10 ms·

Firefox 31.0

212 points by mziulu 12y ago

digitalnalogika 12y ago
Generational garbage collection didn't make it into release? I kept seeing it in the 31.0beta release notes.
- sp332 12y ago
  https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619558 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619558 status-firefox31: disabled status-firefox32: fixed Not much to the discussion there except to mention that it was reverted during the beta.
- sirchurchill 12y ago
  Moved to 32 beta, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619558#c52 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619558#c52
tragic 12y ago
Looks like some nice improvements. Interested in this canvas debugger...
gregd 12y ago
In Firefox 29 I continued to see weird font rendering issues on Windows 8.1. So much so, that I can't use FF on Windows right now. I don't see the same issues with Mavericks. Has anyone else experienced this and does it continue into this version?
- diafygi 12y ago
  Is there a bug report for this? I'm curious to see if I can reproduce.
- metrix 12y ago
  I have the same issue in Windows 7, but have not found what exactly causes it. I work around the issue by highlighting the incorrectly rendered text with the mouse.
  - gregd 12y ago
    I've had to do the same, but that seriously degrades my browsing enjoyment...
- praeivis 12y ago
  Any chances it's about hardware acceleration? Uncheck Options>Advanced>Use hardware acceleration when available
  - broolstoryco 12y ago
    I have also had this issue and turning off HW acceleration solved it.
  - gregd 12y ago
    Turning it off did not change the issue for me..
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Try disabling hardware acceleration.
  - gregd 12y ago
    I tried that. No difference..
- dbcooper 12y ago
  Do you have an AMD GPU?
- senorerik 12y ago
  Try enabling directwrite via about:config
- Infinitesimus 12y ago
  Have you tried FF 30?
- rockdoe 12y ago
  Did you file a bug?
  - dblohm7 12y ago
    Yes, please! Many of us Mozilla devs read HN, but HN is not a bug tracker!
brador 12y ago
Does this fix the 1080p option not showing up on youtube problem?
- findjashua 12y ago
  What OS are you seeing this on? I'm able to see 1080p on osx mavericks
- coldtea 12y ago
  Is that a specific FF issue? I'm asking because of course some videos do not have a 1080p option in the first place.
- apayan 12y ago
  You probably don't have flash installed, and Firefox doesn't have Media Source Extension support for h264 yet, which YouTube has required for 480 and 1080 video since last October (IIRC). According to this bug, support for MSE h264 will be landing in Firefox 33. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1027875 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1027875
- wjoe 12y ago
  The 1080p option isn't shown because YouTube requires Media Source Extentions enabled (HTML5 DRM) for this. You -can- enable this under about:config (media.mediasource.enabled) but it's still experimental for now. When I tried it, it did show the 1080p option, but then I had very mixed results from the blank video, no audio, or the higher resolution video not actually loading. This should also only apply if you have the HTML5 player enabled on YouTube, the Flash player should still show the 1080p option.
  - ZeroGravitas 12y ago
    MSE is for varying the bitrate of videos when thing get congested. EME is for browser video DRM.
tux1968 12y ago
Seems like a modest but welcome release. The MathML torture test shoes some very nice progress[1] but makes me ask myself once again, why do TeX fonts always look like crap? Isn't that the one thing that TeX should get right? Anyway, at least they look great as rendered by Firefox 31. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/MathML_Project/MathML_Torture_Test https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/MathML_Proj...
- frenchy 12y ago
  I'm not sure "crap" is the word I'd use for that, but I think I understand what you're getting at. The problem is that the TeX fonts are designed to work at a much higher resolution (as is typical for being printed). They look much better in that case.
  - tux1968 12y ago
    Yeah, i don't earn any points for eloquence, but just looking at the side by side examples on the MathML page the contrast is pretty stark. Have often wondered if it was due to low screen resolution so thanks for confirming that. I'll try to be less grumpy the next time I get a TeX generated PDF and maybe even print it out before trying to read it ;o)
- phkahler 12y ago
  I don't see the problem. At that link, the browser column is higher contrast. Switching to the Stix fonts gives characters that look more like the TeX column, but seems to be missing a few things. I did not try all the font options.
