Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox 36 Arrives With Full HTTP/2 Support, New Design For Android Tablets

Posted by Soulskill on from the onward-and-upward dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla today launched Firefox 36 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Additions to the browser include some security improvements, better HTML 5 support, and a new tablet user interface on Android. The biggest news for the browser is undoubtedly HTTP/2 support, the roadmap for which Mozilla outlined just last week. Mozilla plans to keep various draft levels of HTTP/2, already in Firefox, for a few versions. These will be removed "sometime in the near future." The full changelog is here.

26 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. NoScript support for android by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

    I installed a recent version of Firefox in Google Nexus 5 phone. I could not install NoScript. Says not supported. I desperately need an alternative to Chrome in my phone. All kinds of pop-ups. Does this version support NoScript?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  2. Is Media Source Extensions supported? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can't play 1080p videos or higher from Youtube without it. This is the absolute last thing that's holding me back from removing flash altogether. I know they mentioned specifically enabling MSE for youtube only on the bugtracker page (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=778617), because of some issues but I don't see this in the changelog.

    1. Re:Is Media Source Extensions supported? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      I'm running the Aurora build (v38) and no. That could be just debian testing, of course. :) But *I think* I have all the relevant codecs installed.

      MSE & H.264 is in red on https://www.youtube.com/html5

      I might wait for a kernel and xorg update - intel has native VP8 support for their Bay Trail Atom chips. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...

    2. Re:Is Media Source Extensions supported? by Ark42 · · Score: 2

      I think it was backed out, due to problems (I noticed pretty major audio sync problems myself, but it otherwise seemed to play 1080/4K/60fps videos just fine on YouTube).
      You can go enable the prefs in about:config if you want to try it out. I'm pretty sure the code is all there, just turned off by default still because of bugs.

      --
      Morphing Software
    3. Re:Is Media Source Extensions supported? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 2

      MSE support is supposed to make it in 37. However they can't seem to get it right and it's likely it won't be in a shippable state in 6 weeks.

  3. Don't forget Firefox Hello! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't forget this version also comes with Firefox Hello! Firefox Hello allows you to voice chat with all your friends, right from your browser! You'll know about it because when you update to Firefox 36, Firefox sure as hell won't let you miss this new feature that you never wanted in a god-damned browser and will immediately remove from the toolbar because it's goddamned useless and WHY IS THIS IN A BROWSER AT ALL?!!!

    (I know the answer to that last one: because VOIP is part of the increasingly bloated and useless HTML 5 spec and this uses the new HTML 5 VOIP junk. In case you wondered when HTML 5 jumped the shark...)

    1. Re:Don't forget Firefox Hello! by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You say bloat, I say functionality.

      Let's see there's skype (that requires installing a closed source binary from the evil empire), FaceTime (that only works on Apple hardware), Hangouts (that requires a Google account, and yes there are still people on the planet...) Other technologies exist but those are the most Grandma-friendly.

      Videoconferencing from any device on the planet without installing any special software is bloat?

    2. Re:Don't forget Firefox Hello! by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No, I'm not Lennart but I can see that the web has evolved from 25 years ago when it was a simple viewer for hypertext into an application platform. Some might harken for simpler days but that's progress.

      If you want to do videoconferencing, install Skype. Or pick an open source solution, there are plenty.

      Which fails the grandma test, since its another piece of technology that grandson has to support and maintain on her computer.

      In any case, you're suggesting a browser plugin as an alternative and in the same breath talk about reducing the attack service... Mozilla are proactively reducing reliance on browser plugins, e.g. (1) by supporting HTML5 to create an alternative to Java applets, (2) Developing pdf.js to substitute for Acrobat Reader, (3) Supporting video formats formerly requiring flash (4) Developing shumway for other legacy content. All use the same sandboxing model which reduces the attack service from what plugins provided.

      Now you talk about firefox stability with multiple tabs, which are slowly perhaps glacially being addressed by servo and electrolysis. Surely that's a limitation of the implementation that a flaw of videoconferencing?

      [Perhaps I should apply for a job at Mozilla; I do spend a good deal of time defending it on here! :) ]

    3. Re:Don't forget Firefox Hello! by dns_server · · Score: 4, Informative

      Webrtc is a standard that has been in the browser for the last year or more.
      What the button does is open a web page that calls the standard api's.
      Adding this button does not bloat the browser that much because the underlying api is already there.

    4. Re:Don't forget Firefox Hello! by narcc · · Score: 2

      Google WebRTC, then hang your head in shame.

      A browser should display webpages- period.

      The rest of the world disagrees with you. The web has been billed as an application platform since at least 1995.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    5. Re:Don't forget Firefox Hello! by narcc · · Score: 2

      Those applications are all *drumroll* web pages

      Only if you don't count 20 years worth of java, flash, etc. apps that previously enabled that kind of rich content in the browser. Like it or not, the web has been an application platform for at least the past 20 years. It's about time you got over it, and accepted the fact that the web simply isn't what you personally want it to be, and hasn't been for nearly it's entire existence.

