Firefox 32 Arrives With New HTTP Cache, Public Key Pinning Support 220
An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 32 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Additions include a new HTTP cache for improved performance, public key pinning support, and easy language switching on Android. The Android version is trickling out slowly on Google Play. Changelogs are here: desktop and mobile.
Start your day the clean-shaven way (Score:4, Funny)
Breakfast of champions handy
And aftershave that makes men brave
When over Macho Grande [youtube.com]
Burma Shave
Re: (Score:3)
I'll never be over Macho Grande.
Da=DUP! (Score:1)
This ran a day or two ago, yesterday, or day before.
Firefox32 (Score:2, Troll)
Will the next version be Firefox64 ?
When will we go back to Firefox ONE ?
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox 360?
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox 360?
If they stay with the every 6 weeks release schedule, Firefox 360 should be out sometime in 2052.
Re: (Score:2)
First impressions (Score:5, Informative)
Just installed the latest Firefox and did a bit of random surfing. First impression: noticeably faster than before, probably even on par with Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
How does it compare to Pale Moon, though? Performance and not liking Australias was my main reason for changing to Pale Moon.
Since Pale Moon can no longer sync with my Firefox on other machines (one of which is my laptop I cannot use Pale Moon on), and the Classic Theme Restorer undoes most of the UX damage, I'm wavering to dropping Pale Moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Just realized that Pale Moon now has a release for Linux...compiling that now. I'd always been interested but left out b/c I'm a Linux user.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Not sure what platform you're using, but Firefox is (or, was) slow on Mac as well. Chrome was obviously faster, and that's my impression -- someone who rarely uses Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oddly enough, on my slower machines I find Firefox runs all that much faster than Chrome. It's definitely a case where certain hardware and software configurations will lead to varying results.
Re: (Score:2)
On Chrome is usable, on Firefox the entire system almost freeze (using Linux Mint on a AMD Athlon II X2 250).
Re: (Score:3)
While Firefox is fast when it's fast, unlike Chrome a single tab can bog down your entire browsing session since it's only using a single process.
The same single process also runs out of memory if there's a crappy javascript on a page, and closing the offending tab does not help. For example FinalBuilder build overview page leaks about 2GB per day on my machine, taking Firefox with it if I don't remember to restart it before then. Quite tedious.
I strongly dislike Chrome for other reasons and have stuck with
Re: (Score:2)
I use SeaMonkey (and PaleMoon when something insists on Firefox) and frankly it has a lot of the same problems. The newest incarnation of Google maps in particular has regularly stalled and crashed it, and run memory up over 1GB which it does not always return when the page is closed. It appears in part a byproduct of the cache structure (with no cache, the problem isn't as bad), and that may be filesystem-affected.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certainly no fan of Google nor Chrome/Chromium. However, it's ALWAYS been very obviously faster than Firefox, in my experience. FF caught up (as far as my perception goes, anyways) with the release of Australis -- it's now about on par with chrome though still slightly slower. Just an opinion from someone who's not a fan of either browser.
Looks Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
This stuff looks interesting. I can't wait until they fold it into Palemoon.
Because coolness of the technology aside, everything else about Firefox is increasingly pissing me off.
Re: (Score:1)
This.
The funny thing is, I've got plenty of RAM. I got more consistent performance out of Firefox 3.6 (without Flash installed, Javashit disabled for 99% of my web browsing, and yes, I know the Javashit engine for 3.x was teh suck) than I have out of recent Firefox builds. Currently on Palemoon 24.x, and noticed it lagging when paging up/down through static text content after about 2-3 days of continuous use. Firefox 3 never had
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely do not, ever, try x64 version of any firefox sourced browser. They are utterly horrible and serve no meaningful purpose other than early testing and satisfying masochists.
Use x86 version and you'll find it to be actually functional. I don't know about "awesome", but pale moon is basically firefox base with stripped out UI destruction that occurred since transition from 3.6 and some small changes to make it faster.
Re: (Score:2)
64-bit Firefox works perfectly fine on Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
x86_64 firefox on Debian Wheezy and it works perfectly. I really like Firefox and don't understand the anti-Mozilla hate people seem to express.
Still having misery with Firefox. (Score:4, Insightful)
I post in EVERY Slashdot firefox article, whining for the same thing.
