7 ms·

Firefox 23 is available

95 points by lambda_cube 13y ago

lambda_cube 13y ago
I know that the release notes still says Firefox Beta when I submit this, but my browser just updated itself to version 23. The beta release notes usually are pretty accurate when it comes which features will be in the next stable version. I believe the new baseline compiler is included in this release as described here: https://blog.mozilla.org/javascript/2013/04/05/the-baseline-compiler-has-landed/ https://blog.mozilla.org/javascript/2013/04/05/the-baseline-... If that is the case it's the most interesting new feature for me, but I'm a compiler guy :-)
M4v3R 13y ago
> Support for new scrollbar style in Mac OS X 10.7 and newer Finally. That one took quite a long time for them. It looks simple in the change log, but I suspect that it was actually quite a big change under the hood. EDIT: Woops, it seems that this is an error on release page, since they've hit a regression [1] and they've pulled the feature, it's due to come back in v24. And is seems I was right that this was actually a pretty big change under the hood [2]. EDIT 2: And they now removed the error about new scrollbar from the article. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564#c244 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564#c244 [2] https://bug636564.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=744631 https://bug636564.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=744...
- actionscripted 13y ago
  Scrollbars aren't bad at the moment, but this one has bothered me for a while: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=780726 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=780726 A quick resize (redraw) fixes things, but it's the only app on my machine that tweaks like that going from space to space.
maxcan 13y ago
sayonara <blink> tag. you won't be missed.
sirn 13y ago
For those who upgraded and still see the old scrollbar: despite what Beta Release Note said, Lion-style scrollbar is not in this release due to regression. It will be available in Firefox 24 instead[1]: >The new scrollbars has been disabled on Beta for Firefox 23 due to a serious regression. It is now scheduled to be released in Firefox 24 as long as there are no serious regressions. [1]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564
- workbench 13y ago
  What a joke
6cxs2hd6 13y ago
I'm really looking forward to the overhaul on the road map that moves more things off the main UI thread. I keep switching from Chrome to Firefox for reasons of principle ... and keep switching back to Chrome for reasons of performance. I hate myself, but can't help it. Firefox will briefly freeze scrolling a long page. Firefox will beach ball for 15 seconds after resuming laptop from sleep. And so on. None of it is crash/burn awful, but it adds up to be just irritating enough that it makes me mental. I tolerate it until I can't (for a couple weeks), then switch back to Chrome. Just did so yesterday, which is why I'm ranting in response to this headline. This on OS X. Couple years ago when I was using Windows 7 all the time, Firefox was great. IME the fit/finish on OS X is not the same. tl;dr: Firefox, I want to love you and be exclusive. Please change.
- ishansharma 13y ago
  Well, I am on Windows 7 and it is fine enough but at times, it does get slow. I also keep changing between Chrome and Firefox. Chrome just feels way faster. Apart from that, Chrome has very nice features that make life easier. The PDF preview of Chrome is great. It can rival the PDF viewers on desktops easily. Heck, it helped once when I had to get a printout at a shop and they didn't have PDF Reader installed. I just dropped PDF onto Chrome and we had a PDF reader that could print. I know about PDF.js but it is not so good! Next, the UI could be improved. Firefox has its upsides as well. I love the hidden status bar. I have dropped all my extension icons there. Now, with one shortcut, they are accessible and for normal browsing, don't come in between. But Chrome's way of managing extension icons is great, and one thing that particulary drives mad with FF is that there are no visible zoom controls. I have been using it on and off for a year now but I still don't know how to find if I'm zoomed in or not. Chrome has really good Flash integration and I didn't know that I did not have Flash Player installed till I started using Firefox. What is stopping them from bundling a plugin like Chrome?
  - zobzu 13y ago
    I use PDF.js in FF it seems fine for a PDF reader. Its integrated and reasonably fast
robin_reala 13y ago
