Firefox 24 Arrives: WebRTC Support and NFC Sharing On Android

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 24 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Improvements include a new option to mass close tabs 'to the right,' as well as WebRTC support and NFC sharing on Android. Firefox 24 has now 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. Compared to Firefox 23, this isn’t a big release for the desktop. Mac users will notice a new scrollbar style on OS X 10.7 and users of the browsers social features will appreciate the ability to tear-off chat windows by just dragging (full release notes: desktop, mobile)."

Comments

Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

It can make my first post faster?

Re:Wait

[StoneyMahoney]

I wish they'd hurry up and standardize PITF over TCP/IP. There's a great case for adding a standard feature to HTML 5 that invokes it any time someone loads a page with a text box, types a text string along the lines of "first" and initiates an HTTP post action in less than 1.8 seconds.

Re:Wait

[CODiNE]

That just rewards the slower typists with a successful first post while blocking those who deserve it.

Re:Wait

[StoneyMahoney]

I never said it would block the HTTP post action, that would just be censorship. Think of it as positive punishment to discourage future repetition but only in those serious enough to actually want to win the race.

Still using 3.6

[oldhack]

The new ones hide means to control cookies, etc. from their UI. Wonder how many are in the same boat.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Anonymous Coward]

The new ones hide means to control cookies, etc. from their UI. Wonder how many are in the same boat.

But they also come with a bunch of security bugfixes. I hope you're running your copy of 3.6 in a sandbox...

Re:Still using 3.6

[Jane Q. Public]

I just upgraded to 24, and I see the same cookie controls it always had.

I think blocking cookies is turned off by default in the new version, but that's not the same as "hiding controls". If you upgrade, your settings should be the same as before. Mine are.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Anonymous Coward]

The new ones hide means to control cookies, etc. from their UI. Wonder how many are in the same boat.

Whether you run Fx 3.6 or Fx 36, PrefBar is your friend. Single-click radio buttons to turn on/off Javashit, images, cookies, etc.

That said... WebRTC: "Capture camera or microphone streams directly from Firefox Android using only JavaScript (a feature we know developers have been wanting for a while!)" And NFC speaks for itself in terms of the possibilities for exploits.

Yeah, web developers may want that, but I sure as fuck don't. Is anyone maintaining a complete list of "all the shit that's been added since 3.x that needs to be turned off in about:config or needs an extension like Status4Evar to turn back on?"

Because that list just got a little bit bigger today.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Tumbleweed]

Ahh, the Firefox user equivalent to the IE user still using IE 6. We (the web dev community, in general) are going to leave you behind, so don't complain if things don't work right.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Anonymous Coward]

The newer version is certainly non-intuitive. It's found in the same place as history. You have to select "Use custom settings for history" before you can get to the cookie handling controls that are standard in modern browsers.
Yes, it's hard to see this as incompetent rather than malicious.

Re:Still using 3.6

[oldhack]

Looked thru it a bit, and found that cookie control shows up when you select: Tools -> Options -> Privacy -> Use custom setting for history.

Re:Still using 3.6

[girlintraining]

I just upgraded to 24, and I see the same cookie controls it always had.

I just upgraded to... using a plugin instead, since the dev team can't seem to get it right after 23 previous attempts, so I'm not optimistic.

Re:Still using 3.6

[oldhack]

We (the web dev community, in general)...

Oooh, web monkeys scare me. :)

Re:Still using 3.6

[Tumbleweed]

We (the web dev community, in general)...

Oooh, web monkeys scare me. :)

It's not a threat, I'm just saying that the industry can't keep supporting Model Ts on the Information Superhighway. Things will start to break (if they aren't already). I think Firefox 18 is probably the oldest version of FF I'd use at this point, if I were a general user.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Jane Q. Public]

Well, I'm on OS X here, and all the controls are in the same place they always were, and they've always worked fine for me.

If you're on Windows, YMMV. I seldom use Windows anymore.

Re:Still using 3.6

[steelfood]

3.6 has a status bar, and a real status bar at that. As opposed to the always-present extension bar add-on, I see status messages in the status bar and not above it intruding into page space.

I also have a real back and forward button, as well as an arrow I can click if I want to see my backwards or forwards history. I don't need to hold anything down if all I want is to go back three pages, or go forward to the most recent one from five pages back.

I regularly using 17 and 23 in different environments. The only thing I like about the newer versons is that the URL is under the tabs and not above it (but for some reason, search is also under the tabs even though it is not tab-specific).

Re:Still using 3.6

[fahrbot-bot]

I'm just saying that the industry can't keep supporting Model Ts on the Information Superhighway.

I understand and generally agree with your comment, but new and/or trendy doesn't always mean "better", even if the Firefox developers want it to and/or think it does.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Tumbleweed]

I'm just saying that the industry can't keep supporting Model Ts on the Information Superhighway.

I understand and generally agree with your comment, but new and/or trendy doesn't always mean "better", even if the Firefox developers want it to and/or think it does.

"New and/or trendy"? Implementing support for updated web standards is not the same as being 'trendy', and that's what the concern here is. Ignore the trendy nonsense as you will, but you really WANT support for web standards.

Re:Still using 3.6

[gstoddart]

Ahh, the Firefox user equivalent to the IE user still using IE 6. We (the web dev community, in general) are going to leave you behind, so don't complain if things don't work right.

In fairness, Firefox version numbers have become meaningless to many of us over the last few years unless you pay really close attention.

I'm apparently running 9.0.1, but when I tell it to apply it's update it just restarts and doesn't actually do anything and leaves me with the exact same "Apply update" button in the help > about.

So I have no idea of what version I'm running in relation to anything else, don't seem to get updates when I tell it to, and have no trust in a piece of software which auto-updates itself quietly behind the scenes and do not want that.

So if the goal was to make something less confusing and easier to use and keep track of ... from my perspective, that's not working well at all.

Re:Still using 3.6

[girlintraining]

Well, I'm on OS X here, and all the controls are in the same place they always were, and they've always worked fine for me.

I'm on Windows... I paid less for things to work fine for me. *shrugs* But hey, if cost is less important to you, you keep rocking that.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Tumbleweed]

Ahh, the Firefox user equivalent to the IE user still using IE 6. We (the web dev community, in general) are going to leave you behind, so don't complain if things don't work right.

In fairness, Firefox version numbers have become meaningless to many of us over the last few years unless you pay really close attention.

I'm apparently running 9.0.1, but when I tell it to apply it's update it just restarts and doesn't actually do anything and leaves me with the exact same "Apply update" button in the help > about.

So I have no idea of what version I'm running in relation to anything else, don't seem to get updates when I tell it to, and have no trust in a piece of software which auto-updates itself quietly behind the scenes and do not want that.

So if the goal was to make something less confusing and easier to use and keep track of ... from my perspective, that's not working well at all.

You're never, ever, going to get me to fight on the side of Firefox on that kind of thing. :)

My only concern is people deliberately not keeping up with the times; it harms everyone. IE 6 held those of us in the industry back for FAR too long; we're just now beginning to catch up in being able to implement modern web standards. We just dropped IE 7 support at work a month ago. *sigh*

Feel free to use Chrome if you want.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Jane Q. Public]

"I'm on Windows... I paid less for things to work fine for me. *shrugs* But hey, if cost is less important to you, you keep rocking that."

