I want, short of rolling my own. However, it's rare to find something with Firefox that can't be changed via a simple plugin or even just a setting in about:config. While Firefox may not be exactly what I want right out of the box, its configuration options allow me to turn it into exactly what I want (or pretty darn close).

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to ask here but

The drop down to ask if remember passwords used to be must less intrusive (was a bar at the top of the page). How it's a balloon dialog that covers parts of the page. Is there something in about:config to change that back?

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[KingMotley]

Yup, works great so far too. Now I can finally drop all the other crap. No more transcoding all the videos to three different formats! YAY

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[KingMotley]

The firefox PDF reader is horrible!

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[JDG1980]

I was happy when Firefox 19 added its own PDF reader like Chrome did long ago. Now Firefox is the default PDF reader on my machine -- I uninstalled Adobe Reader.

I'd be happy if Firefox's PDF reader actually worked. On 90% of the PDFs I open, I get a message saying some parts of the document may not display properly. Sometimes it actually displays right, sometimes it doesn't, but it's always dog-slow compared even to Adobe Reader (hardly a speed demon). Writing a PDF reader in JavaScript was a terrible idea; they should have used one of the many existing reader engines written in a real programming language.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

As a web dev, I had the opposite reaction. Chrome's PDF reader supports javascript and prints separately from browser settings like a PDF reader should. Firefox's didn't, and they didn't provide a way to detect whether it was running or whether PDF viewer was. It was released half baked, and that's why they had to put the "View in a different reader" button at the top of any page with embedded PDFs.

Firefox 22 should finally fix these issues... but why they couldn't have kept the PDF reader as the default until it was ready, I don't know. It seems to me like FF is trying to be Chrome, but worse.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's "keeping up with the Jones'" versioning isn't it. Chrome has auto-updating and silly numbers, and so Firefox needs to have them to; to keep being "relevant".

Difference being...Chrome isn't rubbing it in my face when it updates that I am Running The Latest And Greatest. I didn't even know what version I had until just now when I looked in the about box.

Wow! Chrome version 26! Largely irrelevant as my browsing experience remains unchanged since uhh... Chrome 1. Oh but I have Adblock now, I guess that's different.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[caspy7]

Firefox used to have the kitchen sink of preference windows. You could tweak to your heart's content.
Course back then it was called the Mozilla Suite.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[tlhIngan]

However, it's rare to find something with Firefox that can't be changed via a simple plugin or even just a setting in about:config.

There's one that's been bugging me since 14 or 15 though - autocomplete no longer autocompletes deep URLs - it only goes up to the domain. Which is annoying if you have a particularly favorite long URL (like a search), or access a server on another port (no, it doesn't autocomplete ports, either). Sure, the one you want is there - just down arrow enter, but that's annoying.

Haven't found a way to revert it back to autocomplete from history yet including the full URL.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[UltraZelda64]

So, I want to ask again (and I'm beating a horse that is not only dead, but buried, and decomposed, with only a few bones and other hard items left), what's the point of these fast track updates?

It's a number-counting game with Google--that's pretty much it. They seem to be trying to play a game of "who can count to a hundred and need a new version system and/or product name the fastest."

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[UltraZelda64]

The old download window was horrendous too. People actually use that? I usually download files with wget, but I never use a copy of Firefox without the Download Statusbar extension. As far as I can tell, they replaced a shit interface with another shit interface; they didn't really improve anything.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[UltraZelda64]

Firefox is a web browser, in my opinion the built-in PDF reader is completely unnecessary bloat. That update automatically changed *my* preferences without my permission, requiring me to dick around in the preferences for a minute or so to switch the default PDF viewer back to Evince.

On Windows, what is the point in using Adobe Reader anyway (unless you really want to deal with the bloat and security holes)? Okay, so these days FoxIt Reader also sucks so it's probably also out of the question, but what's wrong with SumatraPDF and even the Windows version of Evince? And don't say that they have PDF loading/rendering issues, because as others have already said, the Firefox PDF viewer is just crammed with these problems, more than any viewer I've used recently; it is absolutely horrible.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom's horrible.

