Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 23 Arrives With New Logo, Mixed Content Blocker, and Network Monitor
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 23 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Improvements include the addition of a share button, mixed content blocker, and network monitor on the desktop side (release notes). The new desktop version was available on the organization's FTP servers last night, but that was just the initial release of the installers. Firefox 23 has now officially been released over on Firefox.com and all existing users should be able to upgrade to it automatically. As always, the Android version is trickling out slowly on Google Play."
We use firefox across our work network, and for obvious reasons, the head of our company has ordered Facebook blocked. The last thing I want is everyone being ordered to use Internet Explorer as a result. Even better if we can install one that doesn't even have those functions.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
AND... user prefs returned to default?
Thank the FSM I'm using NoScript.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
If Facebook is blocked then users will be unable to use any Facebook integration features in Firefox... I don't see a problem here?
Isn't that a "hacking tool"? Germany might not approve..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Perhaps edit the HOSTS file so that facebook.com is sent to 127.0.0.1 ? Set and forget solution.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
<blink>No!!!</blink> They removed the blink tag!
...well, a bit at least. This anti-skeuomorphic craze is pretty damned irritating - the new logo looks worse than the old one in my view, just as the Windows 8 theme looks worse than Aero Glass and iOS 7 looks worse than iOS 6. I had enough of 2D, flat icons in the 80s (when there weren't the resources to do better); I can only imagine the designers doing all this 2D stuff today weren't around back then.
..many sites still need to be updated to work with it. Likely some behind the firewall stuff as well. (And many of these sites break in IE10 and Chrome as well)
See here for full details: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2013/05/16/mixed-content-blocking-in-firefox-aurora/
Basically it prevents loading active content (JS/CSS/etc) from a non-HTTPS source when the page is HTTPS.
Also, if you are a HTTPS Everywhere user and wondering why sites like XKCD and NYtimes are no longer HTTPS, this is why.
Hate to go all hipster on you guys, but here goes.
I was using Firefox before it was cool. It was called Phoenix when the project started, then later renamed to Firebird. This was circa 2002/2003.
It was a great browser: cross-platform, smaller than Mozilla, fast. Everything I wanted. I used FF for over ten years without problems. I was OK with playing whack-a-mole in the settings each new release, trying to keep my preferences for things consistent. But then the UI people showed up. At some point they completely re-arranged the user interface, breaking over a decade of my visual/muscle memory. Seriously, what the fuck guys? I guess they wanted to make it look more like Chrome. So I switched to Chrome.
The Firefox project needs to get rid of all of the people who don't code but "contribute" by fucking around with the UI. So, FF team, you can take your new logo and jam it up your ass.
The continual removal of configuration options from Firefox is not only insulting, it's pointless. I seriously doubt it reduces the amount of code for the browser by any significant amount.
The day Firefox removes the ability to set client-side font overrides is the day I switch to Chrome. Currently that is the only feature left in Firefox that keeps me using it. For me, it's an invaluable feature, and I'm really annoyed that Firefox seems to be the only browser that supports the concept. After all, the whole point of HTML was that the client is supposed to control rendering, not the server.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
according to Wikipedia they added the input type "range". Sadly, the input type "number" is still listed as experimental, and no support for the date/time input types. Since Firefox 22 added a couple of different element types, I was hoping that the "number" type would be supported, and have at least 'experimental' support fo the date/time formats.
Ol' Rick Dawson had a farm EIEIO
No.
That is not funny and moreover is stupid.
Block facebook at the firewall and be done with it.
Adblock works just great as a first line of defense against Facebook. Same for any other http/https-based spyware sites.
I for one hate those buggers so much I also serve an empty zone for {facebook,fbcdn}.{com,net} and friends in my DNS, and block their IP ranges just in case some new domain pops up, but that's probably overkill. If you don't trust your co-workers to not muck with Adblock settings, you can do the DNS trick. If you want my zone management scripts, shout, I can clean them up for public consumption.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
In version 22, I could use the URL bar to search for something via google and use the search box (on the right) for other searches without changing it. Now in 23, they are in sync. So if the right bar is set for "corporate bug search engine" the URL bar is set for that as well.
Kinda liked being able to have two different search bars at the same time.
I know I can use aliases in the URL bar (I use 'dir' to search the corporate directory), but this was a surprise.
The browser.tabs.autoHide functionality has been stripped. I've read all the history on this. I'm fucking livid.
I hope they reverse this decision.
Well, the OP didn't say how big his company is... nor what level of IT talent they have available.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
Yes, there's a way to turn it off. Go to "about:config" and set "social.enabled" to False. This was previously the default.
The biggest thing here is that Firefox doesn't need FB (or any) social integration. So why add it? As an add-on, sure, go for it. But not as part of the core.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I rarely had issues with FF, Safari, OTOH.... Chrome is inherently unusable as a browser, it's more a send all your web browsing history to google and search if it doesn't think the *valid* hostname resolves. Not to mention that viewing a self-signed certificate is non-intuitive, among other things.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Won't work for long. I tried staying with 3.6 for a while and eventually everything broke.
You're not really blocking Facebook in the user browsers, are you? Wouldn't it make more sense to block at the network level?
I just don't understand how could you not see a problem with X integration in a web browser, where X is not directly related to displaying web content.
This social media integration is not unlike bukake integration, sure some users might enjoy convenient access to their vice of choice, but it is unreasonable to assume that everyone wants to partake.
Agreed. Between this and the removal of easy javascript disabling, I'm leaning more and more toward jumping over to Seamonkey.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Windows 3.11 is also a tailor-made selection for your workgroups.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Perhaps you could explain the evils inherent in altering my own HOSTS file so that Facebook requests are lost in the aether? No sarcasm intended.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
FF is inherently unusable as a browser because it eats all of my memory when I leave 30 tabs opened for a few days at a time.