LESS focus on UI / features, MORE focus on stability / performance.
I've been using FireFox since the name it had before FireFox (I've forgotten it) - I think I used it since version 1 or god knows what.
For about the last 12 months, maybe 18, Firefox has become completely unstable for "extreme" browsers like me. I run anywhere from 30 to 150 tabs open at a time. I'd say a nice average would be around 60 tabs. When I'm researching something (often multiple things) I like to google what I'm reading, middle click open in the background the first 5 results. Then when on a forum, I'll middle click open 5 more results and so on. I like having those tabs queued up in the background for me to read.
You might think "well there's the cause of your stability problem!!" except this never used to happen. 18 months ago you could hit 200 tabs without FF crashing. Now, I'm scared to open more than 60. This is across multiple machines too.
I've even tried switching to WaterFox, no dice - I'm still able to crash FF regularly and I run very few addons either.
It's good to see the http cache changes, so they are working on performance but stability should be the #1 focus.
Oddly enough, I get exactly the same symptoms in Firefox for Android as I do Windows for fucks sake. If I hit enough tabs (about 8 on my Galaxy S3) - FF for Android shits the bed, presumably because it's out of ram and can't page well or something. Worst part is FF for Android doesn't remember my open tabs either. Miserable.
They've fiddled and fucked with the UI, replicating Chrome as much as they can (ugh!) for years, now can they stop? If I wanted ugly goddamn chrome I'd install it.
PLEASE fix the stability, PLEASE make it faster. I don't care how much ram it uses, I just want a modern experience with my browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that of people running away from the browser, almost none are running away because they can't have a stable firefox with 150 tabs open. That's an extreme case if I ever saw one.
And quite a few of us that left firefox because we like having a firefox instead of chromefox have simply migrated to pale moon.
Re: (Score:1)
> IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF YOU AREN'T EXPERIENCING THESE PROBLEMS!
Repeatability is the one and only way problems get fixed.
If fixing is more important than bitching then you need to provide a method to reliably reproduce the problems.
My suggestion is to put together a virtual machine and make sure you can reproduce it in the VM. Then write down step by step instructions to recreate the problem. Then submit the whole shebang as a bug report.
This isn't firefox specific, any software be it open or pro
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't firefox specific, any software be it open or proprietary works the same way - the engineers must be able to recreate the problem themselves in order to fix it. There is no other option.
But there is another option for the users: they can use other software.
I sympathise with the frustrations of software developers, but the idea that any normal user (most of whom aren't going to be programmers or sysadmins themselves) is going to set up a virtual machine, reduce a bug they see down to a minimal test case, and then file a detailed bug report is crazy. It just isn't going to happen.
If a project has to keep relying on this, instead of being able to do good quality control and testing itself, th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the one bitching and moaning about the bugs. I'm just pointing out the reality that very few people are going to go through the onerous bug reporting process that (some) Firefox developers/fans want them to, and that if they run into too many bugs in Firefox then they might choose to use another browser instead of choosing to help make Firefox better.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about Slashdotters and other geeks who have no real excuse to not help out in this way
What do you mean "no real excuse to not help out"?
I think FOSS is great. I appreciate the work that a lot of people in the community do, and I'm happy to help out a bit myself if I can. I also think competition is healthy in the browser market, and I'm glad that Firefox is out there.
But the last time I tried to be helpful by following a Mozillian's bug reporting advice, it took me several hours to fix the damage after their instructions resulted in damage to my normal set-up. That was time I was not then bi
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Show us how to reproduce your bug (Score:2)
IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER IF YOU AREN'T EXPERIENCING THESE PROBLEMS! Why do you freaks always insist on denying that very real problems exist just because you haven't personally experienced them?
Yes it does matter if others aren't experiencing these problems because you can't fix a problem you can't reproduce. The problem is with people who complain that "Firefox is broken" but then never provide adequate data to isolate what they are doing that is causing the problem. If User A says Firefox is slow when doing Behavior X and User B tries Behavior X as described and cannot replicate the problem then the source of the problem has to be something more than solely Behavior X or it might have nothing
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I've noticed them working hard to improve all of the things you complain about in every damn thread that has even the more remotely tangential association with Firefox. I honestly can't tell why you would STILL be using Firefox if you're this upset about it.