See how baseless an accusation that is? Now stop doing that.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't be so bad if they would render the next pages while looking at a different one. Instead, they make you wait until you actually look at it. I usually start by scrolling through all the pages so they will all render before I read so that way most are done by the time I get to them. Any normal reader would start on each page in the background so that way if I spend 20 minutes on one page, I then don't have to look at any spinning wheels on the next one. Now, if Firefox already does that, then my response is HOLY CRAP!!! WHY DOES IT TAKE SO LONG TO RENDER!?

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Trogre]

I don't get why all the hate for something as inane as a download box.

Now removing the protocol from URLs, that is downright irresponsible though it like many other regressions can thankfully be reversed in about:config (TrimURLs=false in this case).

Other regressions are not so easily fixed; the braindead decision to remove the status bar for example needs an extension (status4evar) to fix.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

Now stop doing that.

Why?

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

Which browser did you say was as user-configurable as Firefox again?

SeaMonkey.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Ash-Fox]

SeaMonkey [seamonkey-project.org].

How do I configure browser.download.manager.quitBehavior like in Firefox?

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Ash-Fox]

Does it really matter if its name is 20.1 or 21?

It does, because 20.1 was the previous version, naming it an identical version would break things and confuse people.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[nmr_andrew]

No, it's not horrible, it's far, FAR worse than that.

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

The same way as you do it in Firefox.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.download.manager.quitBehavior

Has an effect in

• Firefox (nightly builds since 2008-01-26)
• SeaMonkey 2.0b1 and newer

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.oxymoronical.com/blog/2013/05/Firefox-now-ships-with-the-add-on-SDK the higher the version number, the less breakage with every new version, in my experience

Re:Oookkkaaayyy....

[readingaccount]

Indeed.

I have a text file which contains a list of changes to make in about:config upon a fresh install of Firefox (or a fresh profile). I've noticed this list has been gradually increasing every so often, generally after 2 or 3 new versions of Firefox. There aren't too many changes - ones that come to mind are to reverse the download box as was mentioned, while another one is to remove the default action trimming the protocol http and the trailing slash behind the domain name.

I'm sure there are reasons for all the changes - mostly to reduce confusion for non-tech minded individuals. I just don't agree with them and appreciate that I can reverse them easily enough. For others that were removed entirely (like a persistent status bar), extensions fix the rest.

We need an alternative/fork

[Anonymous Coward]

I am seriously tired of all the new crap that they keep adding to FF. On new installations I must spend a good amount of time turning stuff off. Most of the features I turn off would be better in an extension or at leasr off by default.

We badly need a need a new Firefox. It's still the best of all the browsers because you can actually tweak it but the defaults are getting out of hands.

Almost everything that the foundation added since version 4 was not wanted.

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[Anonymous Coward]

And it should focus only on being the best web browser around; lean, mean and fast. Anything not needed for basic browsing can be provided by extensions. We could call it Phoenix! No wait, that's the name of a database program isn't it.

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[Anonymous Coward]

We badly need a need a new Firefox.

Give 'em a chance, 21 is only just out. I'll be a few more weeks till the new Firefox (22) is available.

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[Anonymous Coward]

We could name it after Crom from Conan. Worshipers of Crom claim that he grants his followers strength and endurance and has little patience for weakness. We would call it Cromium.

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[rudy_wayne]

I am seriously tired of all the new crap that they keep adding to FF. On new installations I must spend a good amount of time turning stuff off. Most of the features I turn off would be better in an extension or at leasr off by default.

That's the irony of Firefox. They remove features that people actually find useful, forcing people to create extensions to get the feature back, while at the same time add new useless features that should be implemented as extensions.

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[Anonymous Coward]

Since version 4? What? You'd rather have the old, crufty HTML parser and rendering system? You'd rather not have hardware-acceleration? You'd rather not have the new, faster and more efficient Javascript engines? HTML5 video's a no-go? What about the massive memory and stability and security improvements? No out of process plugins? No improved font rendering? No restartless addons?

Why does everyone cry and stomp their feet about new features they won't use anyway, then conveniently ignore all the really awesome work Mozilla does under the hood? Because they're too lazy to read the more detailed changelogs, I guess?

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[Microlith]

Such as?

