Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 25 Arrives With Web Audio API Support, Guest Browsing On Android

Posted by timothy on from the glad-the-browser-wars-continue dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 25 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Additions include Web Audio API support, as well as guest browsing and mixed content blocking on Android. Firefox 25 can be downloaded from 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. The release notes are here: desktop, mobile."

95 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. I can't remember by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't actually recall the last time I was actually enthusiastic about a Firefox release. Nowadays it seems like a chore that rewards my expenditure of effort with features I will never use.

    I mean... I get that mature software doesn't necessarily deliver awe-inspiring features all the time, but in that case, why is it news?

    1. Re:I can't remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      'Cause it's 25 man. 25 mostly meaningless releases.

    2. Re:I can't remember by royallthefourth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Web Audio API actually is an interesting feature.

      See some of it in action: http://mohayonao.github.io/timbre.js/

    3. Re:I can't remember by eepok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A chore? How do YOU install new Firefox releases? All I do is go to Help->About Firefox->Check for Updates->Install.

      It's not exactly spring cleaning.

    4. Re:I can't remember by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      No, it was hyperbole, chill.

    5. Re:I can't remember by eepok · · Score: 4, Funny

      Frozen.

    6. Re:I can't remember by ultranova · · Score: 2

      I mean... I get that mature software doesn't necessarily deliver awe-inspiring features all the time, but

      But we're talking about Firefox. It's not mature by any stretch of imagination.

      why is it news?

      Hype. The whole purpose of ditching major.minor.build versioning was to get the hype of a major release for every single new build. Well, that and it makes it less convenient to maintain old branches in bugfix state, thus forcing everyone to buy into every new feature and feature removal unless they want to be pwned. The developers have a vision and you will share it, dammit!

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:I can't remember by cOldhandle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a chore to find how to re-enable core features that have been removed and disable terrible additions (like the recent giant green arrow animations every single time a file is downloaded)

    8. Re:I can't remember by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      IE6 is at least supported. Debian might still support 3.5 but I don't know of anyone that actively supports 2.0 anymore.

    9. Re:I can't remember by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      The chore comes from having to spend minutes to hours to some cases days researching how to unfuck yet another UI snafu that mozilla's designers pushed in the update.

    10. Re:I can't remember by Spiridios · · Score: 2

      Web Audio API actually is an interesting feature.

      See some of it in action: http://mohayonao.github.io/timbre.js/

      This is the feature I've been waiting for since I like to write games and port them to HTML5. I have an audio-only game that only worked in Chrome until today because I had the audacity to require left/right panning.

    11. Re:I can't remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why everyone complains about the Firefox release cycle when it is nearly identical to the Chrome/Chromium release cycle. And unlike with Chrome, if you want a stable version with just bugfixes, you can use ESR releases which are supported for 54 weeks.

    12. Re:I can't remember by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      It's a chore to find how to re-enable core features that have been removed and disable terrible additions (like the recent giant green arrow animations every single time a file is downloaded)

      Even then there are some that just don't have a way to re-enable. Like autocompleting URL bars that autocomplete entire URLs, and not just domains or partial URLs. Even more annoyingly, Firefox refuses to autocomplete ports - so if you visit http://localhost8080/ Firefox oh-so-helpfully autocompletes just "http://localhost".

      But I go to direct deep URLs on a lot of things.

    13. Re:I can't remember by kju · · Score: 1

      My favorite example of Web Audio API is Plink: http://labs.dinahmoe.com/plink/

    14. Re:I can't remember by kju · · Score: 1

      Oh and here is a speech synthesizer using Web Audio API: http://www.masswerk.at/mespeak/

    15. Re:I can't remember by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 2

      Id upgrade it just for avoiding driveby malware attacks. IE6 was/is horrible in this regard, not sure how targetted is FireFox 2.0 on Linux.

    16. Re:I can't remember by Arker · · Score: 1

      "Even then there are some that just don't have a way to re-enable. Like autocompleting URL bars that autocomplete entire URLs, and not just domains or partial URLs."

      Or like the status bar. WTF was wrong with the status bar? If you didnt like it you could turn it off like all the other bars. They killed it all the way back @ firefox 4 (when the whole train seems to have gone off the tracks) and made it impossible for it to be fully reconstructed even through an extension. And, btw, that extension is now being reported as incompatible with Firefox 25.

      So glad I am using ESR instead of latest Firefox right now. And still hoping someone with a brain will fork the project before the next rev...