I say this because for a lark, I tried to use Firefox 3 the other day, for the full day. It crashed. A lot. It was slow. It used quite a bit more CPU and RAM then Chrome or even the latest Firefox and could barely handle some modern web apps, if at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have that man tabs open at the same time, you don't need a better browser. You need to learn to focus.
Re: (Score:2)
He needs to learn to use Google. If he has to open so many results, and then follow so many links in forum threads to find the information he wants then he needs to use better search terms. That's what Google is for, to reduce all the leg work.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried creating a new profile and comparing speed? There have been a number of Firefox issues caused by certain profile data. How about disabling all addons and trying again? Do both of those things and see how that compares, then narrow down the options.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep done the new profile thing, no luck. As for the dude asking about FlashBlock and AdBlock - of course, I only run about 5 addons and that's 2 of them.
Re:Still having misery with Firefox. (Score:5, Interesting)
"extreme" browsers like me. I run anywhere from 30 to 150 tabs open at a time. I'd say a nice average would be around 60 tabs
It's not Firefox and that's not extreme. I was just doing some Javascript profiling this weekend on slow performance with 1630 tabs (Tree Style Tabs, of course), with the winners for CPU eaters being HTTPS Everywhere 4.0's SSLObservatory and SessionRestore.
As much as I appreciate the EFF's efforts, I wound up disabling 4.0. Maybe 4.0.1 will be back with a vengeance.
Anyway, Firefox wasn't crashing, it was slow. Probably one of your in-profile databases got corrupted at some point ('restore from backup' is the most likely "fix"). I'm on Fedora 20, running stock Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Were you doing that for testing purposes or do you actually have that many tabs open on purpose?
Since there's no way you could actually look at all of them in a single day, perhaps you'd be better off with bookmarks than actual open tabs. What benefit do you get from having the actual pages loaded and running their rogue javascript in the background? Have you downloaded the entire web to your hard drive, too, instead of just fetching the relevant pages as you need them?
Genuinely curious... (though that last
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I do use the session restore functionality, perhaps that's the problem? Maybe I can manually adjust some settings on the frequency of session saves or the amount of back pages it remembers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never understand how people manage to keep that many tabs open because Firefox regularly corrupts its own session and refuses to restore the previously open tabs. Routinely.
So every couple of weeks I "get" to reset all my tabs back to nothing when Firefox corrupts its own session and refuses to restore the original settings.
And this is on every OS I've used Firefox: Windows, Linux, Mac OS X; it makes no difference, Firefox regularly refuses to restore tabs.
Re: (Score:1)
I never understand how people manage to keep that many tabs open because Firefox regularly corrupts its own session and refuses to restore the previously open tabs.
People manage to do that because for most of them firefox does not regularly corrupt its own session.
You've got something weird going on, if you want it fixed you should try to narrow it down to the minimum configuration necessary to repeat it and then submit a bug report explaining how to repeat it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Try a nightly desktop build with electrolysis enabled.
It's supposed to isolate each tab.
Isolating the problem (Score:2)
I run anywhere from 30 to 150 tabs open at a time. I'd say a nice average would be around 60 tabs.
I really cannot think of a reasonable workflow where that would make sense but I'm not trying to judge. As long as you are aware that you are doing something that almost nobody else does or even thinks is a good idea then go for it. Could be useful as a stress test I guess. I've been using Firefox (and Mozilla and Netscape before that) for a long long time and I've never seen behavior like what you describe but then I never thought it was a good idea to have 150 tabs open at once either.
My question would
Re: (Score:2)
I've isolated the problem perfectly, through a decade of exactly the same behaviour and the issues have only been serious for 12 months.
Across multiple machines.
I'm very boring, I've run the same addons for the best part of 3 years to boot as well.
The problem is firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
I've isolated the problem perfectly
I'm dubious given the vague description of how to reproduce the problem. (open lots of tabs is not a lot of detail) However if so then then can I assume you have reported the problem to the folks at Mozilla with appropriate step by step details on how to reproduce the exact problem? It's not clear to me that they would worry much about running 200 tabs at once since almost nobody actually does that but there certainly could be a problem worth fixing.
I'm very boring, I've run the same addons for the best part of 3 years to boot as well.