Actually, since I'm a developer, I have justification for getting the upper-end hardware anyway, and if you're going to do that, the cost differential between Mac and PC is actually pretty small. Review after review after review have been saying the same thing for years: "For the same level of hardware, Macs are only slightly more expensive."

But there's quite a bit more to it: Mac gives you native access to the *nix command line, and it is easier to run Windows in a VM on OS X than it is to run OS X on a VM in Windows.

So from my point of view, it is the most flexible option, too.

Re:Still using 3.6

[gstoddart]

You're never, ever, going to get me to fight on the side of Firefox on that kind of thing. :)

LOL, but now I still need to figure out how the hell to upgrade from 9.0.1, which seems to be proving quite annoying. The built in mechanism seems useless.

Feel free to use Chrome if you want.

Well, at this precise moment I'm running Firefox, Chrome and Safari all at the same time -- which is pretty much my standard configuration as I use them for different web presences and because Safari has incompetently implemented 3rd party cookie blocking. As in, there isn't actually any 3rd party cookie blocking in Safari.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Tumbleweed]

You're never, ever, going to get me to fight on the side of Firefox on that kind of thing. :)

LOL, but now I still need to figure out how the hell to upgrade from 9.0.1, which seems to be proving quite annoying. The built in mechanism seems useless.

It's most likely a corrupted profile. I heard they were working on a profile cleaner feature, but I don't know if it ever got released or not. I'd backup your Firefox with MozBackup, then run the standalone installer and hope it fixes it. If not, reinstall the old version and restore via MozBackup.

Re:Still using 3.6

[gstoddart]

It's most likely a corrupted profile. I heard they were working on a profile cleaner feature, but I don't know if it ever got released or not. I'd backup your Firefox with MozBackup, then run the standalone installer and hope it fixes it. If not, reinstall the old version and restore via MozBackup.

And somehow we geeks expect people like our parents and non-technical people to be able to navigate this kind of thing.

I maintain mission-critical enterprise software, and that sounds like a pain in the ass to me. Your average user is going to have no frigging idea what any of that means and give up and go back to IE.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Tumbleweed]

It's most likely a corrupted profile. I heard they were working on a profile cleaner feature, but I don't know if it ever got released or not. I'd backup your Firefox with MozBackup, then run the standalone installer and hope it fixes it. If not, reinstall the old version and restore via MozBackup.

And somehow we geeks expect people like our parents and non-technical people to be able to navigate this kind of thing.

I maintain mission-critical enterprise software, and that sounds like a pain in the ass to me. Your average user is going to have no frigging idea what any of that means and give up and go back to IE.

Yup.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Ash-Fox]

Actually, since I'm a developer, I have justification for getting the upper-end hardware anyway, and if you're going to do that, the cost differential between Mac and PC is actually pretty small. Review after review after review have been saying the same thing for years: "For the same level of hardware, Macs are only slightly more expensive."

Generally it's for 'almost' the same hardware this is proven. I have found when doing my purchases that I could get sufficiently better hardware for the same price though, which is probably where people find this to be the case.

I have repeatedly over the years found this to the case.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Jane Q. Public]

"I have repeatedly over the years found this to the case."

I think I'll keep going with the respected industry reviewers.

But also, as I stated earlier, hardware is not the only issue. In many ways OS X is simply a superior OS. Now, if only they would adopt a modern filesystem...

Re:Still using 3.6

[brentrad]

This link should help you out. Just download the latest version and install it over the top of your current version. It will upgrade your current install.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/fx/#desktop

Re:Still using 3.6

[jrumney]

You see the cookie options if you choose "Custom" for the "History" settings. The default of "Remember History" enables cookies and hides the option to separately disable them.

Re:Still using 3.6

[PixetaledPikachu]

3.6 has a status bar, and a real status bar at that. As opposed to the always-present extension bar add-on, I see status messages in the status bar and not above it intruding into page space.

I also have a real back and forward button, as well as an arrow I can click if I want to see my backwards or forwards history. I don't need to hold anything down if all I want is to go back three pages, or go forward to the most recent one from five pages back.

I regularly using 17 and 23 in different environments. The only thing I like about the newer versons is that the URL is under the tabs and not above it (but for some reason, search is also under the tabs even though it is not tab-specific).

Right click on the back/forward button shows history. It looks like a timeline, and It will tell you how many pages are in front of you, and how many are behind. I like it. As for status bar, I used to be like you, bothered that the pop up is blocking the page content. But then I realized when I see the pop-up, I don't really want to see the content, and when I move away the mouse, the pop up is gone

Re:Still using 3.6

[Anonymous Coward]

What are these "many" ways? Are they only superior in your opinion, or only in your particular use cases? Because I almost never people able to give me specifics on why OSX is superior to other OSes unless it's just a specific piece of software or some feature that only a few people would ever care about. If that's the case, Windows and Linux are just as "superior", not to mention other operating systems nobody ever tries because the mainstream OSes are so damn "superior."

Re:Still using 3.6

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're that worried, and that willing to do work to control the browser, then install NoScript and get used to it. It's not bad once you're used to it (I got used to it in a matter of a few days and I've never looked back). You can't stop the web from gaining more functionality, but you CAN control what sites gain access to it.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine upgraded to 23 despite the fact that I repeatedly told it never to do such a thing. I should have DNS blackholed their domain.

I am thoroughly disgusted with their decision to make disabling javascript harder to do. I can toggle it in two keystrokes in Opera. Why does it take going to about:config to do it in firefox?

Maybe it's because the "genius" responsible for the language is also responsible for firefox.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun putting your hard drives in ugly enclosures while we stick them into a desktop tower like real men do.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Jane Q. Public]

"What are these "many" ways? Are they only superior in your opinion, or only in your particular use cases? Because I almost never people able to give me specifics on why OSX is superior to other OSes unless it's just a specific piece of software or some feature that only a few people would ever care about. If that's the case, Windows and Linux are just as "superior", not to mention other operating systems nobody ever tries because the mainstream OSes are so damn "superior.""

Are you arguing with me just for the sake of arguing with me?

As far as YOU are concerned, it is my opinion, about my own use-case. I don't feel like going into further detail at this time.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Ash-Fox]

I think I'll keep going with the respected industry reviewers.

Whatever floats your boat.

In many ways OS X is simply a superior OS.

And in other ways, it's inferior, take for example their POSIX support. Despite having UNIX certification, it doesn't follow the specification as it should because the testing performed to get the certification didn't try everything. One example of this is that OS X requires you to fork() and exec() when it cannot guarantee you that the libraries you are using are async-signal-safe. It cannot guarantee your code can be forked even in a signal handler at any time and this is what the POSIX standard demands. So when you try to port an application that does is trying to fork() without exec() and attempt to use it, which is permitted in POSIX standards, OS X cannot guarantee that the libraries in use are 'async-signal-safe', and so it crashes the thread.

There is a reason why MacPorts, Darwin ports etc. have so many unstable applications.

Here is the funny bit, even Windows' POSIX support is more compliant and "just works" than OS X.

In case you're wondering: Apple took my defect reports and did nothing. The open group gave me a response that OS X had already passed certification (so much for UNIX 03 Conformance Requirements).

