Firefox 23 Arrives With New Logo, Mixed Content Blocker, and Network Monitor 365
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 23 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Improvements include the addition of a share button, mixed content blocker, and network monitor on the desktop side (release notes). The new desktop version was available on the organization's FTP servers last night, but that was just the initial release of the installers. Firefox 23 has now officially been released over on Firefox.com and all existing users should be able to upgrade to it automatically. As always, the Android version is trickling out slowly on Google Play."
I hope there's an easy social integration disabler (Score:5, Funny)
We use firefox across our work network, and for obvious reasons, the head of our company has ordered Facebook blocked. The last thing I want is everyone being ordered to use Internet Explorer as a result. Even better if we can install one that doesn't even have those functions.
Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (Score:5, Insightful)
This social media integration is not unlike bukake integration, sure some users might enjoy convenient access to their vice of choice, but it is unreasonable to assume that everyone wants to partake.
Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is forcing you to partake. Firefox is simply catering to people who want it. This is like complaining about Firefox adding support for any new feature you don't care about. They're not just here for you, you know.
Why not praise them for their amazing work on bringing the core Gecko engine into the new decade? Or in further reducing the memory footprint of the browser?
All those "social integration" features end up increasing the footprint of the browser, even if you don't use them.
Or any number of other features that aren't just buzzword compliance issues?
Hell, even their work on Firefox OS has helped resurrect their Electrolysis efforts. It's not like Mozilla's just been working on social media buttons, removing features, and shitty Chrome-like UIs. But here on Slashdot, that's all I ever hear about. Some nerds we turned out to be.
Sure, Electrolysis is cool, but it could have been ready MONTHS ago if resources hadn't been shoved into useless stuff that actually belongs in a plugin.
Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (Score:5, Informative)
Why not praise them for their amazing work on...
Because a simple option to disable or hide the social integration feature should be included.
In this release, they also REMOVED the checkbox options for: ...AND those options will be reset to the defaults! (ie. if you did set them before, too bad - your settings will NOT be retained, and you'll have go dig through about:config to set them back to how you had already chosen to customize them).
* Enable javascript
* Load images automatically
* Always show the tab bar
IE. There's plenty of room for a new checkbox.
Of course, I'm 99% sure the about:config will include options to control the new social features, so GGP's point is probably moot, or at least not as big a deal, but it certainly should have some way to disable it. IMO, that should be in the easily accessible preferences, but that's being continuously gutted and dumbed down.
I don't get why the social thing isn't simply an add on. It could even be distributed with FF by default, but it makes little sense to include it as part of FF proper.
Re: (Score:3)
Oddly I just updated mine and there's not a social button to be found.
In about:config "social.enabled" is set to false by default. I never did that, so it just installed that way, and I don't see an option in the normal settings dialog to enable it. Go figure.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see a problem here?
If the company has a policy of not permitting social media sites like facebook to be used on-site (because they have geniune security concerns that mean they want strong control on communication from withing the company, or they are just grumpy old fuddy duddies that don't want anyone else to have a good time) then this appearing will be a red flag - it may be decided that the update can not go in until the change has been reviewed by a security team to make sure it does not circumvent their blocks in any w
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No.
That is not funny and moreover is stupid.
Block facebook at the firewall and be done with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps edit the HOSTS file so that facebook.com is sent to 127.0.0.1...It's already blocked at the firewall. I'm also aware of the about:config settings.
Oh yeah. Well where I work it is blocked at the firewall, in the hosts file redirect to 127.0.0.1 on both the client computer and Internet cache computer, in both group policy and GPP that refreshes every 5 seconds, and a keylogger checks for typing the word "facebook" which then sends an electric shock to the chair of the person who typed it. Beat that!
Re: (Score:2)
Block it in DNS too to be sure.
Re: (Score:2)
No. That is not funny and moreover is stupid.
Block facebook at the firewall and be done with it.
How are the suits going to access facebook then?