Wow a share button?!?!
This is what Mozilla is wasting time on now?
Don't forget the NEW LOGO!
http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/06/firefox_logo.png
I'm at a loss for words, but that picture tells you everything you need to know about the UI/art direction types at Mozilla. It's painful.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
You know, with all these options in the "about:config", it would be a great feature to have some of this in the preferences instead of their trend to actually remove options from the users or make them difficult to find.
Have people forgotten that Firefox's origin was as a fork of Mozilla? The original has changed its name to Seamonkey, but the UI is at the FF 3.x level, without a bunch of useless shiny crap thrown in by UI hipsters. I for one welcome our FF-tinkering overlords, it gives them something to fuck up so that they can leave a decent browser un-fucked.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
I don't see a problem here?
If the company has a policy of not permitting social media sites like facebook to be used on-site (because they have geniune security concerns that mean they want strong control on communication from withing the company, or they are just grumpy old fuddy duddies that don't want anyone else to have a good time) then this appearing will be a red flag - it may be decided that the update can not go in until the change has been reviewed by a security team to make sure it does not circumvent their blocks in any way (intentionally or otherwise), that review could be delayed behind a pile of higher priorities, and older versions of firefox pulled from desktops due to not being the latest and therefore possibly not contained all the latest security updates.
Do you know how hard it is, to this very day, to get some companies to take of the blinkers long enough to take half a look at considering anything other than Internet Explorer onto their machines? This could change their minds back.
(yes, I know IE10 is actually said to be pretty decent, many people have already told me, but I'm so bitter about the years of stagnation caused by "classic" IE that I'll not be using it by choice any time soon)
Blocking it at the firewall means you can't get around it by editing your own HOSTS or pointing to different DNS servers. DNS spoofing is another alternative to force a specific DNS server, but that still isn't as simple as just blocking access to the IP range at the firewall.
Pale Moon is a Firefox variant optimized for Windows and modern processors, but also keeps most of the missing features and interface complained about here on Slashdot. It also works with NoScript and the handful of other add-ons I've tried.
on the toilet.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
What do non technical users do? Do they not matter anymore?
Perhaps edit the HOSTS file so that facebook.com is sent to 127.0.0.1...It's already blocked at the firewall. I'm also aware of the about:config settings.
Oh yeah. Well where I work it is blocked at the firewall, in the hosts file redirect to 127.0.0.1 on both the client computer and Internet cache computer, in both group policy and GPP that refreshes every 5 seconds, and a keylogger checks for typing the word "facebook" which then sends an electric shock to the chair of the person who typed it. Beat that!
Nobody is forcing you to partake. Firefox is simply catering to people who want it. This is like complaining about Firefox adding support for any new feature you don't care about. They're not just here for you, you know.
Why not praise them for their amazing work on bringing the core Gecko engine into the new decade? Or in further reducing the memory footprint of the browser?
All those "social integration" features end up increasing the footprint of the browser, even if you don't use them.
Or any number of other features that aren't just buzzword compliance issues?
Hell, even their work on Firefox OS has helped resurrect their Electrolysis efforts. It's not like Mozilla's just been working on social media buttons, removing features, and shitty Chrome-like UIs. But here on Slashdot, that's all I ever hear about. Some nerds we turned out to be.
Sure, Electrolysis is cool, but it could have been ready MONTHS ago if resources hadn't been shoved into useless stuff that actually belongs in a plugin.
Why not praise them for their amazing work on...
Because a simple option to disable or hide the social integration feature should be included.
In this release, they also REMOVED the checkbox options for: ...AND those options will be reset to the defaults! (ie. if you did set them before, too bad - your settings will NOT be retained, and you'll have go dig through about:config to set them back to how you had already chosen to customize them).
* Enable javascript
* Load images automatically
* Always show the tab bar
IE. There's plenty of room for a new checkbox.
Of course, I'm 99% sure the about:config will include options to control the new social features, so GGP's point is probably moot, or at least not as big a deal, but it certainly should have some way to disable it. IMO, that should be in the easily accessible preferences, but that's being continuously gutted and dumbed down.
I don't get why the social thing isn't simply an add on. It could even be distributed with FF by default, but it makes little sense to include it as part of FF proper.
Developing what? They've gone from innovating the browser area to desperately playing catch-up to stay relevant, while also spreading themselves across every other platform and turning themselves into an OS.
It's weird -- a decade ago, there were clear choices if you were a geek or even an engineer. These days, pretty much every browser leaves you with at least a thin layer of "ick" everywhere.
While SeaMonkey is fine, I don't understand the javascript disabling disabling issue. There are 3 kinds of users:
1. Don't care or understand. For them, javascript always on is the only usable option.
2. Want to keep it always disabled for all websites. While lynx is better for them, I can understand why they might choose firefox instead. Such people can easily find the option in about:config, and since they will never change it again, occupying space in preferences for this doesn't make sense.
3. Want to customize when and for which websites javascript is enabled. Such users are extremely likely to use RequestPolicy and NoScript, and the "Enable Javascript" checkbox in firefox preferences earlier was JUST the WRONG solution for their problem.
4th, the mysterious kind of user : Want to globally enable and disable javascript frequently. I don't understand what purpose this serves. Could you elaborate?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Oddly I just updated mine and there's not a social button to be found.
In about:config "social.enabled" is set to false by default. I never did that, so it just installed that way, and I don't see an option in the normal settings dialog to enable it. Go figure.