  - tux1968 12y ago
    Really? Maybe it renders differently for you, because here the difference is stark. People keep using TeX so maybe most people don't see a difference. For me, almost every TeX document seems to use a font that looks like something very old and unprofessional. But perhaps as suggested elsewhere it is optimized for higher resolution output devices.
mr_november 12y ago
I want to use Firefox (OS X), and with almost every release I give it a go but it's simply too slow in comparison to Chrome. I'm talking about actions you do multiple times an hour - opening a new tab, closing a tab, rearranging tabs etc. This is with no extensions in use, on a mid-2011 fully specced out macbook air. It's unfortunate but the lag is clear and I can't use it as my primary when I know a better solution is right in front of me, that being Chrome.
- amatera 12y ago
  This seams to be a problem with your machine. I also use a macbook air (End 2013) and dont have this problem (or feel any Lag on Tab-Actions). Even on my old Ubuntu-rig it doesnt have this problem. Either in Firefox or Chrome.
  - richardwhiuk 12y ago
    If it works fine for him in Chrome, how can it be a problem with his machine.
  - Pacabel 12y ago
    Your response is the kind that has given the Firefox community a rather bad reputation when it comes to addressing problems reported by users. Instead of accepting that Firefox may indeed have performance problem, you immediately discount this possibility, instead blaming it on mr_november's computer. It's irrelevant that it isn't happening on your laptop that's over 2 years newer than his is. It's irrelevant that it isn't happening on your Ubuntu system. None of that matters. I don't doubt for a second that he is in fact running into performance problems with Firefox. He isn't alone. Many people report Firefox having worse performance than Chrome does on the same system. I've experienced this, too. Yet instead of addressing and fixing these very real performance problems that have been brought up time and time again by many users, the Firefox community and developers seem content to deny that they exist, or refuse to consider that it may be a problem with Firefox (like you've done), or point to useless and totally unrealistic benchmarks to suggest it isn't a problem. But worst of all is how mr_november's comment has been voted down. It's one thing to deny that the problem exists, but it's much worse to try to actively censor those who have merely pointed out a very legitimate and troubling issue. Firefox has been losing market share for some time now, and this trend will only continue as long as Firefox's performance problems go unaddressed, and the Firefox community mistreats anyone who dares mention that such problems still exist.
huhtenberg 12y ago
> Block malware from downloaded files Hi, Google. Would you just look at what I downloaded!
- Gmo 12y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out, I went and did set the url to a blank string as mentionned in their documentation. (safebrowsing.appRepURL for the curious)
- TheCraiggers 12y ago
  I'm also a bit worried about the privacy implications of this. Especially given that the feature is hidden, and the only two ways to turn it off involve going into about:config, which most people don't even know exists. I wouldn't even know it was doing this if I hadn't read the changelog. Reading the changelog, it also mentions having local and remote blacklists, but how FF chooses which one to use wasn't clear to me. Local blacklists are not as scary to me for obvious reasons. Being able to use this without the remote blacklist would be nice. I would really love some additional info on this feature from Mozilla, as well as a more user-friendly way of disabling it.
  - yellowapple 12y ago
    > and the only two ways to turn it off involve going into about:config, which most people don't even know exists. There's a third way according to the feature's development documentation [0]: uncheck "Options"/"Preferences" -> "Security" -> "Block reported attack sites". [0]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reputation_Design_Doc https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reput...
  - rockdoe 12y ago
    It's in the documentation: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reputation_Design_Doc https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reput... 1) Check local blacklist 2) Check local whitelist 3) If no hits on either, check remote service
  - Istof 12y ago
praeivis 12y ago
It's possible turnoff search field on the new tab page?
- cpeterso 12y ago
  Unfortunately, no.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
farawayea 12y ago
When are we getting 32beta?
JelteF 12y ago
Where did the Shadow Dom support go?
- ebidel 12y ago