The biggy for me is <input type="range"/> support. I’ve already ripped jQuery UI out of an internal project today; it was only there because of that omission.
- undershirt 13y ago
  Man, that was a long time coming! Glad it's finally here.
ihsw 13y ago
The very large banner at the top of the page seems to indicate that this is a beta release, so shouldn't that be indicated in the submission title? I was excited about a new release of Firefox (namely to see if performance improved), but if this is beta then I won't be touching it.
- sp332 13y ago
  The mobile version seems to have the old version of the banner. The desktop version says: "(First offered to release channel users on August 6, 2013)"
dchest 13y ago
Haha, the note about removing <blink> tag is enclosed in <blink></blink>.
- conradfr 13y ago
  Which apparently does not work in IE10 & Chrome either. I guess you can still implement it easily in JS though.
- gholap 13y ago
  Nice find! I wonder what prompted to look at the code there...
  - lambda_cube 13y ago
    If you view the page with Firefox version <= 22, that paragraph is blinking, very easy to notice :-) (annoyingly easy!)
    - dchest 13y ago
      Indeed, that's how I noticed it.
- LandoCalrissian 13y ago
  It's now gone from every browser I think, that was a funny legacy feature I wish they would have left in just for fun.
- runn1ng 13y ago
  Geocities are gone. <blink> is gone. Pretty soon, <marquee> will be gone too. At least animated gifs are still stronger than ever.
- oinksoft 13y ago
  Is there any good reason for removing the distinctive behavior of an element that so many older websites use, even if it is considered a design faux pas? History should not be destroyed.
mmuro 13y ago
It feels like OSX will be on Mavericks before the Lion scroll bars are supported in Firefox. I've been using Safari a lot lately. Only thing I'm not crazy about is the inspector. It's easily the worst of all the browsers, but at least they are fixing that in the next update.
- Jgrubb 13y ago
  Just out of curiosity, why Safari?
  - M4v3R 13y ago
    I also use Safari on a daily basis, with Chrome when testing web apps. - iClouds tab sync - quite fast - two-finger swipe for back/forward with nice "cover" effect - scrolling is silky smooth* - iCloud keychain* * available on Mavericks. Scrolling was good enough earlier, but on Mavericks its butter smooth.
  - mmuro 13y ago
    I just don't like Chrome, for one. But, I really like the scrolling, pinch to zoom, swipe to go backwards, bookmark syncing across my multiple computers, etc. The inspector, as flawed as it is, has some nice features. I don't have Mavericks, but I believe these updates are coming: https://www.webkit.org/blog/2518/state-of-web-inspector/ https://www.webkit.org/blog/2518/state-of-web-inspector/
  - kalleboo 13y ago
    It blows the other browsers away in scrolling performance on a retina display laptop. Chrome has gotten a lot better recently, but it's still worse enough that it's worth putting up with Safari's weaknesses.
  - workbench 13y ago
    UI is just way better than anything else out there UI feels and IS more native than anything else out there Performance is better than Firefox and only worse than Chrome in beta technologies and a few edge cases
  - 13y ago
ciferkey 13y ago
The network monitor addition to the developer tools is a welcome change. Now I won't have to switch into chrome for that.
- MisterWebz 13y ago
  Same here. However, it's still not showing local resources that are not being loaded because the path or the name of the script or stylesheet is wrong.
levosmetalo 13y ago
It's funny to read those release feature announcements while running on Aurora channel which is on 24.0a2 right now, and 25 in a few days.
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  How are you finding the Aurora channel to be, stability-wise?
  - levosmetalo 13y ago
    Never had any stability problems for more then a year now, on both work Windows 7 x64 and various Linux variants at home. A year ago there were a few addon problems here and there, but these days addon authors are used to the new release cycle, so I don't have even these problems anymore.
chrisblackwell 13y ago
Wasn't this the release that was suppose to disable third-party cookies by default? What happend?
- lambda_cube 13y ago
  That was supposed to be switched on by default in Firefox 22, but Mozilla noticed some issue with it. The feature is there in FF22, but you have to switch it on yourself. If you you want to know more about the issues, you can read what Brendan Eich had to say: https://brendaneich.com/2013/06/the-cookie-clearinghouse/ https://brendaneich.com/2013/06/the-cookie-clearinghouse/