I could also ramble on about OS X's POSIX threads, OpenGL support and graphic drivers, the C++ std libraries etc. but I think I have made my point that OS X has some fairly large glaring holes and really shouldn't be considered superior when it can't get the general basics right.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Anonymous Coward]

"For the same level of hardware" is only relevant when the Mac has exactly the hardware you need. Apple has a much smaller selection of hardware than the PC world.

If I need a computer with a certain hardware configuration, and I can get a Mac with that hardware configuration plus webcam plus 24 inch display plus Bluray burner plus a whole lot of other stuff, I'm not going to compare the price of that Mac to a PC with everything I need plus a webcam plus a 24 inch display plus Bluray burner, etc. I'm going to compare it to the PC with everything I need, and the PC is going to be a lot cheaper.

Re:Still using 3.6

[hairyfeet]

Snicker...yeah right. if you want to claim you like the design? fine, you want to claim that you like OSX enough to pay the hardware tax? Sure, why not. But you can go to Tigerdirect and get nicer hardware for less money so please don't try to sell us the "its a good value" BS, mmmkay? Not to mention that unlike you we actually have CHOICE, we can mix and match and get a machine designed around what WE need, not what Cupertino wants to push. Oh and as a final note I built TWO hexacores AND a quad for less than a single Apple tower, its much nicer to have the kids on their own gaming PCs than having them use mine.

As for TFA...anybody tried the Android version yet? How bad is it as far as storage and RAM goes? I tried Firefox a few weeks ago on my phone and found it to feel bloated and sluggish, worse than the built in Android browser and WAY worse than the Dolphin browser i'm using. With Android I'm constantly trying new apps so the thinner and lighter the better, so any hard numbers would be appreciated.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Anonymous Coward]

I asked you some questions precisely BECAUSE you raised those questions. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen please. Don't flatly say something's superior if you don't want to quantify it when you're challenged for your lack of insight. You'll only come across as an inane "fanboy" with nothing to add to the conversation, and I'd really rather not treat you as one.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Jane Q. Public]

"Don't flatly say something's superior if you don't want to quantify it when you're challenged for your lack of insight."

And don't try to blame me for your rude manner of asking the question.

I repeat: as far as YOU are concerned (see that emphasis on YOU?), it is my opinion, about my use-case.

Maybe, if one day you learn to ask questions politely instead if insinuating some kind of misfeasance by the other party at ever turn, they might deign to actually answer you.

Until then, you don't deserve an answer.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to be immature about it, then you deserve an immature answer: well you started it. Now fuck back off to your development, developer. You've wasted my time by being a prick and then becoming an unconscionable one when someone asked you a question.. all because you started the conversation off antagonistically.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Jane Q. Public]

Immature, is it? Well, let me "maturely" dissect the questions you asked:

"What are these "many" ways? Are they only superior in your opinion, or only in your particular use cases? Because I almost never people able to give me specifics on why OSX is superior to other OSes unless it's just a specific piece of software or some feature that only a few people would ever care about."

Translation: "The only people I know who say this have no reason for saying it, so I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about either. You only care about yourself."

If that's the case, Windows and Linux are just as "superior", not to mention other operating systems nobody ever tries because the mainstream OSes are so damn "superior."

Translation: "I'm putting 'superior' in quotes because I don't believe you and I'm going to argue with you because I think you're just talking out your ass."

When you can learn to ask questions in a mature, civil manner, you might start getting what YOU consider to be "mature" answers.

Don't bother to keep replying. I won't. You don't deserve any more of my time. Stop acting like an asshole and maybe people would actually answer your questions rather than being insulting in return. Note: that's the third time I've said that, in one way or another. I have no reason to keep saying it, even if you try to insult me yet again.

Re:Still using 3.6

[Anonymous Coward]

>Translation: "The only people I know who say this have no reason for saying it, so I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about either. You only care about yourself."

If you don't want to answer the question, then don't answer it. Demonizing me won't help, that's what children do.

>Translation: "I'm putting 'superior' in quotes because I don't believe you and I'm going to argue with you because I think you're just talking out your ass."

If I thought you were just talking out of your ass, I would have said so. You don't know me and clearly never wanted to know me, so stop being such a condescending prick. You might just find life easier if you don't say stupid things and then take offense when people challenge you on them.

If you bothered to even read this far, thanks. I mean that sincerely, even if I think you need to chill the fuck out.

What features did they now remove?

[Anonymous Coward]

What features did they now remove in the name of dumbing down the user interface for mentally challenged user group? Address bar? Right mouse button context menu? Bookmarks?

Re:What features did they now remove?

[Anonymous Coward]

What an un-loving anonymous coward you are!

Re:What features did they now remove?

[Jane Q. Public]

I think you're confusing Mozilla with Apple: giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

Re:What features did they now remove?

[Anonymous Coward]

What features did they now remove in the name of dumbing down the user interface for mentally challenged user group? Address bar? Right mouse button context menu? Bookmarks?

Whoa! You have an Android device that can use a mouse?

CAPTCHA: Possible.

Re: What features did they now remove?

[Anonymous Coward]

my android 2.3 can handle a mouse just fine. USB thumb drives too.

Re:What features did they now remove?

[Anonymous Coward]

My box just pulled in the 24 update. Checking my plugins for the usual slew of breakages. It is becoming really frustrating. Download info, bandwidth / speed monitoring - all broken since 22 and especially 23.

Re:What features did they now remove?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, he should totally be sucking Mozilla's dick every time they slap him in the face with it.

Re:What features did they now remove?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! Apple takes with both hands!

Oh God!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another Firefox version number?!?

Can't Firefox just update their product with reasonable version numbers?

If they did it right, we'd be on 1.0.1.2.3.11.654399922344!

But Noooooooooo, they only go out to 2 -TWO -decimal places!

Really!

And the release cycle! Can't they wait for at least 4 or 5 really bad bugs that will compromise my system, take all my sensitive information, and god knows what BEFORE releasing all these pesky releases!

I mean really, when I see these notifications of a new release, I just HAVE to go and update.

It takes time, you know. For one, I got to change user to an admin account and download and install because if I do it as a user, then I got to clean up user/AppDatarsomething/balh/blah/blah/yada/yada/yada/yada or I get the "Update Failed to install. Please try again." error.

And let's not forget that ... I can't think of anything. Can I have my +5 Great Bitch and Moan karma now?

Re:Oh God!

[gl4ss]

security patches are not in the xx product naming cycle.

honestly though I have no fucking idea how many major versions there are between 3.6 and 24.

oh and to get bitch and moan karma you must log in. even if you're posting bitchings and whatever you can still easily maintain a steady excellent karma rating as long as you every so often post something someone agrees with or finds interesting..

WebRTC ?

[Thud457]

So my Chromecast will work now?
sweet.

'Top Sites' Privacy Issue.

[Bing Tsher E]

The Firefox team needs to REMOVE the 'Top Sites' tab, or at least make it possible for the user to disable it, on Android. The existence of the 'Privacy Tab Browsing' is nice, but it's totally outrageous that for normal browsing there is a permanent indelible record of where you have browsed on display every time you load the browser.

That said, The Firefox Android browser is one of the main reasons it's even reasonable to browse the web on Android. If you use the default browser or Chrome, everywhere you browse is known to the Googleplex. I specifically NEVER log onto any Google Services from Firefox on my Samsung phone.