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[Anonymous Coward]

They remove features that people actually find useful, forcing people to create extensions to get the feature back, while at the same time add new useless features that should be implemented as extensions.

That's called "nurturing a vibrant developer community following".

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[mattventura]

For one, the status bar was removed.
As for potentially unwanted features that they added, it's stuff like the "switch to tab" feature of the address bar. If I wanted to switch to a tab, I would just click on the damn tab.

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[UltraZelda64]

PDF reader?

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[tepples]

So what should Firefox be doing instead to remind you that you do in fact happen to have that page open in a tab?

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[bill_mcgonigle]

If I wanted to switch to a tab, I would just click on the damn tab.

You have fewer than a thousand tabs open? (not every feature is for every user)

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[mattventura]

It shouldn't. If I want to open another tab of the same webpage, then I should be able to easily do so. If I wanted to switch back to that tab, I would switch back to that tab. It doesn't need to remind me of anything because my IQ is greater than 50.

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[Anonymous Coward]

A dancing jackass of a download window.

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[Trogre]

Switch to tab is indeed useless for a casual user, but is very useful when one has several hundred tabs open across several windows and wants to switch to a particular one quickly:

CTRL-T (opens a new blank tab)
Type slash
wait half a second
down-arrow to "Switch to Slashdot.org tab"
hit enter
new blank tab closes neatly
You're looking at Slashdot.org

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[mattventura]

But if I'm just trying to read slashdot, I'm perfectly fine with it opening another slashdot tab. Hell, it saves me the trouble of having to scroll back up and/or refresh the page (if I'm browsing a site that doesn't have JS to autoupdate it).

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[Trogre]

That's true, and I guess it's my fault for using such a simplistic example.

Suppose the URL is not one so simple. Like this thread for example, or any other page deep within its respective site. A partially filled in form, perhaps, or YouTube video running in the background.

Re:We need an alternative/fork

[mattventura]

By all means, it's a useful feature and should be an option, but it was just implemented poorly. Even if it was just "hold alt to activate switch-to-tab", it would be better than having to hold alt to disable the feature.

Does anyone honestly care?

[JustAnotherIdiot]

I remember the huge fanfare when Firefox 4 came out, we were on 3.x.x for ages.
That was what, 2 years ago now I think? And so now we've since had 17 new "versions", it maybe deserves to be 3, at best. My point here? /., we don't need an article every time a new version is released. You don't do this with chrome either, and for good reason.
They come out too frequently, with too few changes, and frankly very few people honestly care at this point.

Re: Does anyone honestly care?

[BambarbiaKirgudu]

In some situations 21 vs u21 matters.

Re:Does anyone honestly care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, faggot. Nobody cares about version numbers anymore.

Re: Does anyone honestly care?

[Anonymous Coward]

In some situations 21 vs u21 matters.

Like when you're trying to buy alcohol. As for the software, not so much.

Re:Does anyone honestly care?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was still on version 1.5 when version 6 was out.
Every version after it was terrible, and is still not particularly good now.
The one downside to 1.5 was obviously speed and lack of features compared to the other stuff I used at that point.

When an API supplier breaks their own damn API every release, you know when it is time to call it quits.
Survival of the fittest should never exist in the API universe.
People should write once and run it any version, it is trivial to support old code and support code that never supplied parameters to new functions by using default values if none were supplied.
Why the hell they feel the need to break everything constantly is beyond me. It is reaching levels as bad as PHP being a bad language is currently.
No wonder so many people jumped the hell out of those waters, I would probably have been on a train ready to assassinate if I was an extension writer.
Microsoft have better standards than that for crying out loud.
They seem to be calming down on constant API breaking changes recently though.

Re: Does anyone honestly care?

[BarbambiaKirgudu]

Like when you're trying to buy alcohol.

Yes, that was pretty much the substance of the joke above.

Re:Does anyone honestly care?

[VortexCortex]

My point here? /., we don't need an article every time a new version is released. ... frankly very few people honestly care at this point.

Of course very few people actually care: Only Nerds like me care about news like this. Who the hell do you think makes content for these platforms? Web Fairies?!

/me shakes his star tipped wand at you.
VortexCortex quit: [Off to make stuff that matters!]

