Firefox 19 Beta Released

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Pretty soon these browser versions are going to read like a license plate. The idea is to keep up with the Jonses’ and put out as many versions as you can and keep upping the number to have a better product. This latest entry from Mozilla is Firefox 19 beta, right on the heels of this week’s release of Firefox 18. Be on the lookout next week for Firefox 38. :D

There are actually several interesting new features making its way into Mozilla's popular open source browser with this up-and-coming new version.
Click to expand...
 
Lol, 19...Last I remember, it was 8 or something.

Then again, I switched to Chrome awhile back, sooo...
 
Yay bloatware.

You got peanutbutter in my chocolate! You got everything-but-the-kitchen sink in my browser!
 
The negative complaints people have over Firefox now have all been irrelevant for at least the past year (more IMO).

I use Firefox because I'd rather not have Google run everything completely. Also whenever I use Firefox and compare it to Chrome it uses less resources than Chrome. Didn't chrome just release just release version 24? Who care what arbitrary number is attached when the product is good. Ionmonkey is quite nice and the PDF viewer is good.
 
Chrome is on version 24 right now, so for the time being Google wins the ridiculousness competition.
 
Δ what he said. +1 for noscript. FF still has far more handy plugins I use on a daily basis. I ran both Chrome and FF in parallel for a long time but drifted toward FF more due to the superior and more mature plugs..
 
niconx said:
Google has put of implementing the necessary APIs for years.
Click to expand...

In giving this more than a sec of thought I wonder if that's because a noscript type plug would be shooting themselves in the foot, one of the things noscript autoblocks is googleanalytics, and I'm sure there are other Google related things in wide use that get blocked. So I guess it makes sense for them. Same as they did not implement thr ability to password protect docs/spreadsheets/power points/whatever on Google docs - because it would hamper scraping.
 
FF 19 was only released because Google dumped Spyware 24....errr...Chrome 24 this week. This browser version thing is just stupid. Someone get Mozilla and Google to stop it.
 
I use FF as well. Prefer it over having another google hook into cataloging my life. I also have plugins that I much prefer in FF.
 
niconx said:
I use it too. Given that you can't run a proper NoScript addon in Chrome. Google has put of implementing the necessary APIs for years.
Click to expand...
NoScript is not necessary in Chrome. The need to use a tool to selectively disable JavaScript is symptomatic of a fundamentally insecure browser, which Chrome is not.
 
niconx said:
Chrome is on version 24 right now, so for the time being Google wins the ridiculousness competition.
Click to expand...

Hahah don't let truth stop the Chromebots from their evangelizing. It's funnier this way.
 
The whole point of a rapid release cycle is to get improvements into the hands of the users as quickly as possible. Under the old system, if someone added support for a new HTML5 feature or sped up part of the browser, it would take over a year to get into the hands of the users. This way, it takes only a few weeks. You're not supposed to pay much attention to the version number, because with the auto-update mechanism everyone should be running the latest version. Complaining about the version number and the rapid release cycle shows that you really don't know much about programming.

If it bothers you that much, switch to the ESR Release of Firefox. It stays on the older version & receives only security patches, then every 11 months it receives a big update. Just like what they used to do. If you want to wait 11 months between browser improvements they still have you covered, unlike Chrome which doesn't even offer an ESR.
 
RIUM+ said:
The whole point of a rapid release cycle is to get improvements into the hands of the users as quickly as possible. Under the old system, if someone added support for a new HTML5 feature or sped up part of the browser, it would take over a year to get into the hands of the users. This way, it takes only a few weeks. You're not supposed to pay much attention to the version number, because with the auto-update mechanism everyone should be running the latest version. Complaining about the version number and the rapid release cycle shows that you really don't know much about programming.

If it bothers you that much, switch to the ESR Release of Firefox. It stays on the older version & receives only security patches, then every 11 months it receives a big update. Just like what they used to do. If you want to wait 11 months between browser improvements they still have you covered, unlike Chrome which doesn't even offer an ESR.
Click to expand...


So then, Mr Wise Guy... why don't they just make it v4.01 or v4.02 when only changing the shape of the "close window" icon instead of making it go from v13 to v16 because they changed the "close window" icon as well as disabled the full classic status bar?

We're not complaining about the version... we're complaining about the apparent ridiculousness of major version changes when really nothing major has happened. ala what PROGRAMERS taught us over many years...
 
HoffY said:
...why don't they just make it v4.01 or v4.02 when only changing the shape of the "close window" icon instead of making it go from v13 to v16 because they changed the "close window" icon as well as disabled the full classic status bar?
Click to expand...
Because they use a four-point versioning scheme. Major releases – releases not just "changing the shape of the 'close window' icon" – increment the major version, as you would expect. This makes life easier for site operators, as they can very easily keep track of what features their Chrome users have access to without needing to decipher a complex versioning system.

Google does not go out of their way to tell you what version you're running, and in fact, they go out of their way to make the upgrade process invisible. Most of the time, you don't even know when you're being upgraded, and most users have absolutely no idea what browser version they're running. Thus, Google isn't competing with version numbers: they're competing with features. Something Mozilla is apparently no longer inclined to do.
 
wonderfield said:
NoScript is not necessary in Chrome. The need to use a tool to selectively disable JavaScript is symptomatic of a fundamentally insecure browser, which Chrome is not.
Click to expand...

What flavor koolaid we drinkin this evening? You realize noscript is more than just a security layer. It pretty much blocks all tracking/analytic/advertising bullshit -- I'm sure advertisers hate its existence.