Re:'Top Sites' Privacy Issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Firefox team needs to REMOVE the 'Top Sites' tab, or at least make it possible for the user to disable it, on Android. The existence of the 'Privacy Tab Browsing' is nice, but it's totally outrageous that for normal browsing there is a permanent indelible record of where you have browsed on display every time you load the browser.

This is different from the browser history how?

If you want your browsing to stay private, use "Private Browsing". It's right in the name!

That said, The Firefox Android browser is one of the main reasons it's even reasonable to browse the web on Android. If you use the default browser or Chrome, everywhere you browse is known to the Googleplex. I specifically NEVER log onto any Google Services from Firefox on my Samsung phone.

Son, Google Play Services runs as root. If they want your Firefox browsing history, they can get it easily.

Re:'Top Sites' Privacy Issue.

[dclozier]

If you hold down on the thumbnails the option to pin the site is there so that it always shows when opening firefox. Simply pin down 6 sites you don't mind displaying at startup. Also, there is an addon called clean quit that can be set to clear out history, cookies and such when you choose it as an option to exit the browser.

Re:'Top Sites' Privacy Issue.

[CCarrot]

The Firefox team needs to REMOVE the 'Top Sites' tab, or at least make it possible for the user to disable it, on Android. The existence of the 'Privacy Tab Browsing' is nice, but it's totally outrageous that for normal browsing there is a permanent indelible record of where you have browsed on display every time you load the browser.

This is different from the browser history how?

If you want your browsing to stay private, use "Private Browsing". It's right in the name!

That said, The Firefox Android browser is one of the main reasons it's even reasonable to browse the web on Android. If you use the default browser or Chrome, everywhere you browse is known to the Googleplex. I specifically NEVER log onto any Google Services from Firefox on my Samsung phone.

Son, Google Play Services runs as root. If they want your Firefox browsing history, they can get it easily.

I think he's more miffed by the fact that they have no 'disable history' or 'automatically clear history when firefox closes' options on the mobile version, as they do on the desktop version. Thus your 'Top Sites' page is spammed with all your incidental browsing history, unless you remember to manually clear your history each time you close the mobile browser...

That being said, he should really take a look at Clean Quit. It adds a quick-exit option to your popup toolbar on FF mobile, and (the most important part) it automatically clears whichever privacy settings you select if you exit via that button. That way, your 'Top Sites' page is only populated by your bookmarked sites, not by every little address search, imdb query or wikipedia article you happened to have browsed over the last few days...seems to work pretty well so far :)

Re:'Top Sites' Privacy Issue.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't say 'simply' when you mean 'much more complicated than it needs to be'. I take it they still don't have any way to put bookmarks into folders in the Android version? Can I download an addon for that? What's that, you can't, because only obsolete people want to do that? It's terrible, the things that should be simple are either complicated or impossible, the things that should be fine-grained are reduced to idiot-user level. How did these people screw this up so badly?

Looking Forward to Checking Out WebRTC

[Jane Q. Public]

I think peer sharing via the browser is a wonderful idea. I've been waiting for something like this for a long time.

Re:Looking Forward to Checking Out WebRTC

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more concerned with the potential security vulnerabilities this will open up. All I read is how great it's going to be, not so much how safe it's going to be. FF 17 ESR for me until they make me upgrade to the next not-feature-rich browser alternative.

I'm still pissed they screwed up live bookmarks for offline viewing...why???????

New scrollbar style on OS X 10.7?

[ArcadeMan]

Can't you morons just display the scrollbar in the normal default style the OS is giving you? That's what I hate about Firefox, it looks like an ugly Windows program on every OS.

Re:New scrollbar style on OS X 10.7?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't you morons just display the scrollbar in the normal default style the OS is giving you? That's what I hate about Firefox, it looks like an ugly Windows program on every OS.

It's not like other browsers don't do this either: Chrome's scrollbars are fugly and non-native in GTK+, Chrome's titlebar is non-native, IE's tab and titlebar combination is unique amongst applications, Opera's button spacing is non-native, etc.

Re:New scrollbar style on OS X 10.7?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think it's so simple, than why don't YOU do it? That's what I hate about idiotic comments, they sound stupid on every website.

Re:New scrollbar style on OS X 10.7?

[ArcadeMan]

All the other browsers seem to be able to do it on OS X, Firefox is the exception.

Re:New scrollbar style on OS X 10.7?

[goose-incarnated]

Can't you morons just display the scrollbar in the normal default style the OS is giving you? That's what I hate about Firefox, it looks like an ugly Windows program on every OS.

It's not like other browsers don't do this either: Chrome's scrollbars are fugly and non-native in GTK+, Chrome's titlebar is non-native, IE's tab and titlebar combination is unique amongst applications, Opera's button spacing is non-native, etc.

What's all this about? I'm running both Chrome and Firefox right now on Debian+WindowMaker and the scrollbars are exactly alike (alike to the rest of the system as well). How do I enable the "non-native-looking" scrollbars?

Re:New scrollbar style on OS X 10.7?

[Anonymous Coward]

You run an OS that changes how they look (and often how they work) in nearly every release. Then you go on to call people morons for not supporting native scrollbars without realizing how petty, inane, and outright ridiculous this "issue" actually is, especially considering that Chrome looks nothing like an OSX app by default, aside from... those all-important scrollbars!

Pale Moon FTW

[ScottCooperDotNet]

Pale Moon is a Firefox variant that largely keeps a traditional browser layout and has the latest security patches. It works with the few plugins I use, including NoScript.

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[just_a_monkey]

Interesting. Thanks for posting this.

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother with this when you can do the same thing with Firefox?

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep another convert to pale moon (at least for home, I don't get to choose my browser at work). Sick and tired of Mozilla team's attitude. They can go fly a kite!

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer Cyberfox myself and deploy FrontMotion at work. I don't think I use the official builds anywhere.

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

Pale Moon claims to be open source software but appears to be distributing as binary-only and with some interestingly restrictive licensing conditions:

http://www.palemoon.org/redist.shtml#

IANAL but I would think the Mozilla Foundation licensing department might be interested in looking into this project...

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

SeaMonkey is a Mozilla browser that largely keeps a traditional browser layout and has the latest security patches. It works with the few plugins I use, including NoScript.

No, seriously. It's good. And I wouldn't touch anything that advertises itself as a customised firefox.

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[ByteSlicer]

Pale Moon claims to be open source software but appears to be distributing as binary-only

You should really do your homework better...
Source code here:

http://www.palemoon.org/archived.shtml

IANAL but I would think the Mozilla Foundation licensing department might be interested in looking into this project...

The MPL allows combining MPL code with proprietary code (as long as you provide the MPL sources under the MPL license). Since the binary is partially derived from proprietary code, they can add additional license conditions to that.

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

Pale Moon is a Firefox variant that largely keeps a traditional browser layout and has the latest security patches. It works with the few plugins I use, including NoScript.

Thank you. I just made a thread on [H] asking about an FF alternative. This is perfect. (FF removed display images flag from the settings, now must be done via permissions on per page basis. Or a 3rd party addon. Wanna browse in text mode? Eat shit with firefox!

I used FF for almost a decade, this was the last straw.

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been using Palemoon for quite a while now (skinned to resemble FF2, because I'm a stick-in-de-mud). I haven't had any plugin or addon compatibility problems yet.