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
01Michael10 13y ago
Firefox 23 release notes... https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/
CapitalistCartr 13y ago
So what about "Disable Javascript" option to be removed in Firefox 23? Was it? That is a dealbreaker for me.
- cyphax 13y ago
  They removed the checkbox from the options but if you look in about:config you can disable Javascript. So that's a yes and a no? :P
- ender7 13y ago
  It was, but there are many addons that will turn it off for you.
- babuskov 13y ago
  I'm using web developer extension anyway. Disabling/enabling JS is a matter of 2 clicks in its menu.
- _greim_ 13y ago
  Also a dealbreaker, no "disable HTML" option. It's critical to my daily workflow to be able to turn off all content and browse the web in peace and silence.
- nsmartt 13y ago
  The idea is that non-technical users shouldn't have options in preferences that will break the web for them, and that technical users will use about:config or an add-on (e.g. NoScript). I find it difficult to argue with that. edit: clarity. total rewrite.
  - Gormo 13y ago
    "Non-technical users" is a contradiction in terms. If you're using technology, you're a "technical user". If you don't know how certain options work, you should leave them alone; but if you don't leave them alone and something breaks, it takes only common sense and not specialized knowledge to suspect that the thing you changed has some relationship to the thing that broke. De-featuring software for the presumptive convenience of a presumptive lowest-common-denominator user is not a good practice.
negativity 13y ago
...and remember, kids. JavaScript is now compulsory.
- scott_karana 13y ago
  By what definition of compulsory?
  - negativity 13y ago
    In that inexperienced users are not well-informed of the option to disallow it, and might not understand that indiscriminate, promiscuous execution of JavaScript as a default behavior can be hazardous. ...at least as hazardous as connecting to unencrypted Wi-Fi. To whit: http://beefproject.com/ http://beefproject.com/ New users aren't even readily informed that JavaScript is a thing.
    - ghostdiver 13y ago
      Didn't ever hear of pure JS browser exploit, only a mix of Flash or Java.
      - aclevernickname 13y ago
        I have an omegle exploit that exists entirely in javascript. it was written for Chrome (Windows/Mac specifically), but still 100% javascript. I'd be happy to email a copy of it (in .zip form) to anyone interested. Also, the recent Tor Browser Bundle exploit (RIP Tormail) was javascript-based.
- sp332 13y ago
  You can, as always, install NoScript or other js-control extensions. Or if you want to break all js everywhere, head to about:config.
melling 13y ago
It's great to finally see that Firefox is updating almost everyone like Chrome. http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-weekly-201322-201331 http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-weekly-201322-... Those first few (dozen?) releases people constantly complained about the version number changes, the rapid release cycle, and there was quite a bit of fragmention. There days there are a billion people getting a new HTML5 browser every 6 weeks.
- ishansharma 13y ago
  Link is broken. It is great seeing people update fast. I am waiting for the day when IE 6-8 usage goes down to 0.
shmerl 13y ago
Looks like gstreamer support for non-free codecs (like H.264) is not enabled in this build yet: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282#c78 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282#c78
CmdrKrool 13y ago
Nasty surprise for me: 'Remove the ability to not "Always show the tab bar"' https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=855370 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=855370 'browser.tabs.autoHide' config also removed, tab bar now always visible no matter what. Add-on to restore old behaviour: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/hide-tab-bar-with-one-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/hide-tab-bar-... (There is an unnecessary gradient to the background of my navigation toolbar now though.) Discussion threads of indignant catharsis: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.support.firefox/N56FKFAHeFc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.support.fire... http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2687123 http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2687123
- mhaymo 13y ago