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    17. Re:I can't remember by fluffythedestroyer · · Score: 1

      I think what he means is there's too many releases.

    18. Re:I can't remember by Arker · · Score: 1

      "I don't understand why everyone complains about the Firefox release cycle when it is nearly identical to the Chrome/Chromium release cycle."

      We laughed at the Chrome brain damage and the fools that used it, secure in the knowledge at least our browser wasnt THAT stupid - and then it started doing the same thing. That's kind of it in a nutshell.

      I do use ESR but I would be much happier with a fork going back to version 3 or earlier and maybe fixing some of the more annoying ancient bugs instead of trying to cram new features I dont need or want down my throat while breaking the UI repeatedly.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    19. Re:I can't remember by cffrost · · Score: 2

      Even then there are some that just don't have a way to re-enable. Like autocompleting URL bars that autocomplete entire URLs, and not just domains or partial URLs. Even more annoyingly, Firefox refuses to autocomplete ports - so if you visit http://localhost8080/ Firefox oh-so-helpfully autocompletes just "http://localhost".

      But I go to direct deep URLs on a lot of things.

      FF plugin "Calomel SSL Validation" has a checkbox on its Optimizations tab* to toggle the behavior you described. The prefs dialog must be accessed via the Tools menu; the toolbar button's sole functions are: 1) Changing color to indicate a weighted, aggregate measure of the security quality of an encrypted connection, and 2) when clicked, displaying score-points and the details from which they were derived (cert match,cyphers, key lengths, hash algo).

      TLS 1.1 & 1.2 were added a couple versions back, but remain off by default. This plugin adds control of some of this functionality. See WP's TLS article and it's cited notes/bug reports regarding FF's implementation details/issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security

      * This plugin's secondary functions are numerous and disparate. I'm tired, so see first link if you want to know anything else about it.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    20. Re:I can't remember by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      My time is so important that I'm viewing this site from last firefox I find to have a usable UI: 3.6.28.

    21. Re:I can't remember by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      A chore? How do YOU install new Firefox releases? All I do is go to Help->About Firefox->Check for Updates->Install.

      It's not exactly spring cleaning.

      su
      [root password]
      zypper update

      Unfortunately, there is a delay between official release and openSUSE repository binary package, but it's relatively short. I think the "chore" part of it that he's referring to is that there's no longer any real reward: Firefox has become old and boring, and new updates (if anything) cause more trouble than anything in terms of fucking stupid design and GUI decisions, as well as extension hell (although the extension problem has been solved for while now it seems). Not to mention, Mozilla's huge bullet-point lists of "features" in every new artificially-inflated version number is full of garbage that no one needs (and in some cases, even wants).

    22. Re:I can't remember by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      Yeah... 2.x IMO was the last truly great release, and after that it went downhill. For 3.x I was forced to start bookmarks, because of that god damn [anything-but] "awesome" bar, and I refused to use it until 3.6 (which added a few notable features that made it worth it). The problem is, 2.x is now obviously horrible out of date, lacks things like out-of-process plugins, leaks like a sieve, and is just unstable. Backport the rendering engine, security fixes, memory leak plugs, and maybe some of the better (key word there: don't want to end up with yet another shitty Chrome knockoff!) ideas and I'd switch in no time.

    23. Re:I can't remember by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      "It looks like the browser you're using isn't compatible with Plink."

      How nice of them to prevent me from trying the Web Audio API demo with my newly updated Firefox 25, instead of just seeing if it will work.

    24. Re:I can't remember by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      How do you install new firefox releases on hundreds of iMacs?

      You install Windows or Linux on those iMacs and setup the appropriate update management configurations.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    25. Re:I can't remember by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      To be honest, it's really easy now to get a version number out of people using Firefox. They just have to remember one number.. 25.

      Meanwhile, Chrome: 30.0.1599.101 m

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    26. Re:I can't remember by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think it took them a long time to agree on what the audio standard would be.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    27. Re:I can't remember by Xest · · Score: 1

      It's not even mature, or at least, stable-mature.

      I had it crash randomly earlier (yes I reported to Mozilla) and I was doing some stuff with dynamically showing/hiding table rows with Javascript where the first row was full of th tags, bordered, 1px and the rest of the table cells had no border. When I showed the third row, and hid it again the whole table got vertical borders on table cells.

      No other browser did this, and even inspecting the computed values showed no border set so a rendering bug I guess.

      But seriously, what the fuck? the isn't new cutting edge advanced stuff, there wasn't anything new and fancy on the page like CSS3 or anything and they still can't get it right.