  It's still behind the web components flag in FF nightly. The master bug for web components is: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=811542 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=811542
bsimpson 12y ago
Nice to see CSS vars shipping. Chrome had an experimental version, but removed it for performance reasons: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/ScKw9zYRkBc https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink...
bpierre 12y ago
Changes for developers: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/31 https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/31
xkarga00 12y ago
Wasn't that Firefox is already running bug supposed to be resolved by Firefox 30.0? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7873779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7873779
- rockdoe 12y ago
  "Firefox is already running" just means it failed to shut down. Any number of things (including malware and bad plugins) can cause it. I think you're referring to a specific bug that caused more regular users to see the warning, but that doesn't mean the warning is gone. Just that Firefox itself shouldn't cause it any more.
lmedinas 12y ago
I think this release is even more exciting for Android[1]. - Ability to re-order existing panels in browser homescreen - Added ability to refresh synced tabs on demand 1 - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/31.0/releasenotes/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/31.0/releasenotes/
makmanalp 12y ago
Firefox's developer tools are really becoming great. "Copy as CURL" for the network tab was something in chrome that I really missed. Box model view which was super handy is now editable. Console showing stack traces along errors was long due. New Canvas debugger, eyedropper are very handy. Font viewer, responsive design tools, the 3d view (very handy in debugging silly box model issues) and highlight painted area mode (handy in optimizing visualizations) are all things I love that I haven't been able to find good analogues for in other browsers.
- pinpoll 12y ago
  Still, I prefer Firebug. Is it fully supported yet?
  - _lce0 12y ago
    I moved from firebug like a year ago but I really miss some firebug's pluggins; like jquerify or the ace integration .. is there something similar for the built-in console?
  - soapdog 12y ago
    Firebug can't hook into stuff that the built-in tools can mostly because the built-in tools are inside the browser itself and Firebug is an add-on. I don't recommend using it any longer...
    - pinpoll 12y ago
      Could you please provide some decent examples that would convince a Firebug fan from the beginning to uninstall it? :)
      - jitl 12y ago
        For me Firebug seems ~2x as slow (eg, for a 1s operation in native tools, firebug takes 2s). Opening Firebug on my workstation causes a noticable pause in all activity on page for several seconds, while opening the native tools only takes about half a second. All of Firefox's dev tools are still a ways from being as fast and bug-free as the Webkit tools (both Chrome and Safari). I can't cite specific examples since I dropped Firebug in Firefox once the native tools reached a certain level of quality. I just suggest trying to use 'em and seeing if you like them more than Firebug. I did.
antman 12y ago
Is this the version where we can export our bookmarks in android?
- rockdoe 12y ago
  That feature hasn't been implemented: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=775104 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=775104 Note the "we haven't seen any demand for this in our feedback channels".
zimbatm 12y ago
The only thing I want from Firefox is to stop freezing completely when a single tab goes crazy. It just makes the whole experience feel clunky compared to Chrome. Usually it happens with Gmail so maybe there is a conspiracy there to drive adoption for Chrome :p
- potshot 12y ago
  Have you tried using multi-process tabs? http://www.ghacks.net/2014/02/13/firefoxs-multi-process-architecture/ http://www.ghacks.net/2014/02/13/firefoxs-multi-process-arch... It looks like the prefs to enable it have been shipping beyond the nightly and are in the latest release.
  - kipple 12y ago
    Oo neat I didn't know this was an option for FF
    - cpeterso 12y ago
      Multi-process Firefox (aka Electrolysis or just e10s) is till under development. If you want to test it, I recommend using Firefox Nightly (34) because it has recent e10s bug fixes and its File menu has a "Open e10s Window". You can test e10s and non-e10s windows without flipping an about:config pref or restarting Firefox. You can flip the optional pref browser.tabs.remote.autostart to true to enable e10s by default, which also enables extra "shims" for add-on compatibility so more add-ons will work than with "New e10s Window".
