Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 26 Arrives With Click-To-Play For Java Plugins
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 26 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Additions include Click-to-Play turned on by default for all Java plugins, more seamless updates on Windows, and a new Home design for Android. Firefox 26 has 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. Release notes are here: desktop and mobile."
The only problem i've seen with Firefox today is the updates are way too fast. The plug-ins and extentions aren't fast enough to follow becomes obsolete and break. It's not all the updates but I've seen some of it not compatible anymore
PC Gaming enthousiast that gives comments, opinions and reviews on Games. I'm just having fun with games while doing let
...was the first thing I saw. Talk about a panic attack!
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
In the mean time they have made it substantially more difficult to configure the rejection of cookies.
Jesus... I'm actually thinking IE is better at this point.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
Pssshaw!! I'm already on Firefox 37. Only noob still run that ancient version 26.
Bring back the blink tag!
"able" means I have a choice.
"automatically" means I don't have a choice.
This is 2013 and I'm really tired of having my browser freeze for 2 seconds with a grey box every time a Java app has to load. With the latest JavaScript features there's no reason to be using Java in web pages anymore.
My dream browser would:
- render text
- render static images
- block ads
My dream browser would NOT:
- play sounds
- play movies
- animate anything
- open up additional windows
- support java/javascript/whatever code
- support cookies
- store any information
Oh well, I guess it will never happen.
NOW... Make flash click to play as well!
Click-to-Leak (Memory)?
Firefox to block 3rd party cookies by default... will IE or Chrome ever do this? (safari has)
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/973156
Be sure to compare how to set IE's cookie settings versus in Firefox:
http://howto.cnet.com/8301-11310_39-20042703-285/disable-third-party-cookies-in-ie-firefox-and-google-chrome/
The only problem I've seen with Firefox today is the updates are way too fast.
See folks, you mod'ed people who bitched about Firefox'es fast update cycle and now we have to deal with the bitching on every announcement. Karma whoring.
Not that I can blame the parent, it IS a quick and easy way to boost karma because all of you are so easily manipulated - like everyone else in the World.
Even after all the nightly and beta releases there is still the "final" beta known as the "x.0" with the "real" release known as the "x.0.1" coming out a day or two later.
I have seen this BSD spam bot lurking around here for something like a decade.
People still use Java in web browsers? Just asking. I haven't loaded a Java applet in years. I haven't even used Silverlight either. I must be visiting the wrong websites. lol
Congratulations?
Personally I'd bet these things are the new numbers station.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Cookie Monster is one of my must have plugins for Firefox. You can easily see at a glance where the cookie usage stands for the site you are on and can then adjust as needed. Using a default of rejecting all can be a bit more work though but isn't so bad once you have white listed your regularly used web sites.
I'd rather see "click-to-pay" the default for javascript.
It's been many years since I've been annoyed by an irritating java applet, and there a few I find useful.
But ugh - so much javascript, and so many sites that practically require it.
TLS 1.1 was supposed to be released with this version by it had to backed out because there were some compatibility issues with a small number of sites:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=733647
The code is still in there, you just have to enable it manually via about:prefs: security.tls.version.max=2
TLS 1.2 is also present:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=861266
Just set security.tls.version.max=3.
Not sure if they're shooting for release 27 or 28. By default only TLS 1.0 is negotiated.
Version 31 is bigger than version 26 so chrome must be better.
Dont you mean 'Click and Pray' JAVA plugins?
And as-usual I will NOT be upgrading.
Since Mozilla has followed in Google's path of removing useful functions with each new version. I do not upgrade any Google, Android, or Mozilla applications.
for some reason, the download page thinks that I am using the latest version of Firefox.
"Congrats! You’re using the latest version of Firefox."
No, I am using Firefox 25. Is 25 the latest version?? I thought 26 is.
Starting somewhere around version 21 of Firefox, they turned off the "downloads" window and took the ability to turn it on/off out of the options. In order to turn something on that had been in Firefox since it was called Phoenix, you had to go into about:config and change "browser.download.useToolkitUI" to true. Now for some reason, it appears to me that Firefox v26 has completely removed the download window altogether. I cannot for the life of me get the old downloads window back. Maybe I'm just blind/dumb, but I can't imagine why Mozilla continues to make changes like this.
User Style Manager
You're golden!
Does it use less than 250 MB of RAM while idling with no windows open, and less than 1 GB of RAM after 30 minutes of browsing? When it does, I'll get excited.
Signature intentionally left blank.
Google it!