      The problem is it never used to do this, and it never used to crash, so these silent updates are actually sometimes making my browser worse.

    28. Re:I can't remember by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Do stop your whining already. If your time was that important you wouldn't update willy-nilly before you knew the issues, and you would probably have switched to a long-term release by now. Besides, it's not like the other browsers don't screw things up between releases, often in equally boneheaded ways.

      Mmmm, now if only websites wouldn't use the "latest and greatest" whiz-bang features to eventually force upgrades..

    29. Re:I can't remember by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why everyone complains about the Firefox release cycle when it is nearly identical to the Chrome/Chromium release cycle.

      Because most people thought the Chrome way was damned silly, and there was a lot of eye-rolling when that "infection" spread to other projects.

  2. Unfortunately... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately it's a Javascript API.

    You can't actually write a web page in HTML with some kind of HTML-A audio inline, like you can put SVG or MATHML inline.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Unfortunately... by tuffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's wrong with the HTML5 audio tag for simple playback of static audio files?

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    2. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just use the html5 <audio> tag, no js required.

      The api is for playback control and advanced processing & effects.

    3. Re:Unfortunately... by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 1

      So it's next-gen embedded MIDIs. Netscape always needed plugins for that (Crescendo! etc.)

    4. Re:Unfortunately... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Nothing is wrong with the HTML5 audio tag.
      What I hate it the PERLesque - There's more than one way to do it. You know there will be 15 billion ugly, unreadable javascript hacks the the API interface where the HTML interface would have been just fine, as with all other areas of overlap between HTML and javascript.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    5. Re:Unfortunately... by robmv · · Score: 2

      How do you think someone will write a relatively good web game without some kind of programming language API for sound?, Web Audio API is more than simple play and stop calls

    6. Re:Unfortunately... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      They could write a program instead. A web browser is just about the worst container for an application.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    7. Re:Unfortunately... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Sure but this is Mozilla we're talking about. Their whole modus operandi now is to augment the browser for their Firefox OS project in which there are no 'native' programs.

  3. I'd care but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The developers refuse to release a 64-bit browser, fix bugs, keep breaking 3rd party plugins between releases, like Citrix/Xen apps for example, or create a Metro option for the kiosk market. That would be news worthy instead of this rapid release schedule of major version releases.

    1. Re:I'd care but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Calm down, version 26 will be out tomorrow and it will include new playback options for flash encoded video.

    2. Re:I'd care but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They're not major version releases. They're more like 0.21, 0.22, 0.23. Small increments of new features.

    3. Re:I'd care but... by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      It's still a good thing. 64 bit means much more than just increased address space, at least on x86_64. More registers might increase speed for example.

    4. Re:I'd care but... by kthreadd · · Score: 2

      $ file -L /usr/bin/firefox
      /usr/bin/firefox: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.26, BuildID[sha1]=0x351721d7eba5940fb79872c01865bfcf86eda51d, stripped

      Looks 64-bit to me.

    5. Re:I'd care but... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      The developers refuse to release a 64-bit browser

      64-bit is available in the nightly builds. It's not in the main tree because more people would have problems with it (most plugins, like flash, are 32-bit only)

      It's why the default browser even on 64-bit OSes is 32-bit - plugin compatibility. Unless you're Google which ships Flash with every version of Chrome and can thus ship a 64-bit version with the 64-bit version.

      Doing so in Firefox would just lead to a bunch of support tickets on why Flash refuses to work.

    6. Re:I'd care but... by royallthefourth · · Score: 2

      More than 4 gig of memory is a waste for a browser.

      Obviously you are not a serious Javascript experimenter! Now that we've got canvas, WebGL, web workers, and audio, there's plenty of memory intensive stuff we can do inside the browser. The only limiting factors that distinguish web pages from real applications nowadays are your understanding of Javascript and how shitty of a browser you're willing to target.

    7. Re:I'd care but... by Arethereanyleft · · Score: 2

      Same here. I'm really tired of the almost-daily random crashes. And why is it that when I start after a crash or reboot, it tells me it can't restore my session, but then when I click the button it does so without fail?

    8. Re:I'd care but... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      More registers is about the only thing better for a browser. More than 4 gig of memory is a waste for a browser.

      You can routinely go over 1GB if you're a heavy user or the pages themselves are heavy. Sometimes it's tab hoarding, I'm beginning to roll that back. But I can reach the 32bit 2GB limit without problem and with a 64bit linux, 3GB ram, 1.9GB swap, 64bit firefox I managed to fill everything up.
      The best reason to use a 32bit firefox on a 64bit system would be so it cannot possibly fill up all your memory and send you to swap hell.