  - zimbatm 12y ago
    I didn't know about this. Hopefully it's stable. EDIT: looks fairly stable. Back to Firefox.
  - mistermann 12y ago
    Do you think this might solve some of the stability (memory) issues so many people have been seeing since the last release?
- 12y ago
krakensden 12y ago
I'm super excited about the add-on debugger- I should go back and check out the add on sdk again.
Sir_Cmpwn 12y ago
>WebVTT implemented and enabled Finally! I've been waiting for this. This means we can drop the polyfill on MediaCrush soon. I'm also pretty excited about the add-on debugger.
joeclark77 12y ago
Did they certify to the community that no Christians were involved in developing this version? How can we be sure this is an intolerance-free product?
- voltagex_ 12y ago
  Wouldn't that be intolerant to Christians and therefore create an intolerance-loop?
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    He's trolling. Look at his comment history and profile.
    - voltagex_ 12y ago
      I know, but I couldn't resist.
ElongatedTowel 12y ago
They removed browser.tabs.closeButtons. It's now impossible to hide the close buttons without css fiddling. I don't get it. What benefit is there to removing that feature? Same with clearing the download list. They removed that feature with the last major UI overhaul. The number of tiny addons I have to install just to get features back that have been removed for no reason at all is starting to get too large...
- ahoge 12y ago
  Aw, crap. Do you know the CSS offhand? I already have to use some user CSS because they removed the ability to set the tab min width via `browser.tabs.tabMinWidth`, because that property wasn't "worth it" according to one developer. Edit: Turns out Classic Theme Restorer has an option for that.
  - id 12y ago
    This CSS should do the trick: .tab-close-button { visibility: collapse !important; } Or addons.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >tab min width That is a nightmare to set now if you want tabs to go below about 40 pixels, thanks to the Australis swoops. It used to be one line of CSS to set min width to 0-ish, now I have a giant blob of custom CSS on top of Classic Theme Restorer.
    - ahoge 12y ago
      Yea, same here. :/
- id 12y ago
  The reasoning behind that explained by Mozilla employee Jared Wein: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=865826 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=865826
  - 12y ago
dashdot 12y ago
Seriously... when can I have shumway in the regular builds? It's in the nightly builds since... like forever o_O
J_Darnley 12y ago
Did this remove the horrendous Australis UI?
- Pacabel 12y ago
  Unfortunately not.
gcb0 12y ago
...and FF finally caught up with IE and Chrome habit of reporting every single URL you visit/download to check for malware. Since there is no free-lunch, i'm pretty sure the people running those services are mining that data for advertising or something. I know google is with chrome. Malware protection and translator services phoning home on every page, and pre-fetch adding the links you haven't clicked yet to that list...
birdmanicx 12y ago
I thought it was downloaded, but there is no evidence of it anywhere that I even got the file. Great program.
throwaway41597 12y ago
Very excited to see hash-source being implemented and enabled. This means you can load files from a CDN and have their integrity checked by the client so the CDN cannot trick the user. Hope to see this land in Chrome.
MrBra 12y ago
http://monica-at-mozilla.blogspot.it/2014/07/download-files-more-safely-with-firefox.html http://monica-at-mozilla.blogspot.it/2014/07/download-files-... "What happens when you download malware? Firefox checks URLs associated with the download against a local Safe Browsing blocklist. If the binary is signed, Firefox checks the verified signature against a local allowlist of known good publishers. If no match is found, Firefox 32 and later queries the Safe Browsing service with download metadata (NB: this happens only on Windows, because signature verification APIs to suppress remote lookups are only available on Windows). In case malware is detected, the Download Manager will block access to the downloaded file and remove it from disk, displaying an error in the Downloads Panel below. How can I turn this feature off? This feature respects the existing Safe Browsing preference for malware detection, so if you’ve already turned that off, there’s nothing further to do. Below is a screenshot of the new, beautiful in-content preferences (Preferences > Security) with all Safe Browsing integration turned off. I strongly recommend against turning off malware detection, but if you decide to do so, keep in mind that phishing detection also relies on Safe Browsing."