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

yup. i keep a mostly traditional layout.. including turning off the 'tabs on top'... and navigation (forward/bckwards) are NOT stuck all the way on the left (SO INCONVENIENT.. who mouses way the fuck over there?) but rather in between address bar and search box. i started skipping the menu bar now -- using it mainly for lesser-used toolbar buttons for extensions since it is easily displayable for one-time accesses. i put a few extension icons on the address bar, a couple on the bookmark toolbar (which i use.. many folders of bookmarks on it), and several down on the status bar.

the day firefox fucks up their UI to the point i can't recreate how mine looks..... is the day i switch to seamonkey...... NOT some 3rd party build of unknown reliability/security.

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[wildstoo]

Yep, I've used Pale Moon for quite a while now. It's great to have a properly optimized 64-bit Firefox build on Windows. Moonchild (the dev) is generally very responsive on the forums and quick to fix bugs.

I use 13 popular Firefox Add-ons and they all work absolutely fine in Pale Moon. I'd recommend it.

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[fbobraga]

Windows only? Blarg!

Re:Pale Moon FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right--apologies to the project. I hadn't gathered that from reading the MPL license, nor did I think source would be located under an archive link. Thanks for pointing those things out.

Just restarted

[ultranova]

I just restarted Firefox, because after using 2 gigabytes on my 16-gigabyte system it started flashing black when switching windows in a way that predicts an imminent crash.

Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.

Also, has the issue with switching to another window when a page using Flash is opened been fixed? I doubt that.

Re:Just restarted

[sconeu]

[Raises hand].

My PC at work is 32-bit.

What they need to do is release both 32 and 64 bit versions.

Re:Just restarted

[tlhIngan]

Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.

They used to have a 64-bit build, but but dropped it for various reasons, though they did bring back 64-bit nightlies.

Basically it was a buggier version, with fewer users and even fewer plugins that supported it.

You'll find a lot of kinds of applications to be 32-bit only - even Microsoft puts 32-bit IE as default (even though they have a 64-bit version) for the same reasons. Other applications with plugins like Office tend to recommend installing the 32-bit version as well.

OTOH, I use profiles and separate Firefox sessions...

Re:Just restarted

[0123456]

Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.

If you were using a real operating system, you could have been running 64-bit Firefox for five years or more. It's only people running an old clunker like Windows who are mostly stuck running 32-bit apps on a 64-bit OS.

Re:Just restarted

[David_W]

Also, has the issue with switching to another window when a page using Flash is opened been fixed? I doubt that.

No. :( Just checked.

Re:Just restarted

[sootman]

The most recent version of FF on OS X 10.6.8 (work computer) introduced a new behavior: with a few windows open, it'll suddenly use 100% of one core. I'll close every window (but leave the app running) and it STILL uses 100% of one core. I'll be interested to see if they fix that.

Re:Just restarted

[Anonymous Coward]

Never reached 2 GB with mine, maybe you should turn off one of your 912390213123 addons.

Re:Just restarted

[0123456]

Windows also has 64-bit builds. Either you're retarded and can't find any or you're trolling. Get a grip.

I have no idea. I just know Windows users keep complaining that Firefox is only 32-bit, whereas I've been running 64-bit Firefox on Linux since at least 2008.

I can't help it that Windows is crippled by backward compatibility and closed source applications.

Re:Just restarted

[Blaskowicz]

I do have a 64bit CPU and a 32bit OS (linux based), I'm contemplating whether upgrading the OS to a 64bit one or staying on 32bit. I have only 3GB RAM, and the 2GB process limit actually is a feature that prevents Firefox consuming all resources. When running on a 64 bit live USB, I had it eat all 3GB RAM + 1.9GB swap repeatedly which got the whole computer into a stand still till I managed to kill firefox or even just plugin-container from a VT-based terminal.

BTW last year I used a computer from 1999 with the latest Firefox. It's clearly faster and less leaky than using 3.0 or 3.6. If using old junk you very much want latest FF (you have to anyway because of the security fixes)

Re:Just restarted

[teg]

Would you please switch to 64-bit already? It's the year 2013, no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore, and it's not possible in practice to fix crashes due to running out of memory in C/C++.

Firefox is 64 bit on Mac, unlike Chrome which is still just 32 bit. The latter is fairly annoying, since that means you can't run java in Chrome on 64 bit. When using a credit card issued b a Norwegian bank, you frequently need java to handle credit card authorization with an app and your security device.

Two uses for WebRTC

[tepples]

"But privacy!" The last time I checked the spec, WebRTC required the user to click to activate the camera.

"But I don't see any compelling use for connecting my device's camera to a web site." Without WebRTC, how do you expect to be able to scan a barcode in order to submit a product's UPC or EAN to the product search web site that you are using? Without WebRTC, how would you make a video chat site without having to write a separate application for each PC operating system or mobile or set-top platform and get it approved by each platform's gatekeeper?

Re:Two uses for WebRTC

[wonkey_monkey]

Without WebRTC, how do you expect to be able to scan a barcode in order to submit a product's UPC or EAN to the product search web site that you are using?

I've been looking for a way to do exactly this. Thanks, WebRTC!

Re:Two uses for WebRTC

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that with WebRTC enabled, future browser vulnerabilities might easily give hackers access to the camera. And except that 99.9% of users simply don't need to scan barcodes at all.

Support for WebRTC - obviously without easy ways to disable it - is simply part of Mozilla's new dumbing-firefox-down strategy.

I hope firefox will be forked by privacy and security conscious developers some day. It used to be an intelligent project some years ago.

Re:Two uses for WebRTC

[tepples]

And except that 99.9% of users simply don't need to scan barcodes at all.

They don't need to use a price comparison or video chat app, but they want to.

I hope firefox will be forked by privacy and security conscious developers some day.

It has been. Read the other comments to this story, particularly this one.

Re:Two uses for WebRTC

[Anonymous Coward]

"But privacy!" The last time I checked the spec, WebRTC required the user to click to activate the camera.

And last I checked, the Firefox built in popup blocker requires the user to click to open a popup. Yet, popups are still not a thing of the past, because the ad industry keeps finding ways to get popups to show anyway.

Soon, we'll be downloading WebRTC blockers, cam-blockers and updates to our filtering proxies, just like we are downloading popup-blockers, ad blockers and setting up filtering proxies today to stop popups.

Firefox user experience

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the user experience of Firefox feels a bit clunky. I know they'll probably never put them in, but I'm still waiting for a 'Bookmark this page' on a tab's context menu. I just clicked the tab to take a look, and now I want to bookmark it. But I either have to know the keyboard shortcut, go to the Bookmarks menu, or click some star. Why not just right-click (what I just left-clicked), and pick it there? I've seen people ask for some of that stuff but somebody always says no for some other reason. I'd also like to be able to 'Bookmark all Tabs' from the 'Bookmarks' menu (why it's only (?) on a tab's context menu only is beyond me).

System-level scrollbar overhead

[tepples]

Perhaps system-level controls have more overhead than application-drawn controls. Consider the "system resources" in Windows 3.1 and Windows 9x. All applications shared a single 65536 byte GDI heap and a single 65536 byte USER heap. Each system-level control, such as a window or a scrollbar, used up space in the GDI heap. One advantage of NetCaptor's tabbed browsing in the Windows 9x days was the ability to keep more pages open without taking up a whole window's worth of GDI heap space. Fortunately, this shared heap wasn't present in 32-bit applications for Windows NT, and once Windows XP displaced Windows 9x, there wasn't much of a problem anymore. I don't think OS X has precisely this concept of "system resources", but it may still impose overhead for each scrollbar, or it may impose overhead when CSS changes a particular box between scrollable and not scrollable.