      Also, Chrome is a lot more memory hungry and can always fill up all RAM, because it uses many spawned processes. You can need 8GB ram for web browsing alone these days.
      I do no ad-blocking and no javascript blocking, because I don't want to deal with blacklists/whitelists constantly. I get the full experience lol, though I use flashblock so the computer doesn't suffer denial of service by too many flash objects.

    9. Re:I'd care but... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      However, at this point it is rather silly there is no windows 64bit version. They have had a linux and mac version for ages now. At this point is it really that big of a deal? Most of the 64 bit problems were worked out long ago...

      Part of the Windows culture seems to be that most userspace apps are released as a 32bit version only.

    10. Re:I'd care but... by dskoll · · Score: 1

      I'm running the 64-bit version now. I grabbed it from ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/25.0/linux-x86_64/en-US/

      Nobody cares about 64-bit Windows because Windows is a legacy OS.

    11. Re:I'd care but... by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      At least on Linux, Adobe provides a 64-bit flash player which runs fine in 64-bit Firefox. That's the only plugin most people care about.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    12. Re:I'd care but... by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      And on Linux 64 bit firefox is available by default, usually packaged by your distro.
      And it isn't the only plugin people care about. At least over here, the ones people care about seem to be Adobe PDF, Adobe Flash, Oracle Java.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    13. Re:I'd care but... by uncomformistsheep · · Score: 1

      Yeah, facebook chat is very resource intensive. It was the reason I first tried and then switched to Chromium. It was unbearable in firefox.

    14. Re:I'd care but... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Why? computers with 12GB of RAM are getting cheap, I don't see how it's bad to have that much of a RAM cache.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    15. Re:I'd care but... by NoMaster · · Score: 2

      And why is it that when I start after a crash or reboot, it tells me it can't restore my session, but then when I click the button it does so without fail?

      Because it's not actually restoring your session - it's reaching across the void between dimensions, piercing the paper-thin veil that separates this from that, and stealing the session from another reality.

      The reality Firefox has reached in may differ only in the angular momentum of a single sub-atomic particle. Ever notice that sometimes the session you get back is not quite the same as the one you 'lost'? That, for example, one tab may have subtly different content, or that it's on the page you'd been on before you clicked the link? At other times, greater divergence between realities can more profound differences. My wife - then girlfriend - once borrowed my laptop after FF had crashed on me, only to be shocked by multiple tabs full of midgets being blown by ducks.

      Lucky for me she understood that my last-second scream of "no, dont!" was simply meant to stop her from seeing I'd been idly browsing wedding rings, curtains, and Michael Buble CDs, and didn't hold it against me.

      You wouldn't, however, know any of this - because the Mozilla folks have never provided a useful or detailed changelog.

      If they had someone might have twigged that, rather than the problem leading to a solution, what has in fact happened is that the solution leads to the problem. Your session disappeared because Otheryou stole it; however, Otheryou's session disappeared because you stole it.

      Causality is fucked up, and I blame Mozilla...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    16. Re:I'd care but... by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      What's the alternative? With the power consumption (laptop) getting worse and worse lately, I'm looking to switch to something... sleeker.

    17. Re:I'd care but... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's tab hoarding, I'm beginning to roll that back

      Same here. The browser can bog down a bit when you load 10 slashdot articles as tabs. In addition to the other BS I might have open.

  4. Re:Bloated horseshit by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    Yep, let's give in and give all our data to google. They clearly deserve it for writing a web browser.

  5. Android version sucks. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    Its had too many features removed and freezes for up to 20 seconds if you stop a page load, pages screw their formatting up, it has no solution for popup boxes that center themselves offscreen. gmail.com, mail.com both pretty unusable. (galaxy note 2). no undo close tab. most options removed.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  6. Re: Bloated horseshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not anymore.
    The last 2 (well, now 3) versions of Firefox have been stellar. Look at the benchmark tests. These latest Firefox versions are smoking everyone else, including Chrome. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-opera-next,3534-12.html

  7. privacy by green+is+the+enemy · · Score: 1

    This is something I'm curious about: Does Chrome send tracking data to Google? Does Firefox? Google is the main sponsor of Firefox after all..

    1. Re:privacy by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Chrome sends every site you visit to google. Firefox sends google searches(naturally) and awesome bar searches to google.