Re:Does anyone honestly care?

[Anonymous Coward]

...They come out too frequently, with too few changes, ...

They should just tell us what they've screwed up this time and be done with it.

Re:Does anyone honestly care?

[Dan541]

Except the Firefox fanbois who are getting closer to their dream of reaching a higher version number than Chrome.

Report Generation Time?

[Anonymous Coward]

and how much does generating these reports affect the performance of firefox.

Update Fatigue

[SpaceManFlip]

Surely I can't be the only one who goes "SHUT UP NOT NOW" every time the last new version of Firefox goes to hollerin' "HEY FUCK THAT PAGE YOU WERE LOOKING AT A SUPER-CRUCIAL NEW UPDATE IS OUT"

blarg

Re:Update Fatigue

[wonkey_monkey]

You're not. Especially when the first "improvement" to be mentioned is "the addition of multiple social providers."

Re:Update Fatigue

[hduff]

You're not. Especially when the first "improvement" to be mentioned is "the addition of multiple social providers."

I read that as "multiple social diseases" and now it makes more sense to me.

Re:Update Fatigue

[guardian-ct]

I just restart firefox once in a while, and it updates then. Never seen Firefox hollerin' anything about updates. I've got it set to auto update though. Perhaps if you chose an option other than "Check for updates, but let me choose whether to install them" it'd be quiet. It's in Tools->options->advanced->updates.

If you're talking about the Flash plug-in update, that's a problem you can blame on Adobe for releasing something more insecure than IE. Talk about something that goes through more versions than Firefox.... that'd probably be it.

Re:Update Fatigue

[SpaceManFlip]

I don't generally allow anything to automatically download and install anything without my permission.

It's the old-fashioned philosophy that the user controls the computer, instead of the new-fangled Microsoft philosophy of "We Tell You What You Do Now"

Plus I have a few things here and there that don't work after certain things get updated, etc. Some things are never updated, and when they are more important than a browser update that breaks compatibility with the aforementioned mission-critical-dinosaur-app, the former takes precedent.

asm.js?

[Anonymous Coward]

All I want to know is, does it now support asm.js?

i wait

[geekymachoman]

I wait firefox v269.
I mean, what's not to like ? 269.. and in 20 years, my child is gonna speak about firefox 18057. Google will be at 20-30 k .. version.

What a bloody joke.

Re:i wait

[KingMotley]

They should just retire the version numbers, and just number them by the date and time they release it.

I'm running Firefox 20130514154005!

Social what on the what now?

[wonkey_monkey]

Improvements include the addition of multiple social providers on the desktop

On the desktop? Don't you mean "on the side of the Firefox window"?

bugs everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they fixed the bug on 15" retina MBP where you can select items from some menus only by pushing enter.

Still no support for TLS 1.1 / 1.2

[Aethedor]

And the only thing I really want in Firefox is *still* not there. But instead, more crap features.

Re:Still no support for TLS 1.1 / 1.2

[denis-The-menace]

( Clippit shows up)

Clippit : It seems you are trying to use an enterprise feature of the Web.
            Mozilla has stated that the enterprise is not there target audience.
            You should use Chrome which supports TLS 1.2 with graceful fail to TLS 1.1.

(Note: Just don't tell anybody that Chrome tracks your ass like it owns it)

Re:Still no support for TLS 1.1 / 1.2

[Aethedor]

Clippy?? Dude, you haven't updated your computer for too long. Get your ass of the web, right now!

Re:Still no support for TLS 1.1 / 1.2

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I didn't know that. I moved to Chrome a while ago because of basic instability (probably memory issues). I wouldn't recommend anyone use FireFox until the encryption is modernized.

Re:Still no support for TLS 1.1 / 1.2

[Anonymous Coward]

And PAC file support seems broken so I can't deploy it (version 20+) to laptops that are taken between home and work. Enterprises can go suck eggs it seems.

Re:Still no support for TLS 1.1 / 1.2

[Ash-Fox]

How is it broken?

Re:Still no support for TLS 1.1 / 1.2

[chuckinator]

Firefox gets its SSL/TLS support from the underlying NSS library (another Mozilla product), and TLS 1.1 support was added there in NSS 3.14 released on Dec 18, 2012, and NSS-3.14 is the most current version on my system. While the browse dev team needs to pick up the pace on their side of implementing support for it, it is now present in the crypto library.