  The keyword.URL setting (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyword.URL http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyword.URL) was also removed, and of course addons have been made to re-enable it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/keywordurl-hack/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/keywordurl-ha... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/keyword-search/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/keyword-searc... I didn't understand why they would disable this feature which I love so much, but reading the bug explained that it was to prevent malicious apps from being able to change the default search in a way that is not easily reverted by users (keyword.URL can only be changed through about:config). Makes sense to me, and fortunately we have add-ons which can restore this functionality :)
sbi 13y ago
I see that Mozilla is now signing hashes of Firefox downloads with a 4096-bit RSA key. But the key used to sign firefox-23.0.tar.bz2 (id 0x057CC3EB15A0A4BC) is only self-signed and was created three weeks ago. It's not on pgp.mit.edu. Is there any actual way to "validate the authenticity of these keys in an out-of-band manner" as the KEYS file recommends?
- zobzu 13y ago
  the primary key is 2B90 598A 745E 992F 315E 22C5 8AB1 3296 3A06 537A not 5445 390E F5D0 C2EC FB8A 6201 057C C3EB 15A0 A4BC if you search for the primary its there (at least it's on pgp.mit.edu as far as I can see) it's the primary that you need to trust for the trust to work For FF 23: gpg --verify SHA1SUMS.asc gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jul 2013 09:32:39 PM PDT using RSA key ID 15A0A4BC gpg: Good signature from "Mozilla Software Releases <releases@mozilla.org>" gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 2B90 598A 745E 992F 315E 22C5 8AB1 3296 3A06 537A Subkey fingerprint: 5445 390E F5D0 C2EC FB8A 6201 057C C3EB 15A0 A4BC gpg --sign-key 0x8AB132963A06537A gpg --verify SHA1SUMS.asc gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jul 2013 09:32:39 PM PDT using RSA key ID 15A0A4BC gpg: Good signature from "Mozilla Software Releases <releases@mozilla.org>" It is however, indeed, only self-signed right now as far as I can see.
  - sbi 13y ago
    Thanks; I had searched on pgp.mit.edu for the primary key but forgot to add the hex prefix 0x. Curiously, the 1024 bit DSA key used for some previous releases (0x7f4d66451ebcab3a) has been signed by "Someone at Mozilla Should Sign the Release Key (so users can verify the key's owner!) <anonymous@lulz.example.com>".
ck2 13y ago
Stuck on FF21 until they fix the scaling on windows xp Which might never happen :-(
- gecko 13y ago
  Why on Earth would you not upgrade to at least Windows 7?
  - drcube 13y ago
    I'm on XP at work. I get a new computer in January though and all the new ones have W7. I must have been one of the last people to get an XP computer here. This OS is what, 12 years old now? Linux was on version 2.4.x when XP came out. OSX wasn't around yet, or was brand spanking new. I hate MS as much as anyone but that's still pretty impressive.
    - ck2 13y ago
      Technically each SP refreshed the code base and many other libraries are independent of the platform, which is why it has lasted so long. SP3 was released late 2008, so it's "only" 5 years old. I'm not a gamer so DX9 is fine, all the .net libraries work on it, it has NTFS support just as fine as W7 and W7 32-bit cannot support any more memory than XP can. XP is just a way for me to launch programs, W7 is not going to launch them any better. Just want to get two more years out of this.
  - ck2 13y ago
    Why again do I need Windows 7? I mean other than developers purposely breaking things that already worked under XP?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Siecje 13y ago
My biggest issue with Firefox is that it is hard to copy the html of a form or table, using the developer tools.
- kbrosnan 13y ago
  Is the following what you are doing? Is there a dev tool that makes that flow better? * inspect the element * right click on either the element in the breadcrumb view or in the source view * select copy outer html * paste into your document fixed formatting
Siecje 13y ago
I'm surprised the <blink> tag was removed, just for historical reasons.
glub0t 13y ago
Some of configuration setting has been removed or burried deep in about:config. Now I can not find TLS 1.0 checkbox, because I am hoping this release support TLS 1.1 and 1.2. But, there is no sign of this support. Beside that, I love FF. Thank you for this release and everything.