In fact you dont realize just how much crap does load in on your average public website until you see it in action.
 
HoffY said:
So then, Mr Wise Guy... why don't they just make it v4.01 or v4.02 when only changing the shape of the "close window" icon instead of making it go from v13 to v16 because they changed the "close window" icon as well as disabled the full classic status bar?

We're not complaining about the version... we're complaining about the apparent ridiculousness of major version changes when really nothing major has happened. ala what PROGRAMERS taught us over many years...
Click to expand...

Just because that's all you noticed does not mean that's all they've done. In the past year the Javascript engine has been rewritten twice, along with built in PDF support, among other things. It's pretty much the same system that chrome uses yet every time "all they did was change a icon shape!" Please...
 
HoffY said:
So then, Mr Wise Guy... why don’t they just make it v4.01 or v4.02 when only changing the shape of the “close window” icon instead of making it go from v13 to v16 because they changed the “close window” icon as well as disabled the full classic status bar?

We’re not complaining about the version... we’re complaining about the apparent ridiculousness of major version changes when really nothing major has happened. ala what PROGRAMERS taught us over many years...
Click to expand...

With all due respect, have you ever actually looked at the release notes? Things HAVE changed, lots of things, and they've been changing every single version. Bugzilla shows 2,917 separate entries just for version 18 (and each entry is normally a couple hundred lines of code). The larger features include an entirely new JavaScript interpreting engine, support for Retina displays on Mac, better image scaling, switching tabs is noticeably faster, users with lots of extensions see a faster startup time, WebRTC support has been added... Version 19's still in beta but so far it has a PDF decoder written entirely in JavaScript (loaded only on demand) so you no longer have to download Adobe's bloated reader & its associated security problems to read PDFs, new features for HTML5/CSS3 like @page, text-transform:full-width;, canvas.toBlob(), some more startup time improvements and some memory enhancements.

(Also the classic menu bar is still available and there's no plans to remove it at this point - it's just not in the default view because most people prefer the new setup. You can get it back temporarily by pressing Alt, or permanently by right-clicking on an empty spot in the browser Chrome & checking "Menu Bar". But don't forget that all the other major browsers have removed the classic menu bar too, and good luck trying to add it into Chrome)

The version number is not supposed to be an important attribute of a largely-developed, auto-updating piece of software. It's irrelevant because everyone should always be running the latest version. To this end, both Firefox and Chrome have even considered removing the version number completely from their about screens. What version number it is really doesn't matter, because it really doesn't matter any more.
 
I see nothing here that indicates "improvement". What I see is a balancing act for the benefit of HTML5 and smartphones. Most of this represents regression, redundancy, and ridiculousness. There is nothing to compel a so-called upgrade.

As for noscript:
I can do better with a good host file.

RIUM+ said:
...It's irrelevant because everyone should always be running the latest version...
Click to expand...

Why? For security/safety? Running the latest version doesn't do this. Being able to take advantage of the latest features? What features? These things are all the same stuff, just re-packaged. The latest version is really more of a downgrade.
 
Have they fixed the RAM usage being 4x+ any other modern browser? No?

Zzzzzzzzz...
 
prndll said:
I see nothing here that indicates "improvement". What I see is a balancing act for the benefit of HTML5 and smartphones. Most of this represents regression, redundancy, and ridiculousness. There is nothing to compel a so-called upgrade.

As for noscript:
I can do better with a good host file.



Why? For security/safety? Running the latest version doesn't do this. Being able to take advantage of the latest features? What features? These things are all the same stuff, just re-packaged. The latest version is really more of a downgrade.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see how you can stop clickjacking with just a host file or force HTTPS among other things. And do you have any proof of regressions and redundancy? They only enable whats ready in each version. for example, the Javascript PDF viewer has been disabled for several versions while it was being perfected. it's ready, so now it's enabled. Again, chrome follows a similar policy.
 
I see no reason at this time to use anything other than Foxit. How often are we going to re-invent the wheel?

Clickjacking has more to do with careless users and irresponsible IT practices where the servers are concerned. Making changes to the browser for this is just a bandaid. I see no reason any user should ever have to "force HTTPS". That's done at the server level.
 
Mozilla isn't changing the browser to deal with clickjacking, that's noscript. falling for an attack isn't always the user's fault. At least they have an option to protect themselves from 'irresponsible IT practices on the servers' Speaking of irresponsible IT practices did you know that Yahoo just recently (as in the past month or so) enabled forced SSL connection option for their mail service? Firesheep has been around for how long now? You can't always count on server admins to do the right thing promptly.

Foxit has it's holes as well. Running a viewer in Javascript can potentially be lighter and possibly safer.
 
Firefox is doing better and better. Chrome has been kicking Firefox in the nuts for a couple of years at this point but the tides seem to be turning. I work as a web developer, Chrome web development tools have been much nicer than anything Firefox had (Firebug), but now that Mozilla is actually putting their own man hours into them, things are shaping rather nicely.

4-5 more versions and I think I will switch back to Firefox. Maybe by the end of this year.
 
I know Foxit has issues too. It's just the thing I ended up choosing. It's beats the hell out Adobe. I'm just not all that impressed with all the crap I'm seeing. They are going to have to better than this.
 
I was just hoping we could have another thread devoted to some people's surprise and anger in version number increments for a product which has scheduled releases.
 
Had an issue recently that made me switch to Chrome. Firefox was in an endless crash loop that reinstalling wouldn't fix. I'll try again at version 20 because they have a lot of add-ons I like to use which are not yet available on Chrome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top