Version 21

[loufoque]

Finally allowed to get drunk.

Re:Version 21

[steelfood]

The signs of impairment were present at 4. I suspect the abuse has been chronic since then.

Re:Version 21

[Anonymous Coward]

come to europe, where you can drink when you're 18.

Re:Version 21

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada, Firefox has been drunk since version 18!

Re:Version 21

[Reziac]

I'm waiting for Firefox Down, myself.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

You should consider installing the ESR version if you don't want to deal with the rapid upgrades. It is currently version 17.0.6. The "ESR channel" gets only security patches, no new features, until it reaches end of life after about a year, at which point you upgrade to the next ESR (Extended Support Release). Firefox version 3, 10, 17 (and future 24) are ESRs.

See http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq

Re: V21

[BambarbiaKirgudu]

... legally that is.

BTW the related news: "obviously" as a tit-for-tat move against Russians for expelling a US diplomat in Moscow earlier today, in DC NTSB proposed lowering drivers' legal blood alcohol content http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/.

cxo3k

[Anonymous Coward]

MOST. LOOK AT THE ops or any of the that they can hold

Revert to old download window

[InvisiBill]

FYI, you can revert to the old download window by setting the browser.download.useToolkitUI option to true in about:config. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/955204

Clear History?

[Anonymous Coward]

So. There's no option to clear browsing history or data in the menus anymore under OS X? Where I can do that now?!

Re:Clear History?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nvm... History -> Clear Recent History.

Firefox, caught between two worlds

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

One world is to implement Chrome like versioning.

The other world is to implement a Microsoft like need for making a grand entrance.

It's just a web browser, nobody gives a rat's ass what it does, that is why Google updates silently in the background without fuss.

It's the 21st century, web browsers do not need press releases anymore just like you don't need someone on the street corner announcing every hour of the day.

Re:Firefox, caught between two worlds

[candeoastrum]

As many applications become more web/cloud centric, I am thinking its going to matter more and more what version of browser you are running on. Chrome is great, its my browser of choice, but in the back of my mind I am always like, suppose I don't want to upgrade my browser or update my Nexus 7 to this version of Android?

Firefox 100 by next year?

[jonfr]

So it is going to be Firefox 100 by next year then?

Re:Firefox 100 by next year?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the release schedule, by next year we'll be on Firefox 29.

Re:Firefox 100 by next year?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but by the time Firefox hits 64 it might actually officially support 64-bit on Windows.

Re:Firefox 100 by next year?

[Anonymous Coward]

try dividing 52 weeks by six weeks

Re: prost

[BarbambiaKirgudu]

Is it too late to propose the 21st toast?

Now I feel old

[NoImNotNineVolt]

It seems like it was only yesterday that Firefox 3 was released to great fanfare after years and years of refinement.
To think, Firefox has come seven times farther now! Amazing!

On a more serious note, what the fuck is a "social provider on the desktop"? A philanthropist that runs in the root window?

Developer Changelog

[TheCycoONE]

As usual, most of the important changes are only listed in the Developer changelog: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox/Releases/21

Highlights include:
  element support
scoped attribute support for (allows a stylesheet to only apply to a particular element and it's children)
No more E4X
  improvements

Re:Developer Changelog

[TheCycoONE]

Ug... <main> element support
and <input type="time"> improvements.

Re:Developer Changelog

[LoneTech]

My favourite part of that changelog is "Firefox 21 hasn't reached its feature freeze yet."

And what about the plugins?

[ducomputergeek]

Recently I needed to find a plugin for a certain feature and remembered one for FF4 I used a while back. When to down load it on this new computer to find out the developer had stopped updating the plugin. The reason: these frequent updates didn't leave him enough time to continuously test and make sure it still worked with each version every few weeks. I searched for similar plugins and everyone I saw the author pretty much said the same thing. They had all discontinued development for FireFox because the release cycle was too quick.

Instead I ended up finding a plugin for Chrome and went with it. Frankly other than to test against FF and certain debugging. I don't use it that much anymore.