95 points by lambda_cube 13y ago

I know that the release notes still says Firefox Beta when I submit this, but my browser just updated itself to version 23. The beta release notes usually are pretty accurate when it comes which features will be in the next stable version. I believe the new baseline compiler is included in this release as described here: https://blog.mozilla.org/javascript/2013/04/05/the-baseline-compiler-has-landed/ https://blog.mozilla.org/javascript/2013/04/05/the-baseline-... If that is the case it's the most interesting new feature for me, but I'm a compiler guy :-)

M4v3R 13y ago

> Support for new scrollbar style in Mac OS X 10.7 and newer Finally. That one took quite a long time for them. It looks simple in the change log, but I suspect that it was actually quite a big change under the hood. EDIT: Woops, it seems that this is an error on release page, since they've hit a regression [1] and they've pulled the feature, it's due to come back in v24. And is seems I was right that this was actually a pretty big change under the hood [2]. EDIT 2: And they now removed the error about new scrollbar from the article. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564#c244 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564#c244 [2] https://bug636564.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=744631 https://bug636564.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=744...

actionscripted 13y ago
Scrollbars aren't bad at the moment, but this one has bothered me for a while: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=780726 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=780726 A quick resize (redraw) fixes things, but it's the only app on my machine that tweaks like that going from space to space.

maxcan 13y ago

sayonara <blink> tag. you won't be missed.

sirn 13y ago

For those who upgraded and still see the old scrollbar: despite what Beta Release Note said, Lion-style scrollbar is not in this release due to regression. It will be available in Firefox 24 instead[1]: >The new scrollbars has been disabled on Beta for Firefox 23 due to a serious regression. It is now scheduled to be released in Firefox 24 as long as there are no serious regressions. [1]: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564

workbench 13y ago
What a joke

6cxs2hd6 13y ago

I'm really looking forward to the overhaul on the road map that moves more things off the main UI thread. I keep switching from Chrome to Firefox for reasons of principle ... and keep switching back to Chrome for reasons of performance. I hate myself, but can't help it. Firefox will briefly freeze scrolling a long page. Firefox will beach ball for 15 seconds after resuming laptop from sleep. And so on. None of it is crash/burn awful, but it adds up to be just irritating enough that it makes me mental. I tolerate it until I can't (for a couple weeks), then switch back to Chrome. Just did so yesterday, which is why I'm ranting in response to this headline. This on OS X. Couple years ago when I was using Windows 7 all the time, Firefox was great. IME the fit/finish on OS X is not the same. tl;dr: Firefox, I want to love you and be exclusive. Please change.

ishansharma 13y ago
Well, I am on Windows 7 and it is fine enough but at times, it does get slow. I also keep changing between Chrome and Firefox. Chrome just feels way faster. Apart from that, Chrome has very nice features that make life easier. The PDF preview of Chrome is great. It can rival the PDF viewers on desktops easily. Heck, it helped once when I had to get a printout at a shop and they didn't have PDF Reader installed. I just dropped PDF onto Chrome and we had a PDF reader that could print. I know about PDF.js but it is not so good! Next, the UI could be improved. Firefox has its upsides as well. I love the hidden status bar. I have dropped all my extension icons there. Now, with one shortcut, they are accessible and for normal browsing, don't come in between. But Chrome's way of managing extension icons is great, and one thing that particulary drives mad with FF is that there are no visible zoom controls. I have been using it on and off for a year now but I still don't know how to find if I'm zoomed in or not. Chrome has really good Flash integration and I didn't know that I did not have Flash Player installed till I started using Firefox. What is stopping them from bundling a plugin like Chrome?
- zobzu 13y ago
  I use PDF.js in FF it seems fine for a PDF reader. Its integrated and reasonably fast

robin_reala 13y ago

The biggy for me is <input type="range"/> support. I’ve already ripped jQuery UI out of an internal project today; it was only there because of that omission.