Re: (Score:3)
on the toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
Real smart - and are you able to think of every permutation of subdomain to add? I don't think it uses the TLD alone for the API. Wildcards are not permitted in HOSTS.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Blocking it at the firewall means you can't get around it by editing your own HOSTS or pointing to different DNS servers. DNS spoofing is another alternative to force a specific DNS server, but that still isn't as simple as just blocking access to the IP range at the firewall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (Score:5, Informative)
Adblock works just great as a first line of defense against Facebook. Same for any other http/https-based spyware sites.
I for one hate those buggers so much I also serve an empty zone for {facebook,fbcdn}.{com,net} and friends in my DNS, and block their IP ranges just in case some new domain pops up, but that's probably overkill. If you don't trust your co-workers to not muck with Adblock settings, you can do the DNS trick. If you want my zone management scripts, shout, I can clean them up for public consumption.
Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed. Between this and the removal of easy javascript disabling, I'm leaning more and more toward jumping over to Seamonkey.
Re: (Score:3)
While SeaMonkey is fine, I don't understand the javascript disabling disabling issue. There are 3 kinds of users:
1. Don't care or understand. For them, javascript always on is the only usable option.
2. Want to keep it always disabled for all websites. While lynx is better for them, I can understand why they might choose firefox instead. Such people can easily find the option in about:config, and since they will never change it again, occupying space in preferences for this doesn't make sense.
3. Want to cust
Re: (Score:2)
They probably get a lot of kickbacks from social networking sites. Firefox has been getting dumber with each release, clearly preparing the audience to get ready for social networking.
Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, there's a way to turn it off. Go to "about:config" and set "social.enabled" to False. This was previously the default.
Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, with all these options in the "about:config", it would be a great feature to have some of this in the preferences instead of their trend to actually remove options from the users or make them difficult to find.
Re: (Score:2)
With there being such an extensible UI, you can just create your own preferences button and dialog and share it with the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I hope there's an easy social integration disab (Score:4, Funny)
Windows 3.11 is also a tailor-made selection for your workgroups.
Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (Score:5, Informative)
AND... user prefs returned to default?
Thank the FSM I'm using NoScript.
Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (Score:5, Informative)
And it doubles down the devilry with: “Load images automatically” ... removed from preferences and reset to defaults
So they re-enable javascript and image loading on people who actively disabled them. Removing the option from preferences isn't evil but silently re-enabling them is criminal. My apologies to them if they throw up a "we would like to re-enable these features" dialog on upgrade, but it certainly doesn't sound like it.
Frankly I hope some people get their boxes owned as a result, sue mozilla and take them to the cleaners. Even some mobile users could get them for data charges incurred. If I used it, I'd have 50M daily data cap before I went into 2c/M charging on my payg sim, how many "average" tabs would I have to have open by default on launch for the JS+images to chew through my limit (remember _everything_ JS and image related would be uncached at that point)?
Dictatorial software (Score:2)
Meanwhile, Firefox is the most unstable program in common use, if you often have a lot of windows and tabs open.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a neat extension that gives you a restart option on the file menu. (Another of those wonderful UI features that firefox has eliminated over the years so users had to add it back via extension.) I use that about once a day, with 30 tabs open it still only takes a couple seconds, and I have no problems with excess memory usage.
Just with the way mozilla developers keep working overtime to destroy the only half-usable browser on the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Even better. I clicked the "check for updates" button, and it actually went and installed the updates instead of just checking which updates were available. Now that's evil. Luckily I could just use time machine.
Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (Score:5, Insightful)
And it doubles down the devilry with: “Load images automatically” ... removed from preferences and reset to defaults
So they re-enable javascript and image loading on people who actively disabled them. Removing the option from preferences isn't evil but silently re-enabling them is criminal. >
What the fuck is wrong with these people? If I wanted a browser with a shitty UI and almost no configurability I would use Internet Explorer
Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (Score:4, Interesting)
What the fuck is wrong with these people? If I wanted a browser with a shitty UI and almost no configurability I would use Internet Explorer
That's funny, because Internet Explorer does less to hide your (relatively limited) configuration options.