Re:And what about the plugins?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC Since version 10 or so, the plugin versioning system was given a bit of an overhaul so that the plugins do not refuse to work just because the FF version is newer than the one the plugin was built for.

Re:And what about the plugins?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just yesterday, I had to downgrade to Firefox 20, because Firefox 21 disabled one of my addons.

Not long ago, I had to downgrade to Firefox 18, because Firefox 19 disabled a different addon.

It may have gotten an overhaul, and it may have improved somewhat (breaking every other time instead of every time), but it's still far from acceptable.

Mozilla vs. other Browsers

[Anonymous Coward]

There are things like this that Mozilla browsers can do since version 6.0 that other browsers have yet implement

Oooh! Must download!

[UltraZelda64]

New major version, no real worthwhile features worth mentioning. Say, hasn't that mostly been the case for the last 15 or so versions now?

20.4 was a bust for me.

[Wild_dog!]

I had to quit using firefox for the first time in years because it kept locking up in a very ugly way in 20.4
I have been waiting for the upgrade so I can browse without locking every 6 seconds.
Safari isn't as intuitive for me since I am used to how firefox was and I don't have a chromium based browser on my system anymore.
Opera is a nice browser, but it really does have to do with how used to something one is.

Re:20.4 was a bust for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I got fed up with FF (it was causing my system to lag), and switched to Opera.

It took a fairly long while to get used to it. But now that I'm there, I'm there. And it's great! Smooth, lean and powerful.

I'm off the buggy FF treadmill for good.

Flash on OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they fixed flash video playback under OS X yet? The one they've screwed up under FF19

Ah, nostalgia

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like only yesterday they updated to 10.

How many add-ons broken this time?

[danbuter]

Not sure why, but every single time Firefox updates, they break my favorite theme: Springshine. It's incredibly annoying. I suspect it's because they change the first number, instead of the second number, like a sane programmer would do (we should be on 4.18 or so now, not 21!).

64bit build for Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Wake me up when there's a 64 bit build for Windows

21! Awesome! Yes! Yes! Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

I Can't Wait For 22! How long before version 22 comes out? Are we there yet?

He meant Safari and

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera.

I gave up on Firefox a years ago

[runeghost]

I really liked it as a simple, straightforward browser I could customize. But Firefox keeps putting more and more effort into trying to Chrome, and adding bells and whistles and tweaking the interface. I got tired of needing to put things back the way I liked them everytime an update took them away or broke them. If I wanted to use Chrome, I'd use Chrome. Maybe if the next version is Firefox 122, that will make me like it again.

it gets worse....

[gosand]

... forcing people to create extensions to get the feature back

And then proceed to break extensions with every single release. I haven't gotten some extensions to work for several updates ... fire gestures and/or all-in-one, printedit, download helper. I know they don't purposely break them, but I don't understand why they just stop working and never work again. Is it because I'm on Linux? Not to mention that it has become quite a memory hog and seems to have issues releasing memory and shutting down gracefully. I don't really like any of the alternatives as much, but have really considered dropping FF.

Re:it gets worse....

[Ash-Fox]

The extensions that keep breaking for you were likely built using the old way, which didn't make use of the stable API abstraction functions that the FF devs keep 'working' between versions.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

So, instead of getting one change at a time, they can get them all at once. Yeah, that is a brilliant idea for someone complaining about feature creep! What I would have done is change all the APIs and other interfaces and then added all their features as plugins and addons. When I mention that, the usual reply is "feature X can't be done like that because that interface doesn't exist." My response is "then add it!" If there really is enough interest in adding that, then other people would want to too. And it is a heck of a lot easier to modify an extension that all FF users can use than to change the firefox source and get all FF users to download your version.

Still on Firefox 8...

[Xenolith0]

Since Firefox has started their crazy version numbering, I've given up on upgrading. I use 27 different addons and perfectly configured to make my web browser do what I want. It is near impossible to do an upgrade without spending hours reconfiguring the addons, some of which need to be manually downloaded and have their "MaxVersion" incremented so they will install. Maybe in 6 more months when we reach Firefox 50 I'll give it a try, but until then. Firefox 8 all the way!