Firefox 31.0

212 points by mziulu 12y ago

digitalnalogika 12y ago

Generational garbage collection didn't make it into release? I kept seeing it in the 31.0beta release notes.

sp332 12y ago
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619558 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619558 status-firefox31: disabled status-firefox32: fixed Not much to the discussion there except to mention that it was reverted during the beta.
sirchurchill 12y ago
Moved to 32 beta, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619558#c52 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=619558#c52

tragic 12y ago

Looks like some nice improvements. Interested in this canvas debugger...

gregd 12y ago

In Firefox 29 I continued to see weird font rendering issues on Windows 8.1. So much so, that I can't use FF on Windows right now. I don't see the same issues with Mavericks. Has anyone else experienced this and does it continue into this version?

diafygi 12y ago
Is there a bug report for this? I'm curious to see if I can reproduce.
metrix 12y ago
I have the same issue in Windows 7, but have not found what exactly causes it. I work around the issue by highlighting the incorrectly rendered text with the mouse.
- gregd 12y ago
  I've had to do the same, but that seriously degrades my browsing enjoyment...
praeivis 12y ago
Any chances it's about hardware acceleration? Uncheck Options>Advanced>Use hardware acceleration when available
- broolstoryco 12y ago
  I have also had this issue and turning off HW acceleration solved it.
- gregd 12y ago
  Turning it off did not change the issue for me..
sliverstorm 12y ago
Try disabling hardware acceleration.
- gregd 12y ago
  I tried that. No difference..
dbcooper 12y ago
Do you have an AMD GPU?
senorerik 12y ago
Try enabling directwrite via about:config
Infinitesimus 12y ago
Have you tried FF 30?
rockdoe 12y ago
Did you file a bug?
- dblohm7 12y ago
  Yes, please! Many of us Mozilla devs read HN, but HN is not a bug tracker!

brador 12y ago

Does this fix the 1080p option not showing up on youtube problem?

findjashua 12y ago
What OS are you seeing this on? I'm able to see 1080p on osx mavericks
coldtea 12y ago
Is that a specific FF issue? I'm asking because of course some videos do not have a 1080p option in the first place.
apayan 12y ago
You probably don't have flash installed, and Firefox doesn't have Media Source Extension support for h264 yet, which YouTube has required for 480 and 1080 video since last October (IIRC). According to this bug, support for MSE h264 will be landing in Firefox 33. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1027875 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1027875
wjoe 12y ago
The 1080p option isn't shown because YouTube requires Media Source Extentions enabled (HTML5 DRM) for this. You -can- enable this under about:config (media.mediasource.enabled) but it's still experimental for now. When I tried it, it did show the 1080p option, but then I had very mixed results from the blank video, no audio, or the higher resolution video not actually loading. This should also only apply if you have the HTML5 player enabled on YouTube, the Flash player should still show the 1080p option.
- ZeroGravitas 12y ago
  MSE is for varying the bitrate of videos when thing get congested. EME is for browser video DRM.

tux1968 12y ago

Seems like a modest but welcome release. The MathML torture test shoes some very nice progress[1] but makes me ask myself once again, why do TeX fonts always look like crap? Isn't that the one thing that TeX should get right? Anyway, at least they look great as rendered by Firefox 31. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/MathML_Project/MathML_Torture_Test https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/MathML_Proj...

frenchy 12y ago
I'm not sure "crap" is the word I'd use for that, but I think I understand what you're getting at. The problem is that the TeX fonts are designed to work at a much higher resolution (as is typical for being printed). They look much better in that case.
- tux1968 12y ago
  Yeah, i don't earn any points for eloquence, but just looking at the side by side examples on the MathML page the contrast is pretty stark. Have often wondered if it was due to low screen resolution so thanks for confirming that. I'll try to be less grumpy the next time I get a TeX generated PDF and maybe even print it out before trying to read it ;o)
phkahler 12y ago
I don't see the problem. At that link, the browser column is higher contrast. Switching to the Stix fonts gives characters that look more like the TeX column, but seems to be missing a few things. I did not try all the font options.
- tux1968 12y ago
  Really? Maybe it renders differently for you, because here the difference is stark. People keep using TeX so maybe most people don't see a difference. For me, almost every TeX document seems to use a font that looks like something very old and unprofessional. But perhaps as suggested elsewhere it is optimized for higher resolution output devices.