undershirt 13y ago
Man, that was a long time coming! Glad it's finally here.

ihsw 13y ago

The very large banner at the top of the page seems to indicate that this is a beta release, so shouldn't that be indicated in the submission title? I was excited about a new release of Firefox (namely to see if performance improved), but if this is beta then I won't be touching it.

sp332 13y ago
The mobile version seems to have the old version of the banner. The desktop version says: "(First offered to release channel users on August 6, 2013)"

dchest 13y ago

Haha, the note about removing <blink> tag is enclosed in <blink></blink>.

conradfr 13y ago
Which apparently does not work in IE10 & Chrome either. I guess you can still implement it easily in JS though.
gholap 13y ago
Nice find! I wonder what prompted to look at the code there...
- lambda_cube 13y ago
  If you view the page with Firefox version <= 22, that paragraph is blinking, very easy to notice :-) (annoyingly easy!)
  - dchest 13y ago
    Indeed, that's how I noticed it.
LandoCalrissian 13y ago
It's now gone from every browser I think, that was a funny legacy feature I wish they would have left in just for fun.
runn1ng 13y ago
Geocities are gone. <blink> is gone. Pretty soon, <marquee> will be gone too. At least animated gifs are still stronger than ever.
oinksoft 13y ago
Is there any good reason for removing the distinctive behavior of an element that so many older websites use, even if it is considered a design faux pas? History should not be destroyed.

mmuro 13y ago

It feels like OSX will be on Mavericks before the Lion scroll bars are supported in Firefox. I've been using Safari a lot lately. Only thing I'm not crazy about is the inspector. It's easily the worst of all the browsers, but at least they are fixing that in the next update.

Jgrubb 13y ago
Just out of curiosity, why Safari?
- M4v3R 13y ago
  I also use Safari on a daily basis, with Chrome when testing web apps. - iClouds tab sync - quite fast - two-finger swipe for back/forward with nice "cover" effect - scrolling is silky smooth* - iCloud keychain* * available on Mavericks. Scrolling was good enough earlier, but on Mavericks its butter smooth.
- mmuro 13y ago
  I just don't like Chrome, for one. But, I really like the scrolling, pinch to zoom, swipe to go backwards, bookmark syncing across my multiple computers, etc. The inspector, as flawed as it is, has some nice features. I don't have Mavericks, but I believe these updates are coming: https://www.webkit.org/blog/2518/state-of-web-inspector/ https://www.webkit.org/blog/2518/state-of-web-inspector/
- kalleboo 13y ago
  It blows the other browsers away in scrolling performance on a retina display laptop. Chrome has gotten a lot better recently, but it's still worse enough that it's worth putting up with Safari's weaknesses.
- workbench 13y ago
  UI is just way better than anything else out there UI feels and IS more native than anything else out there Performance is better than Firefox and only worse than Chrome in beta technologies and a few edge cases
- 13y ago

ciferkey 13y ago

The network monitor addition to the developer tools is a welcome change. Now I won't have to switch into chrome for that.

MisterWebz 13y ago
Same here. However, it's still not showing local resources that are not being loaded because the path or the name of the script or stylesheet is wrong.

levosmetalo 13y ago

It's funny to read those release feature announcements while running on Aurora channel which is on 24.0a2 right now, and 25 in a few days.

aclevernickname 13y ago
How are you finding the Aurora channel to be, stability-wise?
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  Never had any stability problems for more then a year now, on both work Windows 7 x64 and various Linux variants at home. A year ago there were a few addon problems here and there, but these days addon authors are used to the new release cycle, so I don't have even these problems anymore.

chrisblackwell 13y ago

Wasn't this the release that was suppose to disable third-party cookies by default? What happend?