Application: Firefox 8.0 (20111104165243)
Total number of items: 27

- Active Stop Button 1.4.10
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/active-stop-button/
- Adblock Plus 1.3.10
http://adblockplus.org/en/
- BetterPrivacy 1.68
http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html
- ColorfulTabs 7.1
http://www.binaryturf.com/free-software/colorfultabs-for-firefox/
- Cookie Monster 1.1.0
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-monster/?src=api
- Copy Link Name 1.3.2
http://www.captaincaveman.nl/
- Download Statusbar 0.9.10
http://downloadstatusbarapp.com/
- DownloadHelper 4.9.14
http://www.downloadhelper.net/
- DownThemAll! 2.0.8
http://downthemall.net/
- Export Cookies 1.2
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/export-cookies/?src=api
- Find Toolbar Tweaks 3.0.0
http://homepage3.nifty.com/georgei/extension/ftt_en.html
- Firebug 1.8.4
http://www.getfirebug.com/
- Greasemonkey 0.9.13
http://www.greasespot.net/
- HeaderControlRevived 1.1
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/headercontrolrevived/?src=api
- Hide Caption Titlebar Plus 2.4.1
https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/13505/
- Menu Editor 1.2.7
http://menueditor.mozdev.org/
- Movable Firefox Button 1.4
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/movable-firefox-button/
- NoScript 2.1.7
http://noscript.net/
- OptimizeGoogle 0.78.2
http://www.optimizegoogle.com/
- RequestPolicy 0.5.27
http://www.requestpolicy.com/
- Screen Capture Elite 2.0.0.23
http://www.grizzlyape.com/
- Searchbastard 1.5.5
http://searchbastard.rosell.dk/
- SkipScreen 0.6.1.2

Re:Still on Firefox 8...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since FF10, the plugin system has been given an overhaul so that extensions are less likely to break when FF is upgraded. Also IIRC if the MaxVersion is already 10 or above, it does not need to be tweeked any longer for newer FF versions.

Re:Still on Firefox 8...

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I get this "FF10 plugin system" for Firefox 21?

Just yesterday, I had to downgrade to Firefox 20, because another plugin stopped working when the system updated to Firefox 21.

(I don't tweak the MaxVersion. I go back to the old version until the plugin is updated.

Re:Still on Firefox 8...

[dotancohen]

Maybe in 6 more months when we reach Firefox 50 I'll give it a try, but until then. Firefox 8 all the way!

Actually, in 6 more months Firefox 24 is expected to be released, which will be an ESR version and thus enjoy longer support.

Smooth scrolling

[swaq]

Immediately after updating to 21 I noticed the browser seemed awfully sluggish. They re-enabled smooth scrolling... Turning it [back] off fixed the problem, but why couldn't it keep my previous setting?

HTML 5 MAIN Element?

[tyrione]

They haven't implemented this until now? Seriously? Good gawd wake me up when Firecrotch grows up and matches WebKit's HTML 5 support.

I like FF

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one just changed my default browser from Chrome back to FF. Much more beautiful rendering and scrolling, and no noticeable speed difference.

Can I have the download window back?

[Osgeld]

why the hell are downloads in the library, why the hell when I bookmark (my bad dumb fuck star) a page its in a separate windows not the stupid bookmarks menu, why the fuck do you asshats keep making this thing more like chrome, if I wanted chrome I would god damn use chrome.

'somebody's a badass'

[globaljustin]

http://www.chromium.org/Home [chromium.org]

You're welcome

See, this isn't a response...and it sure as siht isn't a 'zinger' or a 'witty retort'

so the hell what, Cromium exists? That does not answer parent's point at all...

in fact, it actually proves you wrong and him right, if anything, b/c the link was to a Google product's homepage. exactly the kind of useless information the parent was bemoaning...

jeez way to prove his point for him

Re:'somebody's a badass'

[Anonymous Coward]

"spoonfeed me more" - you

Re:'somebody's a badass'

[geek]

You're about as fucking stupid as it gets aren't you?

Users who lack H.264

[tepples]

Unless you have to stream to users who don't have the H.264 codecs installed. This includes users of Windows XP, users of Windows Vista Home Basic, and users of GNU/Linux distributions that haven't licensed the H.264 patents.