mr_november 12y ago

I want to use Firefox (OS X), and with almost every release I give it a go but it's simply too slow in comparison to Chrome. I'm talking about actions you do multiple times an hour - opening a new tab, closing a tab, rearranging tabs etc. This is with no extensions in use, on a mid-2011 fully specced out macbook air. It's unfortunate but the lag is clear and I can't use it as my primary when I know a better solution is right in front of me, that being Chrome.

amatera 12y ago
This seams to be a problem with your machine. I also use a macbook air (End 2013) and dont have this problem (or feel any Lag on Tab-Actions). Even on my old Ubuntu-rig it doesnt have this problem. Either in Firefox or Chrome.
- richardwhiuk 12y ago
  If it works fine for him in Chrome, how can it be a problem with his machine.
- Pacabel 12y ago
  Your response is the kind that has given the Firefox community a rather bad reputation when it comes to addressing problems reported by users. Instead of accepting that Firefox may indeed have performance problem, you immediately discount this possibility, instead blaming it on mr_november's computer. It's irrelevant that it isn't happening on your laptop that's over 2 years newer than his is. It's irrelevant that it isn't happening on your Ubuntu system. None of that matters. I don't doubt for a second that he is in fact running into performance problems with Firefox. He isn't alone. Many people report Firefox having worse performance than Chrome does on the same system. I've experienced this, too. Yet instead of addressing and fixing these very real performance problems that have been brought up time and time again by many users, the Firefox community and developers seem content to deny that they exist, or refuse to consider that it may be a problem with Firefox (like you've done), or point to useless and totally unrealistic benchmarks to suggest it isn't a problem. But worst of all is how mr_november's comment has been voted down. It's one thing to deny that the problem exists, but it's much worse to try to actively censor those who have merely pointed out a very legitimate and troubling issue. Firefox has been losing market share for some time now, and this trend will only continue as long as Firefox's performance problems go unaddressed, and the Firefox community mistreats anyone who dares mention that such problems still exist.

huhtenberg 12y ago

> Block malware from downloaded files Hi, Google. Would you just look at what I downloaded!

Gmo 12y ago
Thanks for pointing that out, I went and did set the url to a blank string as mentionned in their documentation. (safebrowsing.appRepURL for the curious)
TheCraiggers 12y ago
I'm also a bit worried about the privacy implications of this. Especially given that the feature is hidden, and the only two ways to turn it off involve going into about:config, which most people don't even know exists. I wouldn't even know it was doing this if I hadn't read the changelog. Reading the changelog, it also mentions having local and remote blacklists, but how FF chooses which one to use wasn't clear to me. Local blacklists are not as scary to me for obvious reasons. Being able to use this without the remote blacklist would be nice. I would really love some additional info on this feature from Mozilla, as well as a more user-friendly way of disabling it.
- yellowapple 12y ago
  > and the only two ways to turn it off involve going into about:config, which most people don't even know exists. There's a third way according to the feature's development documentation [0]: uncheck "Options"/"Preferences" -> "Security" -> "Block reported attack sites". [0]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reputation_Design_Doc https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reput...
- rockdoe 12y ago
  It's in the documentation: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reputation_Design_Doc https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Features/Application_Reput... 1) Check local blacklist 2) Check local whitelist 3) If no hits on either, check remote service
- Istof 12y ago

praeivis 12y ago

It's possible turnoff search field on the new tab page?

cpeterso 12y ago
Unfortunately, no.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

farawayea 12y ago

When are we getting 32beta?

