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

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: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.

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.

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: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?

[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: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

[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.