lambda_cube 13y ago
That was supposed to be switched on by default in Firefox 22, but Mozilla noticed some issue with it. The feature is there in FF22, but you have to switch it on yourself. If you you want to know more about the issues, you can read what Brendan Eich had to say: https://brendaneich.com/2013/06/the-cookie-clearinghouse/ https://brendaneich.com/2013/06/the-cookie-clearinghouse/
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

01Michael10 13y ago

Firefox 23 release notes... https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/

CapitalistCartr 13y ago

So what about "Disable Javascript" option to be removed in Firefox 23? Was it? That is a dealbreaker for me.

cyphax 13y ago
They removed the checkbox from the options but if you look in about:config you can disable Javascript. So that's a yes and a no? :P
ender7 13y ago
It was, but there are many addons that will turn it off for you.
babuskov 13y ago
I'm using web developer extension anyway. Disabling/enabling JS is a matter of 2 clicks in its menu.
_greim_ 13y ago
Also a dealbreaker, no "disable HTML" option. It's critical to my daily workflow to be able to turn off all content and browse the web in peace and silence.
nsmartt 13y ago
The idea is that non-technical users shouldn't have options in preferences that will break the web for them, and that technical users will use about:config or an add-on (e.g. NoScript). I find it difficult to argue with that. edit: clarity. total rewrite.
- Gormo 13y ago
  "Non-technical users" is a contradiction in terms. If you're using technology, you're a "technical user". If you don't know how certain options work, you should leave them alone; but if you don't leave them alone and something breaks, it takes only common sense and not specialized knowledge to suspect that the thing you changed has some relationship to the thing that broke. De-featuring software for the presumptive convenience of a presumptive lowest-common-denominator user is not a good practice.

negativity 13y ago

...and remember, kids. JavaScript is now compulsory.

scott_karana 13y ago
By what definition of compulsory?
- negativity 13y ago
  In that inexperienced users are not well-informed of the option to disallow it, and might not understand that indiscriminate, promiscuous execution of JavaScript as a default behavior can be hazardous. ...at least as hazardous as connecting to unencrypted Wi-Fi. To whit: http://beefproject.com/ http://beefproject.com/ New users aren't even readily informed that JavaScript is a thing.
  - ghostdiver 13y ago
    Didn't ever hear of pure JS browser exploit, only a mix of Flash or Java.
    - aclevernickname 13y ago
      I have an omegle exploit that exists entirely in javascript. it was written for Chrome (Windows/Mac specifically), but still 100% javascript. I'd be happy to email a copy of it (in .zip form) to anyone interested. Also, the recent Tor Browser Bundle exploit (RIP Tormail) was javascript-based.
sp332 13y ago
You can, as always, install NoScript or other js-control extensions. Or if you want to break all js everywhere, head to about:config.

melling 13y ago

It's great to finally see that Firefox is updating almost everyone like Chrome. http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-weekly-201322-201331 http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-weekly-201322-... Those first few (dozen?) releases people constantly complained about the version number changes, the rapid release cycle, and there was quite a bit of fragmention. There days there are a billion people getting a new HTML5 browser every 6 weeks.

ishansharma 13y ago
Link is broken. It is great seeing people update fast. I am waiting for the day when IE 6-8 usage goes down to 0.

shmerl 13y ago

Looks like gstreamer support for non-free codecs (like H.264) is not enabled in this build yet: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282#c78 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282#c78

CmdrKrool 13y ago

Nasty surprise for me: 'Remove the ability to not "Always show the tab bar"' https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=855370 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=855370 'browser.tabs.autoHide' config also removed, tab bar now always visible no matter what. Add-on to restore old behaviour: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/hide-tab-bar-with-one-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/hide-tab-bar-... (There is an unnecessary gradient to the background of my navigation toolbar now though.) Discussion threads of indignant catharsis: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.support.firefox/N56FKFAHeFc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.support.fire... http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2687123 http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2687123