64 bit Firefox ..

[codeusirae]

Linux x86_64, Linux, Netscape, Mozilla/5.0 X11; Linux x86_64; rv:26.0 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/26.0 ..

Firefox Nightly 26.0a1 (64-bit)

64-bit browser and 32-bit Flash Player

[tepples]

no one who uses the newest Firefox has a 32-bit system anymore

"No one" is strong language. Netbooks tended to be 32-bit because (due to Windows license pricing) they shipped with less than 4 GB of RAM. Though netbooks are discontinued, some are still in operation, and several tablet PCs have similar specs. Besides:

a page using Flash

Do you expect to be able to use a 32-bit Flash Player inside a 64-bit browser? Furthermore, I limit Firefox's memory footprint on my machine by using Flashblock to control sites' access to Flash Player.

Re:64-bit browser and 32-bit Flash Player

[0123456]

Netbooks tended to be 32-bit because (due to Windows license pricing) they shipped with less than 4 GB of RAM.

Netbooks tendded to be 32-bit because the cheap Atoms used in netbooks were 32-bit only.

Re:64-bit browser and 32-bit Flash Player

[ultranova]

"No one" is strong language. Netbooks tended to be 32-bit because (due to Windows license pricing) they shipped with less than 4 GB of RAM. Though netbooks are discontinued, some are still in operation, and several tablet PCs have similar specs.

Perhaps. But that's hardly a reason to not have a 64-bit version as the default for the desktops. After all, we're not talking about assembly code here.

Besides, I can't help but notice that Chrome is somehow managing to keep working with 100+ open tabs day after day week after week in a freaking phone.

Do you expect to be able to use a 32-bit Flash Player inside a 64-bit browser?

Sure, why not? Firefox runs plugins inside a container nowadays precisely to isolate its own memory space from them. So why would it be a problem?

Furthermore, I limit Firefox's memory footprint on my machine by using Flashblock to control sites' access to Flash Player.

Block it or allow it by default, the second you start FP Firefox switches to another open window. Which is a bug, and an annoying one.

Re:64-bit browser and 32-bit Flash Player

[brentrad]

Do you expect to be able to use a 32-bit Flash Player inside a 64-bit browser?

There is a 64 bit version of Flash:

http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/flash-player-64-bit-operating.html

Re:64-bit browser and 32-bit Flash Player

[Blaskowicz]

And those Atoms were 32bit only because Intel used that to artifically segregate between models and just disabled 64bit support from perfectly able 64bit silicon.

why tabs to the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

My tab bar is a stack. I read a page, open the links and they stack up to the right. I close the page, when i finished reading. So when there is any need for this feature (it should have been an addon), then close to the left, because the user may jump right, and leave tabs, which are already read to the left.

TLS 1.2

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox 24 brings TLS 1.2 support at last.

Sure not a lot of websites support 1.2 but browser adoption is the key to getting the ball rolling.

Memory Leaks Solved?

[curmudgeon99]

I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0. Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[Arker]

"I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0. Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox."

Oh man, as someone that hung onto 3.62 forever I can feel your pain, but Chrome? That thing is so creepy I couldnt keep it installed for a week.

I have found that the Firefox ESR with a LOT of customisation, including downloading extensions to fix some of the breakage, is the best option out there for me. Firefox "17" with bugfixes but no feature additions seems reasonably stable and has no noticeable memory leaks for me. If they are happening on the order of hours the best solution may be the fast restart extension.

Still eagerly awaiting a sane fork of firefox. I would be happy to pitch in some but I am far from capable of coding or funding it without lots of others onboard.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[curmudgeon99]

Thank you for some solace and good ideas, friend. Yes, Chrome is creepy too. I will explore your suggestions. Thank you and wishing you up mods!

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[theweatherelectric]

I won't be downloading any new versions of Firefox--nor will I enable automatic updates--until they fix the danged memory leaks that have been present since they began their whirlwind upgrade cycle with FF 4.0.

What memory leaks? If you've found new ones, have you reported them? Significant progress has been made in Firefox's memory usage in the last three years. Do you read the memshrink progress reports? If you don't, maybe you should.

Chrome is a handy replacement for what used to be a reliable friend--Firefox.

Surely you realise that Chrome uses more memory than Firefox. Look at a comparison of browser memory usage with a single tab open and multiple tabs open. If you're happy with Chrome's memory usage, you'll be happy with any browser's memory usage.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[curmudgeon99]

Yes, I have had a currently open bug with FF21.0--that got worse with 22.0. I have been fully co-operative and helpful for months as they work to resolve it. I uploaded memory dumps of before and after. In the after state it was taking 2GB of RAM after TWO minutes. And I and the other watchers of the bug I opened at Mozilla will dispute your contention that Chrome uses more memory. Simply not true! Chrome with its process-per-tab manages memory much better than FF does. As I said, this bug has been validated by DEVs at Mozilla and they have admitted my use case exposes a valid problem that they themselves have been able to replicate. Next troll?

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[theweatherelectric]

Yes, I have had a currently open bug with FF21.0--that got worse with 22.0.

Where's the bug? Link to it.

And I and the other watchers of the bug I opened at Mozilla will dispute your contention that Chrome uses more memory. Simply not true!

Did you not look at the memory usage charts from Tom's Hardware? Chrome uses more memory than other browsers. This has been my consistent experience as well as Tom's Hardware's as well as most everyone's. Look at another memory usage chart from Tom's. They use Chrome's memory usage tool to measure it. Even Google disagrees with you.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[curmudgeon99]

Here is the bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016
Whether Chrome temporarily uses more RAM is not the point. I have never seen Chrome get into a runaway 2-3GB memory leak like so frequently happens to FF https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=896016

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me like one particular pay site has an issue with Firefox, not "Firefox has a lot of memory leaks". Heck, if you guys still haven't tried safe mode after a month, it can't be THAT major of an issue.

Maybe you could contact Doxpop and try to break the ice between them and Mozilla; sometimes an apparently-off-one issue won't gain traction until more people get involved, because there are always "bigger fish to fry".

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[curmudgeon99]

How is it that any site is able to make an application manifest a memory leak?

If you have any experience as a software developer, you know applications should be bullet proof. They should not have a vulnerability sitting around, waiting for some site to hit the correct use case to manifest it. A bug is a bug and the particular site that causes that pre-existing bug to manifest itself is not relevant. There should be no use case that causes Firefox--a browser used by billions of people world wide--to throw a memory leak this bad.

Furthermore, if you went to Mozilla's site, you will see that I have only the best documented example of this bug. There are many other co-reporters of the same problem.

But in my long experience as a developer, whenever the author of some code starts to blame the victim, I know they have a bug that they do not want to acknowledge or fix. This is a memory leak and nothing at all can change that other than finding and fixing the bug. Do you think they would have accepted this as a bug--and taken the memory-usage maps of before and after memory consumption--unless it was a legitimate bug? No. This is real and the memory maps prove it.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to tell me that that websites, not a medium known for code quality, should be bullet proof? Or that a browser should be able to anticipate EVERY POSSIBLE mis-use of memory on a particular web page, and stop it from doing its work?