      Anyone who thinks those belong in a browser is a fucking idiot.

      Or people who have had to deal with complex deployments and cross-platform development. A set of simple standards that significantly reduces the demand for shaky third-party plugins is a great thing.

      I'm curious now: what browser technologies do you find acceptable? What does " should display webpages- period" mean to you?

      If your beef is with media types, what would be allowed in your world? Text, presumably, but what about images? If images are okay, would you also be opposed to the audio tag? Is video right out, or is YouTube okay with you?

      If it's not the media type that bugs you, but interactivity, do you disapprove of forms and form controls? How about CSS as it allows for some pretty fancy interactivity? What about hyperlinks? They could presumably be used to add a level of interactivity that you might find uncomfortable.

      You're a long-time user of a site that does far more than mere "display" so you presumably draw a line somewhere. Where is that line?

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    6. Re:Don't forget Firefox Hello! by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Yo dawg, I heard you like 'application platforms' so I turned your web browser into a goddamn operating system?

      Fuck that. Just because Google does it doesn't make it a good idea!

      No, but the HTML5 spec borderline requires it. As the record-with-a-stuck-needle-AC said in an earlier post, "Do one thing and do it well". Well how about we implement a full spec for the modern internet, in full, and have the browser support all that is necessary without having to rely on a group of plugins to do basic browsing. Your anger is very misdirected.

      Welcome to the modern internet. It doesn't run in a browser anymore. You need InternetOS, and if you don't have it, no internet for you.

  4. They make it sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    like HTTP/2 support is a feature and enhancement. http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2716278

  5. I've posted this 1312 times by AbRASiON · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No more features.
    No more features.
    No more features.
    No more features.
    Stability, performance.Stability, performance.
    Stability, performance.Stability, performance.

    Did I mention Stability, performance?

    Stop.
    This goes for Firefox, this goes for Android (VERY much)
    Stop assuming there's always more powerful things coming. Stuff has slowed down the last 5 years. I can't believe how slow a modern browser can get on a decent machine. I shouldn't need 8 cores at 4.5ghz with 16gb of DDR4 or something ridiculous like that.

    Stop fiddling and start cleaning up.
    Oh and Firefox? It's 2015...... native 64bit as default already, for fucks sake.
    and this, ASAP.
    https://wiki.mozilla.org/Elect... A.S.A.P

    1. Re:I've posted this 1312 times by AFCArchvile · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Installing NoScript onto Firefox is one of the best things I've done for Firefox memory usage. It's also more secure since it stifles most cross-site scripting connections, drastically reduces load times since said cross-site scripting isn't being loaded.

      Then again, I'm still looking over at Pale Moon, and thinking that I should abandon Firefox entirely and shift my primary browsing over to Pale Moon. It accepts Noscript, and doesn't even need Classic Theme Restorer or Status-4-Evar installed, since it never messed with the UI, and never removed the status bar. (I don't know if Firefox 36 still has this problem, but Firefox 35, 34, 33, etc, all had an issue where a new window would sometimes result in the status bar not appearing. I like seeing a status bar in a windowed program, since it does what it says on the tin: provides status cues, as well as providing far less annoying insight than hovering the mouse over something and waiting for a tooltip to appear.

      --
      "Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
    2. Re:I've posted this 1312 times by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The modern browser isn't slow due it itself. The modern browser is slow due to the online experience bloating.

      HTML5, fancy graphics, all elements on the screen moving relative to each other, every object being dynamic, pictures, did I mention dynamic objects? The constant reliance on a link between server and client to send push messages, and of course all the dynamic objects.

      If you disable javascript and break most of the webpages then browsers run quite blazingly fast. It's not a Firefox related problem that the internet now demands the browser to be a borderline operating system with built in media player.

      Maybe slashdot could release an autoplaying video description of why this trend is such a problem.

  6. Re:What about the 87% of 'sad' feedback reports? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, the general feedback rule is 20/80 -- usually 80% of feedback is negative. So this is your balance point. 87% negative means that they're getting 7% negative feedback from users who normally wouldn't be providing negative feedback, which is a concern, but not as big as the 87% number would indicate.

    So the real question is: How long have they been on a downward trend with an 81%+ negative rating? Are there signs that they are adjusting something to deal with that feedback?

    The secondary question is: what exactly is the negative feedback about? Is it that Firefox now uses a bundleware installer that attempts to foist third party products on you? Is it that the Yahoo search doesn't give the same results people are used to from Google? Is it that the software crashes regularly? Slow javascript? Unimplemented features? Is it that certain sites don't work with Flash disabled or NoScript enabled? People don't like the icon?

    Personally, I'm not having any problems with Firefox, other than that it is starting to roll some features into the core browser that in all fairness should be plugins. I still prefer it to the privacy mess that is Chrome and the "nothing to see here" way Safari and IE have been hiding details of their browsing experience from the end user by default. That said, I still go to Safari when I want to see what components are actually running during a web session -- some of that doesn't show up too well in Firefox's Web Console.