I am at version 17 with the latest security fixes and it will updated to 24 next week:)
Next version is a year away with continual security. Addon work now and what Mozilla should have done back in 2011
http://saveie6.com/
Users will just downgrade to IE 8 on their XP and then whine to the webmasters that they need to make their site look as good as their foxfire. At least IE 8 works right?
http://saveie6.com/
You give the perfect example of what's wrong. You are implying that you care more about the inconvenience of having to develop a site that can work on an older browser than about the the customer
It's not like we're talking about something ancient like IE6 full of major security holes, IE8 is still only 5 years old and still supported. In fact the main reasons I see http://theie8countdown.com/ for upgrading is not due to security but because it "hampers the development of the web". Again that reinforces my point; Firefox is on its deathmarch because it wants the brave new web world whether or not its users want that world. And it wants that brave new web world because its advertiser friends have lots of money.
It is perfectly appropriate to put up a warning that IE8 users may not see all features, that at least gives them a chance to consider upgrading or to avoid your site in the future. I certainly wish I had the luxury of ignoring customers using old releases, I could get a lot of free time if I didn't have to backport bug fixes like a responsible programer.
You give the perfect example of what's wrong. You are implying that you care more about the inconvenience of having to develop a site that can work on an older browser than about the the customer
It's not like we're talking about something ancient like IE6 full of major security holes, IE8 is still only 5 years old and still supported. In fact the main reasons I see http://theie8countdown.com/ for upgrading is not due to security but because it "hampers the development of the web". Again that reinforces my point; Firefox is on its deathmarch because it wants the brave new web world whether or not its users want that world. And it wants that brave new web world because its advertiser friends have lots of money.
It is perfectly appropriate to put up a warning that IE8 users may not see all features, that at least gives them a chance to consider upgrading or to avoid your site in the future. I certainly wish I had the luxury of ignoring customers using old releases, I could get a lot of free time if I didn't have to backport bug fixes like a responsible programer.
I am advocating that pushing change too hard and ignoring users makes them die hard afraid of change which puts the cost to you.
I just saw a video yesterday that asked users what a browser was? Answer was Yahoo or Google. these were not nursing home seniors but average Joes! Asking them to change is beyond their ability to gasp.
http://saveie6.com/
WTF is it with the Gecko engine and "senior moments"?
That's caused by the lack of a multi-process model in Firefox. Mozilla is working on it under the codename Electrolysis (e10s). It's still incomplete, but you can try it out by opening about:config, turning on browser.tabs.remote, and restarting Firefox. One drawback is that click-to-play is broken, as are "many plugins".
All of Firefox's plugins have security problems. Requiring click-to-play only for Java while ignoring all other plugins comes off as biased.
Cookies are needed for an anonymous session, such as adding items to your shopping cart before logging in. HTTP Basic authentication isn't capable of distinct anonymous sessions.
Our long-term strategy is to make it so that nobody needs to use plugins by adding new web APIs
The illustration on the page you linked uses Silverlight as an example. Netflix uses Silverlight so that it can wrap rented videos in Microsoft's PlayReady digital restrictions management, and lack of PlayReady is why it doesn't work in Moonlight. Video on demand providers use digital restrictions management in the first place to deter users from in effect teeing a rented video into an encoder and keeping it past the rental period. How would VOD work on a browser distributed as free software without any proprietary plug-ins?
The page you linked states: "As browsers have advanced, this kind of feature development can occur directly within the browser using technologies such as WebGL" but this page, on Firefox 25.0.1 on Xubuntu 12.04 LTS on a laptop with an Atom N450, states: "Hmm. While your browser seems to support WebGL, it is disabled or unavailable. If possible, please ensure that you are running the latest drivers for your video card." A lot of users aren't in the position to buy a brand new PC just to be able to switch from Flash or native apps to web applications.
The page also mentions asm.js, but do non-Firefox web browsers, such as Chrome, Safari, and IE, support it yet? Otherwise, will have to write the program several times: once in asm.js for Firefox, once in Native Client for Chrome for PC, once as a native app for Android if the user hasn't already switched from Android Browser or Chrome to Firefox for Android, and then once as a native app for each platform that IE or Safari runs on.
and to use the mobile web as leverage to get new sites to use native HTML APIs
That won't especially help when Apple refuses to implement key HTML APIs in its iVersion of the mobile web. True, Safari for iOS can't run Flash anyway, but the idea on mobile is to get developers away from making platform-specific apps.
Quick question: Using HTML APIs, how should a web application let the user select a folder (or "directory" if you insist) on the local machine and upload all files in the folder?
I've been browsing for a few hours, and Xfce Task Manager on the previous version (Firefox 25.0.1) shows a resident set size of 272 MB. My PC has 1 GB of RAM, and I routinely stay out of thrashing swap even with nine Cracked.com tabs open. Part of how I keep Firefox slim is that I use the Flashblock extension, so that sites other than YouTube and Newgrounds and a couple other whitelisted sites aren't allowed to load the Flash Player until I click.
I'm getting increasingly fed by the mozilla team.