JelteF 12y ago

Where did the Shadow Dom support go?

ebidel 12y ago
It's still behind the web components flag in FF nightly. The master bug for web components is: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=811542 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=811542

bsimpson 12y ago

Nice to see CSS vars shipping. Chrome had an experimental version, but removed it for performance reasons: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink-dev/ScKw9zYRkBc https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink...

bpierre 12y ago

Changes for developers: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/31 https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/31

xkarga00 12y ago

Wasn't that Firefox is already running bug supposed to be resolved by Firefox 30.0? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7873779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7873779

rockdoe 12y ago
"Firefox is already running" just means it failed to shut down. Any number of things (including malware and bad plugins) can cause it. I think you're referring to a specific bug that caused more regular users to see the warning, but that doesn't mean the warning is gone. Just that Firefox itself shouldn't cause it any more.

lmedinas 12y ago

I think this release is even more exciting for Android[1]. - Ability to re-order existing panels in browser homescreen - Added ability to refresh synced tabs on demand 1 - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/31.0/releasenotes/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/31.0/releasenotes/

makmanalp 12y ago

Firefox's developer tools are really becoming great. "Copy as CURL" for the network tab was something in chrome that I really missed. Box model view which was super handy is now editable. Console showing stack traces along errors was long due. New Canvas debugger, eyedropper are very handy. Font viewer, responsive design tools, the 3d view (very handy in debugging silly box model issues) and highlight painted area mode (handy in optimizing visualizations) are all things I love that I haven't been able to find good analogues for in other browsers.

pinpoll 12y ago
Still, I prefer Firebug. Is it fully supported yet?
- _lce0 12y ago
  I moved from firebug like a year ago but I really miss some firebug's pluggins; like jquerify or the ace integration .. is there something similar for the built-in console?
- soapdog 12y ago
  Firebug can't hook into stuff that the built-in tools can mostly because the built-in tools are inside the browser itself and Firebug is an add-on. I don't recommend using it any longer...
  - pinpoll 12y ago
    Could you please provide some decent examples that would convince a Firebug fan from the beginning to uninstall it? :)
    - jitl 12y ago
      For me Firebug seems ~2x as slow (eg, for a 1s operation in native tools, firebug takes 2s). Opening Firebug on my workstation causes a noticable pause in all activity on page for several seconds, while opening the native tools only takes about half a second. All of Firefox's dev tools are still a ways from being as fast and bug-free as the Webkit tools (both Chrome and Safari). I can't cite specific examples since I dropped Firebug in Firefox once the native tools reached a certain level of quality. I just suggest trying to use 'em and seeing if you like them more than Firebug. I did.

antman 12y ago

Is this the version where we can export our bookmarks in android?

rockdoe 12y ago
That feature hasn't been implemented: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=775104 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=775104 Note the "we haven't seen any demand for this in our feedback channels".

zimbatm 12y ago

The only thing I want from Firefox is to stop freezing completely when a single tab goes crazy. It just makes the whole experience feel clunky compared to Chrome. Usually it happens with Gmail so maybe there is a conspiracy there to drive adoption for Chrome :p

potshot 12y ago
Have you tried using multi-process tabs? http://www.ghacks.net/2014/02/13/firefoxs-multi-process-architecture/ http://www.ghacks.net/2014/02/13/firefoxs-multi-process-arch... It looks like the prefs to enable it have been shipping beyond the nightly and are in the latest release.
- kipple 12y ago
  Oo neat I didn't know this was an option for FF
  - cpeterso 12y ago
    Multi-process Firefox (aka Electrolysis or just e10s) is till under development. If you want to test it, I recommend using Firefox Nightly (34) because it has recent e10s bug fixes and its File menu has a "Open e10s Window". You can test e10s and non-e10s windows without flipping an about:config pref or restarting Firefox. You can flip the optional pref browser.tabs.remote.autostart to true to enable e10s by default, which also enables extra "shims" for add-on compatibility so more add-ons will work than with "New e10s Window".
- zimbatm 12y ago
  I didn't know about this. Hopefully it's stable. EDIT: looks fairly stable. Back to Firefox.
- mistermann 12y ago
  Do you think this might solve some of the stability (memory) issues so many people have been seeing since the last release?
12y ago

krakensden 12y ago

I'm super excited about the add-on debugger- I should go back and check out the add on sdk again.