Sure, FF's about:config has everything, but if you don't know what you're looking for, good luck wading through the 10,000 options.
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically, you can still turn image loading on/off yourself easily from Internet Explorer
(Advanced tab of Internet Options, Multimedia section, "Show Pictures" checkbox)
Very same place it's been since IE 2.0 I believe.
Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (Score:5, Interesting)
“Load images automatically” and Always show the tab bar” checkboxes removed from preferences and reset to defaults.
It looks like they have been afflicted with the same "our way or the highway" disease that is ruining Gnome and Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are you can still modify those options through the about:config page (I hope). I'm sure they will argue that if you do want to disable it, you probably can go out of your way to do it in about:config page and thus we can remove it from the options so that unexperienced users don't mess up with the options they shouldn't and then complain it doesn't work.
It's still a strange move (that I don't agree with it). And I've seen the argument above be used.
Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (Score:5, Insightful)
Chances are you can still modify those options through the about:config page
Maybe . . . . for now. Until they completely remove it, even from about:config, like they did with the "always show tab bar" pref.
What a bunch of fucking retards.
Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm stuck with FF 22 until they reserve this decision.
Better make sure to disable upgrading via the GUI then, or you might auto-lose inadvertently in a week or so ;)
And for the rest of us, let's hope we don't get such option removed in FF 24, 25 or whatever, the way Chrome behaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely everyone who uses Firefox has already disabled this? Along with all Flash users, Adobe Reader users, and so forth.
Re: (Score:2)
Just sharing the love (or the protection from decisions for the sake of everyone): this [mozilla.org] extension apparently allows you to hide the tab bar complete (didn't check), and this [mozilla.org] hiding the tab bar when single-tab browsing.
Re: (Score:2)
One tab open (hidden tab bar): http://i.imgur.com/VwQK7vm.png [imgur.com]
Multiple tabs open (visible tab bar): http://i.imgur.com/NrqP9mW.png [imgur.com]
Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are you can still modify those options through the about:config page (I hope).
Removing an option from the UI is the first step to Mozilla deleting the option altogether. Look to autoHide tabs for an example of this already happening, and tabs-on-bottom planned on being removed [mozilla.org]. When they force tabs on top I will stop using/upgrading Firefox.
This is why I get pissed off by the asshats who say "don't complain about the UI option, you can change it in about:config". 1-2 years after the UI is changed, the option, in all its forms, will be gone.
Re:Removed "Disable Javascript" check box (Score:5, Interesting)
The real reason here is money. Viewing images means you see ads, enabling javascript means you see ads. Mozilla is firmly in the pay of the big web advertisers and want to make sure their buddies are not inconvenienced. As more and more users learn about ways to secure their browsers and protect against malicious advertisements Mozilla will keep removing these loopholes and advertisers will keep rewarding Mozilla with paychecks.
Re: (Score:2)
There's some guy in charge who says "a setting that appears to break a browser is a bad setting to expose in the UI" (paraphrased)
Hence why they're apparently on a roll to "fix" the browser for users that mucked around with the settings and possibly turned images or javascript or SSL encryption off.
Just use SeaMonkey. It has a mostly-traditional UI and is not going jump on the Chrome UI boat either. I stopped using Firefox at around 3.x.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that big of a deal.
It's better for non-technical users, who are likely to accidentally disable JavaScript and then assume Firefox was broken when the web didn't work right anymore.
And it's just as good for technical users who can trivially go to about:config and set javascript.enabled to false.
Re: (Score:2)
Non technical users are precisely the ones that most need an easy way to disable javascript. Reveton removal costs upwards of $100 a pop and some people manage to catch it more than once in a day.
Network monitor? (Score:2)
Isn't that a "hacking tool"? Germany might not approve..
tag removed (Score:5, Funny)
<blink>No!!!</blink> They removed the blink tag!