The browser performs horribly on Linux, and they're copying Chrome far too much, and the recently merged Australis stuff makes the age old idiotic mistake of assuming one interface is good enough for every form factor.
It's not, come on guys, I shouldn't have to install a bunch of extensions like Classic theme Restorer, and fuck around in about:config to get a usable interface!!
It's ticks me off to no end that it's almost 2014 and my browser of choice is based on which is LEAST WORST, rather than which suits me best.
And the competition is even worse interface wise...
Seriously Mozilla, if you have to copy Chrome, why can't you copy the good parts of it? Like the fact that it *never ever* displays webpages with similar artefacts to this when you're using a dark system theme: http://i.imgur.com/dSYp02p.png (about:memory when firefox is "not" using system colours)
Been running the same session all day. 11 addons installed, 5 tabs open currently, one of which is using an AJAX based database interface and its using a whole 170MB here.
Please take your concerns about Firefox memory use back to 2008 where it belongs. Firefox hasn't had memory issues for many years. If you still have a problem why not try a clean install, nuke your profile and get rid of your crappy addons.
I updated to Firefox 26 this morning, and as a result it would display an error message at startup, after which it closes.
I downgraded back to 25.1, but if this keeps happening I guess I'll switch browsers.
A while ago they were blocking Java outright. Click to play is a great compromise: it's much harder for an attacker to get the user to click on something than to simply load something in the background. It's also much easier for users to log into their bank or view scientific illustrations in Java (possibly other things too:).
Java has been slow at patching bugs, so I understand why they're getting the stick harder than flash. And their installer is insane, you have to install the 32 bit java to make it work in the browser, but that's not obvious from the download page
and how would they know to block it?
By the fact that advertisement URLs are not being requested. You currently sail under the radar but won't if your dream browser should become popular.
You know that there are plenty music and video players available other than the browser?
Among all the external music and video players, which external music and video player should a site's operator choose to support?
Oh yeah, there are the crappy coded websites. Let that be their problem, not mine.
In what non-crappy manner should sites be coded instead to support expansion of a tree, such as a product category tree or a comment reply tree? And in what non-crappy manner should sites be coded instead to support a shopping cart model? Would you prefer having to register and log in in order to shop?
..currently sail under the radar..
Awesome. So basically all those shit websites would disappear. I can live with that
which external music and video player should a site's operator choose to support
Magic, my friend. Just put a link to the mp3 or mp4 on your site. Works like a charm. In fact, it would be less hassle, pain and suffering for everyone involved.
in what non-crappy manner should sites be coded?
You kidding, right? Currently even to get to a webpage, you go through like 8 redirects. So this one is very easy to answer. You need two things:
1. hire decent developers
2. make sure that the back button works
Just put a link to the mp3 or mp4 on your site. Works like a charm.
If Internet radio worked that way, then you'd end up downloading the station's entire playlist. This is unacceptable to the copyright owners who license the recordings to the station.
in what non-crappy manner should sites be coded?
You kidding, right?
No. I seek to become a decent developer, and I'm asking you how a decent developer should solve the problems caused by trying to implement the rich interactions that web users expect without using any form of client-side script. How would a decent developer work around the lack of cookies when adding an item to the visitor's shopping cart? How would a decent developer work around the lack of JavaScript when trying to update the image in a web-based collaborative paint program, update the list of messages sent to a channel in a web-based chat program, scroll a large map, etc.?
I first reported the Firefox memory-hogging instability bug in Firefox version .9, whatever it was called then. Now, years later, Firefox still grabs more and more memory until it becomes unstable.
The memory-hogging instability occurs when many windows and tabs are open, as is likely for anyone doing extensive research.
OK, let's back up a second and make sure that we are not kidding ourselves into thinking that any music played on a computer cannot somehow be recorded.
The record labels and movie studios have become comfortable with analog reconversion for private use that includes a DAC-speaker-microphone-ADC or DAC-display-camera-ADC in the path, just not digital reconversion that doesn't include this highly lossy step. Besides, a lot of video streams are considered rentals, and the provider wants to deter users from keeping the video past the rental period, which is a violation of terms of service.
I'm also not going to google for you how to maintain session state without cookies.
I just did, and I'm going to explain why I don't like the solutions that I found on the first couple pages of results.
What keywords should I have used instead?
But as long as you make sure that the back buttons works, on all pages, all the time, even on your landing page
Cookies handle the back button better than the leading cookieless solution (session ID in URL) does.
you will be a much better developer.
I have tried to keep to this philosophy on an online store that I maintain on behalf of my employer, even though it does use a session cookie, does use the occasional (optional) animation, and does use the occasional (optional) script. We don't use anything like the Facebook/Twitter/Google+ social recommendation crap that too many sites use.