Firefox 17 Launches With Click-to-Play Plugin Blocks

An anonymous reader writes "As expected, Mozilla on Tuesday officially launched Firefox 17 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. The biggest addition in this release is click-to-play plugins, announced back in October. In short, the addition means Mozilla will now prompt Firefox users on Windows with old versions of Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash, and Microsoft Silverlight (more will be added eventually)." The release notes are available, as is a list of changes for devs. Firefox for Android got a new release as well (notes).

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X

[Anonymous Coward]

It's okay, the whole point of their fast release cycle is that you'll probably see that feature within the next 6 weeks rather than in 6 months from now. Idiots who don't understand the version system will whine about it, but that's a very tangible benefit of releasing more often.

ClickToPlay sounded good; then I read the summary.

[jonadab]

When I read the headline, "Click-to-Play Plugin Blocks", I was thinking that plugin content would be blocked from doing anything unless the user clicks a play button. Just like FlashBlock, in other words. That would actually be a good thing. A good change, in a new version of Firefox: I might've fainted.

But no, what it actually means is this:
> Mozilla will now prompt Firefox users on Windows with old versions of Adobe Reader...

Oh, yes, please.

We need this because Adobe Reader doesn't already prompt every single user who has it installed to the effect that they need to upgrade it, a bare minimum of three per hour. We definitely need our web browser to bug us about this also, otherwise we might not know that three new versions of Adobe Reader were released during the time it took us to download and install the version we currently have. Well, I mean, okay, in theory we'd _know_, but without this extra reminder we might occasionally go up to fifteen minutes at a time without _thinking_ about it. Mozilla must protect us from that horrific fate.

Re:exponential version numbers

[nickittynickname]

That's crazy. Last time I heard a firefox version number joke was right after I fell off my dinosaur and into my wooden underwear. Good job, I'm glad to see you spiced up that dead horse with a few other dead horses. That should bring an old joke back to life.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X

[_xeno_]

Funny, that picture looks just fine to me on my non-"retina" display. It's almost as if you don't need a retina display to see images!

But wait, there's more. When that image is embedded into a webpage, it's embedded at the standard, non-"retinal" resolution. So when displayed on a "retina" display, it will look "blurry."

Except apparently Wikipedia uses Safari's made up extension for "retina" images, so it would work there. (Hopefully Firefox will stick with standards and not make up extensions for non-existent problems.)

But on the vast majority of webpages, all you're going to get is a standard-res image. Making "retina" basically useless.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X

[Darinbob]

You don't understand. These people paid extra money for Retinal Displays. They demand that their applications come and reassure them that the money was well spent.

Re:Still no Retina support for OS X

[stms]

Really? I never thought I see the day where (non-troll) people on /. would fail to appreciate the value of a higher resolution display. I understand the "retina" marketing gimmick is bullshit but at least someone is pushing resolution beyond 1080p. I certainly hope we don't keep our current screen resolution as a standard for the web indefinitely. Some people are going to have to start adopting higher resolutions at some point.