It's trivial to design a web site that uses a lot of memory - just look at Google Documents. Now add to that the fact that when a user moves to another page, the browser (these days) has to be ready to hop BACK to the old page instantly. In other words, it's possible that a site uses a lot of memory, then when you load a new page, it uses more, and it won't be a while before the browser "clears" the memory.

That's not to say it's not the browser's fault as well. I'm simply saying that if ONE web site seems to have the problem, it's just as likely that the browser hasn't been able to account for that one page's quirks and potential bugs. Heck, I don't even think it's just ONE site that has this problem. It just seems like a logical thing to do is try to get the site developers talking with Mozilla to see what the real problem is, and what each party can do to solve it.

Besides, when an app has a memory leak in your operating system, do you blame the operating system? Or do you contact the software vendor? Why should it be any different if the "OS" is the browser? You *should* contact both where appropriate, especially if you're expected to PAY for a service. It sucks for you to have to deal with two parties, but blaming Mozilla for it might be premature. Fixing this might be a hack to fix the site's bugs.

That's all I'm saying. Bottom line is, I don't know if you contacted them or not, I'm just suggesting it. No need to take it so damn personally, Mr. Developer.

If you want to get personal about this, then I daresay you're making a mountain out of a molehill. They're fixing memory leaks left right and center all the time, and they're hardly the only browser with memory leaks. Just because they can't muster the workforce to solve your pet bug as quickly as you'd like doesn't mean they don't care. Yes, I fully acknowledge that others have the problem, but I don't hear millions of voicing crying out about this, just a few hard-headed people who take every attempt to triage bugs as though they're deep personal insults.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[curmudgeon99]

Not in the slightest. The blame is given to the application that is consuming the memory. That would be the browser in this case or the application running on an OS in your second example.
This bug has manifested itself in both Windows and OS X, in my case. (And the code base is shared mostly for both so that rules out it being an OS problem.
To answer your essential question--yes--without question an application should be written to be bulletproof. There should be no use case possible that causes your application to eat up unlimited memory. That is a defect, pure and simple.

I defy you to make your argument in any boardroom across the United States. I can see you making a presentation to a board of executives, explaining how your application did this or that horrid thing because--it was the web page's fault. Do you know what they call engineers who make that argument? Unemployed.

As you can see from the bug report that I personally participated in creating, including providing before and after memory dumps, it's clear I am invested in getting this Firefox memory leak fixed. It is plaguing users across the globe. Read the complaints on Mozilla's forum.

As for your comment that I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill--Firefox has been documented to consume 3GB of RAM in about 10 minutes. Other users who had left it open and idle over night have seen the same result.

Finally, I am expressing my point of view forcefully because you are trying to poo-poo my concern. This is a serious show-stopping defect in the application Firefox and it needs to get fixed unless Firefox wants to die a slow painful death.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that you've tried to twist my arguments to suit your ends, re-read my initial comment. I asked whether you've contacted the others involved in this bug to see if they can help fix it, as the bug in question doesn't sound as dire as you're making it seem, and getting more informed people involved might help your cause.

I don't really have the will to get into a pointless Internet slap fight with you. If a Java app takes up a lot of memory, is it the JVM's fault? We can do this for days. It's mental. But if you want to win that badly, then fine: you win. Now can you please stop taking offense at everything and pretending you have the high ground in some fight I don't care to have?

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[curmudgeon99]

I am not the only person suffering with this bug.

And it only makes sense for the owners of programs to fix them.

Finally, son, this is slashdot. If you can't handle the heat, run off to Reddit.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I'm quite alright with you drawing imaginary lines about which program is to blame when something goes wrong. I'm even fine with you being condescending when I offered you some advice. And I'm even fine with you thinking that I somehow "can't take the heat". See? You don't have to be confrontational about everything. You should try it sometime. Maybe then you'll see people offering advice and asking questions, rather than fingers being pointed at you. Maybe then you won't end up escalating things and hiding behind Slashdot as your own personal defense-to-end-all-arguments.

Re:Memory Leaks Solved?

[curmudgeon99]

How amusing to have an Anonymous Coward telling me, a person who has used his real name for every single post, that I'm hiding behind Slashdot. Furthermore, on request I immediately posted the actual bug report I filed with Mozilla, thereby giving a second confirmation of my identity.

So, Anonymous Coward, I'm not sure what part of your hypocrisy I should focus on: that you are too scared to give your real name, that you challenged someone who was obviously speaking of a real issue that I have proven was a real issue, or that you can't deliver an intellectual argument without resorting to whimpering. I will leave it as an exercise for you to decide which of those factors are the best description of your opinions and unwillingness to come out of the shadows. But I do know that I will never cut any slack to you, an Anonymous Coward. Thank you for a laugh.

There's also an emergency update to the ESR

[Arker]

Looks like several more important bugfixes.

That's great

[Reliable Windmill]

But what about the flagrant memory usage? Before posting this I closed all windows and noted that Firefox was eating 1015 MB of RAM (and 36 threads, hopefully idle) to just sit there and do NOT ONE GOD DAMNED THING AT ALL.

Re:That's great

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if you'd report your case to Mozilla and help them figure out what the problem is. Why? Because so few people have these issues, except a few very loud ones who refuse to do anything to fix them, pretending that it's always Mozilla's fault. Even when Firefox uses possibly the least amount of RAM of the major browsers while doing anything remotely useful. But of course, not everyone will have the best user experience, it's just that the few who have these problems are universally unwilling to help Mozilla find out why. It's just "Mozilla's fault" and "nothing else matters... unless it means me having to do something".

Re:That's great

[Reliable Windmill]

It would be nice if you'd report your case to Mozilla and help them figure out what the problem is. Why? Because so few people have these issues, except a few very loud ones who refuse to do anything to fix them, pretending that it's always Mozilla's fault.

My case is like everyone else's case, normal usage; look through the thread, many people mention the enormous memory usage of FF.

Even when Firefox uses possibly the least amount of RAM of the major browsers while doing anything remotely useful.

I don't think so. Chrome has now been running for a few hours, and with pages open it's still only at 110 MB memory usage. FF uses twice as much immediately after having been started up.

But of course, not everyone will have the best user experience, it's just that the few who have these problems are universally unwilling to help Mozilla find out why. It's just "Mozilla's fault" and "nothing else matters... unless it means me having to do something".

Everyone has these problems. The browser isn't broken nor does it behave oddly. It's just enormously resource hungry, and I think it's a consequence of the design process and how the software has grown and been built. I don't know what meaningful information I can provide to Mozilla that they don't already have.

Re:That's great

[gottabeme]

Chrome has now been running for a few hours, and with pages open it's still only at 110 MB memory usage. FF uses twice as much immediately after having been started up.

You do realize that Chrome spawns a multitude of processes, right? One for every extension, one for every tab, plus a bunch of others. Did you add up the RSS of all the processes, or did you just pick one at random? Are you using an empty profile, or do you have months of browsing history?

If I start Chrome, it uses 700-800 MB immediately after having been started up. It always uses more than Firefox.

Fire-Who?