Sir_Cmpwn 12y ago

>WebVTT implemented and enabled Finally! I've been waiting for this. This means we can drop the polyfill on MediaCrush soon. I'm also pretty excited about the add-on debugger.

joeclark77 12y ago

Did they certify to the community that no Christians were involved in developing this version? How can we be sure this is an intolerance-free product?

voltagex_ 12y ago
Wouldn't that be intolerant to Christians and therefore create an intolerance-loop?
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  He's trolling. Look at his comment history and profile.
  - voltagex_ 12y ago
    I know, but I couldn't resist.

ElongatedTowel 12y ago

They removed browser.tabs.closeButtons. It's now impossible to hide the close buttons without css fiddling. I don't get it. What benefit is there to removing that feature? Same with clearing the download list. They removed that feature with the last major UI overhaul. The number of tiny addons I have to install just to get features back that have been removed for no reason at all is starting to get too large...

ahoge 12y ago
Aw, crap. Do you know the CSS offhand? I already have to use some user CSS because they removed the ability to set the tab min width via `browser.tabs.tabMinWidth`, because that property wasn't "worth it" according to one developer. Edit: Turns out Classic Theme Restorer has an option for that.
- id 12y ago
  This CSS should do the trick: .tab-close-button { visibility: collapse !important; } Or addons.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  >tab min width That is a nightmare to set now if you want tabs to go below about 40 pixels, thanks to the Australis swoops. It used to be one line of CSS to set min width to 0-ish, now I have a giant blob of custom CSS on top of Classic Theme Restorer.
  - ahoge 12y ago
    Yea, same here. :/
id 12y ago
The reasoning behind that explained by Mozilla employee Jared Wein: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=865826 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=865826
- 12y ago

dashdot 12y ago

Seriously... when can I have shumway in the regular builds? It's in the nightly builds since... like forever o_O

J_Darnley 12y ago

Did this remove the horrendous Australis UI?

Pacabel 12y ago
Unfortunately not.

gcb0 12y ago

...and FF finally caught up with IE and Chrome habit of reporting every single URL you visit/download to check for malware. Since there is no free-lunch, i'm pretty sure the people running those services are mining that data for advertising or something. I know google is with chrome. Malware protection and translator services phoning home on every page, and pre-fetch adding the links you haven't clicked yet to that list...

birdmanicx 12y ago

I thought it was downloaded, but there is no evidence of it anywhere that I even got the file. Great program.

throwaway41597 12y ago

Very excited to see hash-source being implemented and enabled. This means you can load files from a CDN and have their integrity checked by the client so the CDN cannot trick the user. Hope to see this land in Chrome.

MrBra 12y ago

http://monica-at-mozilla.blogspot.it/2014/07/download-files-more-safely-with-firefox.html http://monica-at-mozilla.blogspot.it/2014/07/download-files-... "What happens when you download malware? Firefox checks URLs associated with the download against a local Safe Browsing blocklist. If the binary is signed, Firefox checks the verified signature against a local allowlist of known good publishers. If no match is found, Firefox 32 and later queries the Safe Browsing service with download metadata (NB: this happens only on Windows, because signature verification APIs to suppress remote lookups are only available on Windows). In case malware is detected, the Download Manager will block access to the downloaded file and remove it from disk, displaying an error in the Downloads Panel below. How can I turn this feature off? This feature respects the existing Safe Browsing preference for malware detection, so if you’ve already turned that off, there’s nothing further to do. Below is a screenshot of the new, beautiful in-content preferences (Preferences > Security) with all Safe Browsing integration turned off. I strongly recommend against turning off malware detection, but if you decide to do so, keep in mind that phishing detection also relies on Safe Browsing."