    2. Re:privacy by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you don't turn off "phishing protection" it's absolutely true.

    3. Re:privacy by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Nope. Not true.

    4. Re:privacy by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Learn to use tcpdump

      I don't run as root you insensitive clod!

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  8. TLS 1.2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How about support for TLS 1.2? Or even 1.1?

    That's the main feature I'm looking at for most browsers.

  9. Nice one, Mozilla by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

    Funny - I switched on my computer, intending to look up whether Firefox has the audio API implemented so that I can use it for my next project, and the first thing I saw was this update which added exactly that :P

    The things I'm hoping to see soon from Firefox are CSS3 grids and support for multiple cookie jars.

  10. Re:Only Version 25? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    At this point, microsoft's browser is actually better. Sadly.

    The only thing that keeps many of us on FF are add-ons.

  11. Re:Another day... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Another Firefox release
    Another security hole in Microsoft products
    Another Firefox release
    Another security hole in Apple products
    Another Firefox release
    Another security hole in Adobe products
    Another Firefox release
    Another Firefox release to fix a security hole in the previous three releases
    Another Firefox release just to catch up to the Chrome version

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  12. Make sure you patch Java if you use it by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I found it went from version 40 to version 45 for both the 32 and 64 bit versions that work as Firefox plugins when the Firefox patch was added.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  13. Maybe I'll go Android by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 2

    I find browsing on the vendor built in browsers to be TERRIBLE. All the adds and crap flying around is twice as bad on a little tablet or phone because it is too easy to misclick. And browsing is already slower b/c of all the ads loading, it just ruins the experience for me.

    Thank GOD for Firefox and the tweaks you can apply with 3rd party pieces. LOVE IT and I will NEVER change to something else.

    1. Re:Maybe I'll go Android by c0d3g33k · · Score: 5, Informative

      Recommended. Firefox on Android still has many issues, but recent stable versions are much, much better than the first beta versions. There aren't that many add-ons available, but the ones that are available make the Android tablet browsing experience much more pleasant. The ones to look for: Adblock Plus, Self-Destructing Cookies, Ghostery and NO Google Analytics. Visit your favorite sites with the stock/vendor browsers, compare with Firefox+addons and decide for yourself.

    2. Re:Maybe I'll go Android by yenic · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware of Ghostery. Do you really need No Google Analytics if you have Ghostery installed though? It seems redundant.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/en/delete-slashdot-account Stop visiting Slashdot.
    3. Re:Maybe I'll go Android by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Does Firefox on Android now implement fine-grained cookie control, or is it still limited to the same thing as Chrome and the Android Browser (accept all, deny all)?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Maybe I'll go Android by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      Ghostery was added fairly recently. I just never got around to removing the other one. Doesn't seem to hurt anything in any case.

    5. Re:Maybe I'll go Android by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      No fine-grained control. Available settings are: Enabled, Enabled, excluding 3rd party, Disabled

    6. Re:Maybe I'll go Android by c0d3g33k · · Score: 1

      Horses for courses. It depends on what sites you prefer to visit, I guess. I tend to regularly visit sites on my tablet that present information for reading (blogs, local newspaper, articles etc), not all-dancing, all-singing multimedia extravaganzas. But to be honest, I run across few pages these days that it has trouble with. Firefox is a little slow to load some pages, but that doesn't really bother me much. Earlier releases were somewhat buggy, but recent releases (in the last 6 months or so) are solid.

      You'd have to define the basic features you want in a browser, otherwise people can't make a meaningful assessment of whether Firefox is missing something important. Firefox has some features I don't find in the stock browsers, so I'm not sure where you get "stripped down". I already mentioned extensibility via addons. My favorite feature is the double-tap zoom, which I wish they would add to the desktop version. This zooms the tapped section of the page such as a column of text to the width of the screen for easier reading without distraction from other parts of the page. Double tapping again zooms back out to full page. Also handy for quickly zooming in on a closely clustered set of links when the text/button is too small to accurately tap with a blunt fingertip. Much quicker than pinch to zoom.

  14. New interface? by Nutria · · Score: 1

    The release notes do not mention Australis or any major UI changes. Are they keeping mum, or was the Chrome-alike change pushed back?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  15. Re:Bloated horseshit by Forbo · · Score: 1

    Please, tell me more about how your anecdotal evidence trumps statistics. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

  16. Re:Bloated horseshit by Forbo · · Score: 2

    Or you could use Chromium.