[who_stole_my_kidneys]

I remember back in the day FF was a small footprint, fast browser, then it got bloated taking up huge amounts of memory, rendering slowly , and coming out with a ridiculous release cycle that killed any corporate backing it had. I cant think of any of my clients that use FF. Sorry but FF is going to have some major performance improvements to win the masses back.

Re:Fire-Who?

[rklrkl]

Replace "FF" with "Google Chrome" and you'll see that Google beat Mozilla to the punch :-) Remember that Chrome is on version 29 (5 ahead of Firefox) and now uses more RAM than Firefox! You've also conveniently forgotten the Firefox ESR release (Chrome has *nothing* like it, so is a complete disaster for corporate use). Also, the performance gap has been gradually closing between Chrome and Firefox in the last year or so. For the first time in a couple of years, Firefox recent actually beat Chrome in Tom's Hardware Browser Grand Prix.

The lack of extensions on Android Chrome is utterly appalling, which is why Firefox on Android basically destroys Android Chrome. Now if Mozilla could fix the dodgy graphics issue with Firefox on the Nexus 10 (pages often half-rendering and needing a screen rotation to render them properly!), then I wouldn't have to double-rotate my tablet so often :-)

Re:Fire-Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Mozilla will NEVER be able to satisfy you. Stop kidding yourself. They've practically rewritten half the browser over the last 2 years, solved a huge amount of their nastiest bugs, caught up and even surpassed the other browsers in some important ways, and they're STILL not even competitive by your reckoning.

I'd actually like to know what magical browser you're using that's so much better. You're also going to have to try harder to convince me that a rolling release schedule is the problem when virtually every browser has them now, or that "the masses" care about corporate features.

It sounds more to me like Firefox could win all of the browsing awards, cure cancer and dance for your amusement and you'd still apparently not give a shit.

TLS 1.2

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly M24 still only supports up to TLS 1.0 by default. We're at the point that we really need to start moving the ball forward:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security#Cipher

M24 uses NSS 3.15.1, which does support TLS 1.2, but (a) it's not enabled and (b) it doesn't support the GCM-based ciphers, which adds a lot of security against BEAST, CRIME, etc. M25 is supposed to use NSS 3.15.2 which has added support for AES128-GCM, among other protocol enhancements:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=898431
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=880543

M25 is expected toward the end of October AFAICT:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar

I'm more anxious about support in NSS, as that's used in a whole bunch of other places.

Mobile browsers evict less recently used pages

[tepples]

Besides, I can't help but notice that Chrome is somehow managing to keep working with 100+ open tabs day after day

That's because Chrome runs each tab in a separate process. It's far less likely for a single tab to top 1 GB than it is for all tabs put together to top 1 GB, reducing the need for a 64-bit binary. Firefox is working toward this model; search Bugzilla for "electrolysis" to find related bugs.

in a freaking phone.

I've noticed that if I have more than about three tabs open in Chrome or Firefox for Android, switching to another tab may cause the page to reload if it's been kicked out of memory. This "forgetting" interferes with the offline use case of opening a bunch of pages in tabs, going offline, and reading each page, and it interferes with pages that have forms on them.

At the risk of sounding like a troll

[rsilvergun]

NFC is kinda pointless until the iPhone supports it. There isn't a single large company that'll move until then. I can't tell you the let down it was when the iPhone 5 didn't have it. As near as I can tell the problem is iPhone users have lots of money and they spend it, so they're a required demographic for any major push forward.

Re:At the risk of sounding like a troll

[mjwx]

NFC is kinda pointless until the iPhone supports it. There isn't a single large company that'll move until then. I can't tell you the let down it was when the iPhone 5 didn't have it. As near as I can tell the problem is iPhone users have lots of money and they spend it, so they're a required demographic for any major push forward.

You're right, you do sound like a troll.

With Android outselling Iphones 3 to 1, it really doesn't matter what Apple does. Android eclipsed Iphone long ago.

You'll notice most Iphone features came out on Android first, WiFi and cable tethering, copy and paste, the "new" data usage meter in IOS 7 has been in Android since version 2.

With features, the Android modding community is really the test bed, people who use community ROMS get the features first. The ones that are good get rolled into Android propper in 6 months, Iphone users get them 18 to 24 months after that.. Maybe, if Apple feels like it.

So it really doesn't matter what Apple does, the only ones who will be harmed by Apple choosing not to use NFC will be Iphone users who are no longer a significant audience.

Re:At the risk of sounding like a troll

[petsounds]

Apple-Android fanboy war aside, Google dropped the requirement for NFC from Google Wallet today due to lack of device support. NFC has caught on about as well as QR Codes; in other words, it hasn't. It may be useful for some people, but it's ultimately just a feature bulletpoint and irrelevant to most users.

You are the perfect scenario for

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox's about:memory "Measure and Save" & "Load and Diff" buttons. Use them and attach the diff to the bug.

Flashblock is overkill in Firefox 24

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you can uninstall it and install the lighter-weight Click-to-play per element

Netscape Communicator redux

[petsounds]

It's very distressing to see Mozilla has added "social media" and chat code into Firefox. We're right back to Netscape Communicator again. Firefox was created to get away from all that bloat. There's no reason for a web browser to have a chat and social media clients grafted onto it. Speaking of bloat, I'm using Firefox 23 right now on OS X; I have one tab open and it's gobbled up half a gig of RAM. Half a gig.

I think it's past time we nuke the thing from orbit and start over.

Re:Netscape Communicator redux

[Blaskowicz]

What's the "social media" stuff?, there's not any word about this, barring the summary describing chat as a social feature.

Vine Videos?

[qzzpjs]

Did they fix Vine video playback without us resorting to hacking around in about:config or downgrading our systems to XP? Apparently it worked in v21 and earlier but then they changed something in how they interpreted the media tag or something. Vine's play in all other browsers just fine.

Re:DECLINED

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a slave to google (meaning, don't use firefox? wait, what?), yet use an android phone... hmm, ok. Pretty bulletproof logic you got there, buddy.

what RAM bloat?

[Lee_Dailey]

howdy y'all,

i'm running ff23.0.1 and it's using 1/4 gig right now. i've been online for several hours, visited /., 9gag, reddit, mozillazine, bbc, etc. ... and still never more than an occasional blip up to a 1/2 gig. this is also a pretty tweaked profile with 50 [yes, really! [*grin*]] extensions.

folks who are seeing huge chunks of ram being used by firefox "while not doing anything" are seeing a _very_ different experience from mine. i always think of doing tech support ... "no! i didn't install anything new!" ... when i read things like those posts.

take care,
lee

Re:what RAM bloat?

[gottabeme]

250 MB with 50 extensions. Sorry, I just don't believe you.

32bit is not dead yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows XP has still over 30% market share, and most of them are 32bit installations. So the death of 32bit Windows is strongly exaggerated.

Crap since 3.6

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloatware.
4 hours of light browsing on /. and a couple blogs 2-3 tabs.... 845mb, only plugins are noscript and flashblock, daily occurrence, in fact it commonly double that amount. Sad when ie9 kicks it's ass in speed and memory management. Thanks to those that linked to Pale Moon in this thread I'll definitely check it out as it sounds like FF without the unnecessary crap.

Android version is still unusable

[fastgriz]

A 2 year old "text inflation" bug (not really a bug, more like a horribly flawed feature) renders the Android version totally unusable for me. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707195