Re:Users who lack H.264

[KingMotley]

Not enough marketshare to care about.

Re:

[Ash-Fox]

I suggest you go back to IE6. It's more the type of browser your kind like.

Three of every eight users still use XP

[tepples]

This Wikipedia article states that as of April 2013, Net Applications reported that over three out of every eight desktop users are still on Windows XP alone, not even counting Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, and GNU/Linux. If you target only those desktop operating systems guaranteed to include an AVC decoder, namely Mac OS X, Windows 7, and Windows 8, you're limiting your user base by nearly half.

Re:Three of every eight users still use XP

[KingMotley]

That's great, however, according to my webstats, killing all videos except for h.264 will still cover nearly 100% of my traffic. We don't support IE 8 any longer, so those Windows XP users aren't supported anyway. They only accounted for 10.05% of the web traffic anyway, and while we don't block the site for them, we do have a banner that says their browser isn't supported. Many of those will have an AVC decoder on their system, but not all -- they can upgrade their OS, install Chrome Frame, or switch to another browser.

Re:Three of every eight users still use XP

[tepples]

We don't support IE 8 any longer, so those Windows XP users aren't supported anyway.

As I understand it, Firefox on Windows XP would have the same problem as Internet Explorer on Windows XP in that it's limited to the codecs that come with the operating system.

Many of those will have an AVC decoder on their system, but not all -- they can upgrade their OS

Even the latest version of GNU/Linux doesn't come with an AVC decoder because of the patent problem. If by "upgrade" you mean switching from GNU/Linux or old Windows to new Windows, you have just turned your site into a pay site if it wasn't before.

install Chrome Frame

I thought Chrome was dropping AVC support as well due to royalties.

or switch to another browser.

Or switch to a competitor's site.

Re:Three of every eight users still use XP

[KingMotley]

As I understand it, Firefox on Windows XP would have the same problem as Internet Explorer on Windows XP in that it's limited to the codecs that come with the operating system.

A valid concern. That accounts for 3.12% of my users. Add that up with 10.32% of my users who are running IE on XP, and it is still only 13.44%. That number will dwindle away quick enough though. It's been dropping at a fairly quick pace, however. Videos typically aren't absolutely necessary on my site, so if 13% can't see them, and they refuse to either upgrade their browser, or their OS, then that is their choice. It's a large enough chunk that I will leave the current system in place, but I will likely just encode for h.264, and if their browser doesn't support it, then I'll swap out the video tag for a flash player with videojs for now. I'll revisit it in a few months, and any new video going up will be h.264 only.

Even the latest version of GNU/Linux doesn't come with an AVC decoder because of the patent problem. If by "upgrade" you mean switching from GNU/Linux or old Windows to new Windows, you have just turned your site into a pay site if it wasn't before.

True, firefox for linux may not work, but you can always switch to Chrome. I get 0.47% of my traffic from linux, so the few that want to run firefox on it won't be able to view video. Oh well.

I thought Chrome was dropping AVC support as well [chromium.org] due to royalties.

That was 2.5 years ago, and they still haven't dropped it. I suspect they won't, but they could. I'll deal with that (or users can complain to google if they want) when it happens.

Or switch to a competitor's site.

Fortunately, I don't have any competitors worth mentioning, so that's not really a concern at this time, but I realize it might for quite a few web developers out there.

17.0.5 Long-term-support isn't fun

[billstewart]

At $DAYJOB, the IT department supports the long-term-support versions, currently at 17.0.5. It crashes a lot, and often gets into a runaway burn-the-whole-CPU trap (I've got an 8-CPU-core PC, so it shows up as 12-13% CPU utilization, so the rest of my machine's ok even though the browser stalls.)
The main add-ons I'm running are NoScript, Ad-Block-Plus, and Ghostery.

It does seem to recover much better from crashes than 10.x long-term-support did, but it's still annoying.

Search all tabs in all open browser windows

[tepples]

So as I understand it, you are against the implementation of any feature that could be described as "Search all tabs in all open browser windows", claiming that anyone whose "IQ is greater than 50" should never need it even as people open upwards of two dozen tabs. What if anything do I misunderstand?