And another 3D icon bites the dust... (Score:4, Insightful)
...well, a bit at least. This anti-skeuomorphic craze is pretty damned irritating - the new logo looks worse than the old one in my view, just as the Windows 8 theme looks worse than Aero Glass and iOS 7 looks worse than iOS 6. I had enough of 2D, flat icons in the 80s (when there weren't the resources to do better); I can only imagine the designers doing all this 2D stuff today weren't around back then.
Mixed Content blocker is awesome for security, but (Score:5, Informative)
..many sites still need to be updated to work with it. Likely some behind the firewall stuff as well. (And many of these sites break in IE10 and Chrome as well)
See here for full details: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2013/05/16/mixed-content-blocking-in-firefox-aurora/ [mozilla.org]
Basically it prevents loading active content (JS/CSS/etc) from a non-HTTPS source when the page is HTTPS.
Also, if you are a HTTPS Everywhere user and wondering why sites like XKCD and NYtimes are no longer HTTPS, this is why.
A new logo?? Eyeroll (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate to go all hipster on you guys, but here goes.
I was using Firefox before it was cool. It was called Phoenix when the project started, then later renamed to Firebird. This was circa 2002/2003.
It was a great browser: cross-platform, smaller than Mozilla, fast. Everything I wanted. I used FF for over ten years without problems. I was OK with playing whack-a-mole in the settings each new release, trying to keep my preferences for things consistent. But then the UI people showed up. At some point they completely re-arranged the user interface, breaking over a decade of my visual/muscle memory. Seriously, what the fuck guys? I guess they wanted to make it look more like Chrome. So I switched to Chrome.
The Firefox project needs to get rid of all of the people who don't code but "contribute" by fucking around with the UI. So, FF team, you can take your new logo and jam it up your ass.
Re:A new logo?? Eyeroll (Score:5, Insightful)
The only part I dont agree with here is switching to Chrome. That's jumping from the pan to the fire. Firefox is being run into the ground by idiots that want it to be Chrome - but Chrome already IS Chrome.
Re:A new logo?? Eyeroll (Score:5, Informative)
Phoenix was the original name of Firefox until there were trademark issues woth Phoenix Technologies. Then it was callef Firebird but was changed because of the Firebird database project. It was not until Feb 2004 that it was finally named Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Your right, I need to go home... long day..
Was thinking Thunderbird and Sunbird.
Re: (Score:3)
Your right, I need to go home... long day..
Was thinking Thunderbird and Sunbird.
Well then. Relax with a well deserved bottle of Thunderbird since you were already thinking about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Phoenix is their email program
Thunderbird is the email program.
Phoneix is the original name of Firefox, but collided with Phoenix Technologies.
FireBird was a short lives calendering app.
Sunbird is the calendering app; it's still available but is now maintained as the Lightning extension for Thunderbird.
Thunderbird was the second name of Firefox, but collided into the ThunderBird database even worse than Phoenix.
Dumbing down is out of hand (Score:5, Insightful)
The continual removal of configuration options from Firefox is not only insulting, it's pointless. I seriously doubt it reduces the amount of code for the browser by any significant amount.
The day Firefox removes the ability to set client-side font overrides is the day I switch to Chrome. Currently that is the only feature left in Firefox that keeps me using it. For me, it's an invaluable feature, and I'm really annoyed that Firefox seems to be the only browser that supports the concept. After all, the whole point of HTML was that the client is supposed to control rendering, not the server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly what was dumbed down here? If you're referring to the JS preference, its simply been moved into about:config to prevent Joe User from "Turning off the Java" and breaking the internet.
Except that it only "breaks the Internet" on his computer. Which is his problem. Not mine.
This is just another one of Mozilla's eleventy gazillion stupid pointless moves.
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be your problem, but it is Mozilla's problem if their users are having problems with the Internet being broken on their computers.
Realistically how often do you turn off JS that way anyways? I'm willing to bet Mozilla has stats showing it's about never. The people that would turn off JS use NoScript instead. It's not a bad move to remove features that no one use
Re:Dumbing down is out of hand (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can achieve a similar effect using user CSS in Opera, although the dumbing down has also started here. I don't think switching to Chrome would help, they are the ones who started the minimalist trend in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
HTML 5 number still experimental (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I'd be very much in favor of the date/time support - I think Safari does it, but most browsers (esp. mobile) do not.