  17. Re:Bloated horseshit by Forbo · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this would have been a better link: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-201309-201309-bar

  18. Re:Firefux by Grant_Watson · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your tone is flamebait, but your question is valid. Firefox has a project called MemShrink whose focus has been on reducing memory usage. In the time they've been going they have found and fixed leaks in Firefox; come up with better ways to find leaks in add-ons, which were the biggest culprit; changed how Firefox handles memory used by add-ons to eliminate virtually all such leaks; and optimized Firefox's memory management in a bunch of non-buggy cases.

    So yes, if memory usage is what drove you away from Firefox you should take another look.

  19. Re:Another day... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Another Firefox release just to catch up to the Chrome version

    Yet that would only be necessary if chromw was updating continuously.

    Only you didn't complain about that.

    Massive double standards there.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  20. Re:OSS Support by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    Web Audio seems to be about actually generating audio i.e. synth, mixing, filters, in javascript games or apps. That's different from providing dumb playback of sound files. OSS or ALSA would come after it in the chain, hopefully with the work they're doing the output sound server would end up being transparently selectable, i.e. choosing between ALSA, Pulseaudio, OSS, dummy, other..

    BTW I tried to like OSS but have a few issues. No panel applet for xfce, mate, lxde etc., doesn't seem to work with my Xonar, and if I can't have an OSS + Pulseaudio system just by installing a package. It would take me a week or a month to learn how to modify distro scripts or crap like that.

  21. And Still No Flexbox Support by Piata · · Score: 1

    Why is Mozilla taking so long to fully implement Flexbox? Even IE11 supports it: http://caniuse.com/#search=flexbox

    It feels weird to say it but Firefox is holding back the web. This is probably one of the most important changes to layout since designers/developers abandoned tables and moved to pure CSS based layouts.

    1. Re:And Still No Flexbox Support by BZ · · Score: 1

      Mozilla fully supports single-line flexbox (that is, flexbox in which the child flex items are all layed out in a single row or column), which is what most flexbox use cases want, and has for a while.

      What's missing is support for multiline flexbox.

  22. Re:Only Version 25? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    Screw that. The googles browser is +5 better! Long live the googles!

    I, for one, embrace our new chromey browsing overlords.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  23. Re:Another day... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    My last line was targeted at Chrome. It's Google's fault that we have insane major versions of browsers today.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  24. And Stil by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Every stinking time I go to upgrade Firefox I have a laundry list of incompatible extensions and add-ons. So I get to wait a month or two and try again. Hey Mozilla, why not incorporate a little backward compatibility to allow the add-ons and extensions to work? That way we can accept a new update without losing functionality we had with the old version!

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:And Stil by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Just install the add-on compatibility reporter (it's an add-on itself)... that wlil allow you to use all the add-ons regardless of official compatibility. They pretty much all work even if they're "incompatible".

    2. Re:And Stil by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      I've tried that in the past but my lament is the fact that ever since Mozilla went on the rapid version upgrade they keep changing things sufficiently to force the add on folks to do an about face nearly every time they push out a new release. Right now for example my AV add-ons for malware sites etc. don't work even with the compatibility reporter, so Firefox gets pushed to the side until that gets fixed and back to using Chrome or IE for now.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re:And Stil by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Weird... I have like 20 add-ons and they all work in FF25 :S

      I'm not nuts enough to run an AV add-on in a browser though, so maybe it's just you xD ;)

    4. Re:And Stil by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well it's Kaspersky, so I'll let them fix it. That's what they get paid for.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  25. Re:Another day... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Oh OK. I misinterpreted. It sounded like you were blaming firefox for massive vresion churn and being behind Chrome. I can see now that it could be read as blaming Chrome for churn too.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  26. I wish they would fix the power consumption... by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

    ... instead of adding new features. FF22 (or 23?) brought with it WebRTC and a bunch of other crap that sent my installation's power usage skyrocketing. My laptop's battery life with Firefox running has dropped by about 30% (!!!!) - so much that I've stopped using GMail online and switched to Thunderbird so that I don't have to constantly have Firefox open.

    And nobody seems to give a fuck.

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=887129
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=925629

    Chrome is not much better, unfortunately, so switching isn't really an option (not to mention I'd miss a lot of my add-ons).

  27. Re:Firefux by Waccoon · · Score: 1

    I haven't noticed any shrinkage of memory usage at all since version 3.6. Both memory usage and the size of the browser download have increased a lot.

    From someone who's used Firefox since it was called Firebird, whatever they've been doing for the last few years hasn't been working.