mhaymo 13y ago
The keyword.URL setting (http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyword.URL http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyword.URL) was also removed, and of course addons have been made to re-enable it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/keywordurl-hack/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/keywordurl-ha... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/keyword-search/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/keyword-searc... I didn't understand why they would disable this feature which I love so much, but reading the bug explained that it was to prevent malicious apps from being able to change the default search in a way that is not easily reverted by users (keyword.URL can only be changed through about:config). Makes sense to me, and fortunately we have add-ons which can restore this functionality :)

sbi 13y ago

I see that Mozilla is now signing hashes of Firefox downloads with a 4096-bit RSA key. But the key used to sign firefox-23.0.tar.bz2 (id 0x057CC3EB15A0A4BC) is only self-signed and was created three weeks ago. It's not on pgp.mit.edu. Is there any actual way to "validate the authenticity of these keys in an out-of-band manner" as the KEYS file recommends?

zobzu 13y ago
the primary key is 2B90 598A 745E 992F 315E 22C5 8AB1 3296 3A06 537A not 5445 390E F5D0 C2EC FB8A 6201 057C C3EB 15A0 A4BC if you search for the primary its there (at least it's on pgp.mit.edu as far as I can see) it's the primary that you need to trust for the trust to work For FF 23: gpg --verify SHA1SUMS.asc gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jul 2013 09:32:39 PM PDT using RSA key ID 15A0A4BC gpg: Good signature from "Mozilla Software Releases <releases@mozilla.org>" gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: 2B90 598A 745E 992F 315E 22C5 8AB1 3296 3A06 537A Subkey fingerprint: 5445 390E F5D0 C2EC FB8A 6201 057C C3EB 15A0 A4BC gpg --sign-key 0x8AB132963A06537A gpg --verify SHA1SUMS.asc gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jul 2013 09:32:39 PM PDT using RSA key ID 15A0A4BC gpg: Good signature from "Mozilla Software Releases <releases@mozilla.org>" It is however, indeed, only self-signed right now as far as I can see.
- sbi 13y ago
  Thanks; I had searched on pgp.mit.edu for the primary key but forgot to add the hex prefix 0x. Curiously, the 1024 bit DSA key used for some previous releases (0x7f4d66451ebcab3a) has been signed by "Someone at Mozilla Should Sign the Release Key (so users can verify the key's owner!) <anonymous@lulz.example.com>".

ck2 13y ago

Stuck on FF21 until they fix the scaling on windows xp Which might never happen :-(

gecko 13y ago
Why on Earth would you not upgrade to at least Windows 7?
- drcube 13y ago
  I'm on XP at work. I get a new computer in January though and all the new ones have W7. I must have been one of the last people to get an XP computer here. This OS is what, 12 years old now? Linux was on version 2.4.x when XP came out. OSX wasn't around yet, or was brand spanking new. I hate MS as much as anyone but that's still pretty impressive.
  - ck2 13y ago
    Technically each SP refreshed the code base and many other libraries are independent of the platform, which is why it has lasted so long. SP3 was released late 2008, so it's "only" 5 years old. I'm not a gamer so DX9 is fine, all the .net libraries work on it, it has NTFS support just as fine as W7 and W7 32-bit cannot support any more memory than XP can. XP is just a way for me to launch programs, W7 is not going to launch them any better. Just want to get two more years out of this.
- ck2 13y ago
  Why again do I need Windows 7? I mean other than developers purposely breaking things that already worked under XP?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Siecje 13y ago

My biggest issue with Firefox is that it is hard to copy the html of a form or table, using the developer tools.

kbrosnan 13y ago
Is the following what you are doing? Is there a dev tool that makes that flow better? * inspect the element * right click on either the element in the breadcrumb view or in the source view * select copy outer html * paste into your document fixed formatting

Siecje 13y ago

I'm surprised the <blink> tag was removed, just for historical reasons.

glub0t 13y ago

Some of configuration setting has been removed or burried deep in about:config. Now I can not find TLS 1.0 checkbox, because I am hoping this release support TLS 1.1 and 1.2. But, there is no sign of this support. Beside that, I love FF. Thank you for this release and everything.