URL bar and search bar synced? (Score:5, Insightful)
In version 22, I could use the URL bar to search for something via google and use the search box (on the right) for other searches without changing it. Now in 23, they are in sync. So if the right bar is set for "corporate bug search engine" the URL bar is set for that as well.
Kinda liked being able to have two different search bars at the same time.
I know I can use aliases in the URL bar (I use 'dir' to search the corporate directory), but this was a surprise.
Re: (Score:3)
Seems that the mozilla devs have refused to revert back to the previous behavior:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=890890 [mozilla.org]
Network Monitor (Score:2)
No longer able to autoHide tabs. (Score:3)
I hope they reverse this decision.
Re: (Score:3)
The browser.tabs.autoHide functionality has been stripped. I've read all the history on this. I'm fucking livid. .
I don't care about that feature since I never hide the tab bar, however, reading through the comments the arrogance of the Mozilla developers is truly mind-boggling, with most justifications for doing this amounting to little more than a thinly veiled "Fuck You".
Re: (Score:2)
Simple, clean, minimalistic. And now I have to deal with a tab bar because it messes up their pretty little theme? Fuck you Mozilla.
Re: (Score:2)
did they already abandon "personas"?
Re: (Score:3)
I hope they reverse this decision.
LOL!!!!! You must be new to Firefox.
The stupid, arrogant, pointless decisions they make are NEVER reversed.
Re: (Score:3)
Check out https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/hide-tab-bar-with-one-tab/ [mozilla.org]
Re:No longer able to autoHide tabs. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, on machines with limited vertical real estate, being able to close all other tabs (or pull a tab out as a separate window) would give the users enough space to access sites they otherwise couldn't access.
I miss the old Netscape functionality where you could also minimize the bookmark, navigation and menu bars if needed.
That's it, I'm staying at FF22 for now (Score:2)
I don't give a $#it about social "media".
Hiding controls is seen as a bad thing, especially in these Prism times.
It's as if Mozilla is trying to create hype around Firefox by pissing off it's users.
FoxNews called. They want their SOP back.
Re:That's it, I'm staying at FF22 for now (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. I use prefer NoScript anyway. They haven't removed anything that I can't/don't control with add-ons, so....
And most users didn't know about using the options anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I am on 17.7 ESR myself, after fruitlessly searching for a decent alternative browser following the Firefox 4 madness.
The ESR releases give you a lot more time to wait for them to come to their senses, but I can find no sign whatsoever to give me hope they ever will. I think it's (past) time for a fork.
Share button? (Score:2)
Browser should focus on browsing, this feature bloat is highly regretful and is ultimately unwanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Pale Moon Rocks! (Score:5, Informative)
Pale Moon is a Firefox variant optimized for Windows and modern processors, but also keeps most of the missing features and interface complained about here on Slashdot. [palemoon.org] It also works with NoScript and the handful of other add-ons I've tried.
Police and military (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technical users can still navigate to about:config and set javascript.enabled to false.
Re: (Score:3)
What do non technical users do? Do they not matter anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
I hope every end user that contracts Reveton as a result of this sues Mozilla. I really do. And I hope they win.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course now that Fireshit not only takes away the Javascript option and never had a per site option it's 100% useless.
Oh, stop with the drama already. That's what NoScript is for.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
Wow a share button?!?!
This is what Mozilla is wasting time on now?
Don't forget the NEW LOGO!
http://cdn.thenextweb.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/06/firefox_logo.png [thenextweb.com]
I'm at a loss for words, but that picture tells you everything you need to know about the UI/art direction types at Mozilla. It's painful.
Re: (Score:2)
I was all ready to come in here and stir things up regarding it being a fox and not a red panda but it's damn near identical to the previous logo. You could get the same change by tweaking the brightness and contrast on your monitor controls.
Re: (Score:2)