  7. Re:security enhancements? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

    Let's bitch about them removing a nigh-useless toggle

    If you've ever been stuck on a page that won't let you go anywhere and every attempt at leaving mucks up other tabs, then you wouldn't call turning off javascript at that point useless.

    that messes up the experience for less-resourceful users

    Oh, lord, here we go. Another idjit who thinks his definition of what "the experience" should be must be the experience for everyone else.

    Why should I be the one to have to install addons, amirite?

    If you don't want to install an addon, feel free not to install an addon. Don't tell others that they should be forced to install an addon to DISABLE something that could be disabled natively, and until someone decided that other people's "experiences" must be carefully controlled was a simple checkbox in a preferences window.

  8. Re:ARGH! They removed -remote!! by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 4, Informative

    Never mind... firefox -new-tab www.mozilla.org apparently works like firefox -remote "openURL(www.mozilla.org, new-tab)" used to. (At least, for my use case.)

  9. Re:security enhancements? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

    You forgot "WE would rather have that toggle than install NoScript".

    THE ENTIRE POINT of Firefox was that if you wanted a feature, you could just add it on.

    Now let's move all the extra features into add-ons so that the default browser is a browser only, and I'll be happy. Oh, that and make the relationship between "Add-ons" and "extensions" more obvious. After all -- you have to go to the Add-ons menu to adjust your extensions -- but you can only "get add-ons" and not extensions, because....

    (and I'm sure it's worse in other localizations).

  10. Re:Hello by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hello is just an interface for the HTML5 WebRTC standard. To disable this HTML5 spec behaviour go to

    about:config?filter=media.peerconnection.enabled
     
    and double-click that pref line to change the value to false.

    You're welcome.

  11. Apache has mod_spdy by dwheeler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree that Apache web server support is vital if HTTP/2 is to get much use. That said, the mod_spdy plug-in for Apache supports SPDY, and has been accepted into Apache trunk. See: http://googledevelopers.blogsp... https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/...

    Since HTTP/2 is based on SPDY, it seems likely that this plug-in will be tweaked to support HTTP/2. That said, I suspect the Apache Foundation would say something like, "patches welcome".

    --
    - David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
  12. Firewall through the Firewall? by davidshewitt · · Score: 4, Funny

    I updated Firefox on my windows machine and the Windows firewall dialog popped up and asked me to allow Firefox. I declined it. but WTF?! Why would a browser need to open up ports? This seems like quite a security risk. Anyone else seen this?

    1. Re:Firewall through the Firewall? by Dagger2 · · Score: 2

      Nope. Bug 1054959: it's searching your network for Roku or Chromecast devices so you can fling videos and tabs to them.

  13. Re:What about the 87% of 'sad' feedback reports? by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 2

    People are genuinely disappointed with all of the Firefox products these days. That's why 87% of the reports are classified as 'sad'. Firefox just doesn't make people happy! It used to, years ago, but it doesn't any more.

    Why isn't Mozilla taking this more seriously? Why are they so complacent with 87% of Firefox users being unhappy? That's an atrocious failure rate. Why aren't they making a big deal about it?

    The screw: Opera did this to all of it's program users by removing bookmarks as "research shows" people prefer those thumbnails that FireFox uses, while for "me", I have to wait for FireFox show that site as a thumbnail then pin it, Opera lets you edit or put the one you want where and when you want.

    The the finger: Opera will import bookmarks but not Opera's own.

    I noticed just now Opera will import Opera.12 bookmarks this Version: 27.0.1689.69 - Restart Opera to update to version 27.0.1689.76
    What I was met with, that's one important update - I thought I had updates disabled, It's how one ends up with FireFox 36 (I'll take your word for it, and avoid it), but it is a standard practice of mine to disable updates. (carry over from Windows history of bad updates). /. will still allow Opera 12 with no complaints and what I'm using now. checking further, updates on, off, or maybe aren't an option for Opera 27. Well I'm done with Opera till I find that secret word (none of that flakey opera:config for Chrom... er Opera)., it's bad enough it's always demanded to be your torrent client unless edited - I'm getting close Opera:cache works but you can't access anything else, I finger it out. This paragraph was a work in progress they went back to opera:config.

    Below update is now outdated:
    UPDATE: With the release of new versions, opera:config page has been replaced by opera://flags.
    http://www.askvg.com/how-to-ac...

    Opera saved an entire web page as a .MHT file, so I saved them that way (one file instead, a folder containing one html file and a folder of files). They were very handy, at some point (below 12) - Opera quit loading them. I won't fall for that one again, ie: saving in a format only one browser will load.

  14. Re:What about the 87% of 'sad' feedback reports? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People are genuinely disappointed with all of the Firefox products these days.

    Well, I must not be "people" then. I've used Firefox for years and while Mozilla has made a slip or two, it's my go-to browser of choice.

    At least on my system, it's smaller and faster than Chrome, and it has far more useful and privacy-protecting plugins. More plugins in general, I think.

    No complaints here.