And those addons have never been updated or changed and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The workflow is pretty much anyone who has to wear multiple hats during the day. Think of open tabs in background windows as short-term bookmarks.
One browser window with half a dozen tabs to keep an eye on the internal ticket system. Another window open with a dozen tabs to track stats on jobs in-progress across multiple days (so that you can just alt-tab to that window, glance through the tabs, rath
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Version Number (Score:2, Funny)
Since these updates became more about upping the version number than adding anything really useful and substantive, they should seize this golden opportunity to call it Firefox 100000. Then as the updates roll on from here ...Firefox 100001, Firefox 100010, Firefox 100011, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just a guess, but probably would require too many changes to their build infrastructure and associated tooling to be worth the while, since version numbers aren't surfaced that much to the average user anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they fix the right-click menus randomly stopping working? Because that's the about only thing I really care about in Firefox as it stands.
Every new release seems to come with a new UI and new bugs.
Re:Version Number (Score:5, Informative)
That's probably a side effect of the "Javascript always on" thing Mozilla did a few versions ago. When they got rid of the "Enable Javascript" checkbox, they also got rid of the options like "Allow scripts to take right-click" and other options.
What's likely happening is your website is blocking right-clicks on purpose (usually as a "protection" measure so you can't right-click and activate extensions like Nuke Anything or Save As).
Of course, the default setting of the checkbox was to disallow websites from hijacking right-click. But since it's gone, so is the setting, so websites are free to hijack right-click.
You need to either use NoScript to block the offending Javascript, or hold down shift when you right-click, which bypasses the right-click hijack and shows the Firefox right-click menu and all the extensions.
Haha, sad pi (Score:4, Insightful)
Firefox mobile: Android 2.2 and ARMv6 processor chipset no longer supported
Fix html5 video, plus a few other things (Score:2)
Unsurprisingly an add-on broke. (Score:2)
pinning gui fail. (Score:1)
Yup, from secuty point: something is wrong with the pinning CA, drop a fatal error message and you are ready.
But: No option to handle the connection as a unsecured connection. If you simply want to watch the intercepted information about funny cat video, the fact that there is a man in the middle attack is not interresting.
And: Something is alarml wrong error message. Nope, just that the connection might be intercepted, or not be from the original site. Nothing wrong with the PC of the user, but nothing he
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the first time they've done this "we know best" thing, unfortunately. There are cases involving HTTPS/HSTS where Firefox literally will not let you view a page it has decided is insecure, even if you explicitly want to ignore whatever the security problem is (for example, because it's a site you work on, and it's in active development and currently not fully configured).
Security warnings when encountering a likely threat = good. Overriding the user's explicit wishes = bad, always.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Then developers all move to Chrome. And we all know how that ends. Oh wait, they already did, lol!
R.I.P firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I think your post is too close to the truth the be funny...
When all the developers move to the same platform with its non-standard implementations of everything, you get IE6.
New responsive "picture" tag? (Score:2)
If they are trying to keep up with Chrome, they better start adding those new HTML 5.1 features too.
Re:And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (Score:4, Informative)
Autoupdated this am.
Seems to work fine.
Memory use seems about the same. (I have 10 tabs open now... lots of "complex/rich" sites... 536 MB)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If Khyber spent even a fraction of the time he spends whining on Slashdot actually reporting the bugs to Mozilla and honestly helping them diagnose his problems, then they would likely have been solved by now. I say this as someone who doesn't even like Firefox, yet has had several of his "show stopper" bugs fixed because he had the crazy notion of helping Mozilla fix their "busted junk". It's easy to sit back and tell Mozilla to fix things, but if all you do is present anecdotal, whiny, non-actionable bug
Re: (Score:2)
I have 3 tabs open one with flash and its only 196 megs (and some change), dunno what your fucking problem is
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. The cookie jar was empty, so he had to take his nap with an empty tummy.
Re: (Score:1)
Might as well chime in:
Two tabs, 264mb
Re: (Score:1)
http://imgur.com/8oaZW6D [imgur.com]
Two tabs, nearly double that, with my only extension being AdBlock Edge.
I find it funny everyone makes claims but aren't backing it up with screenshots.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because something is using memory (it's there to be used, after all), it does not automatically follow that it is leaking memory, either in your sense (poor memory management) or the sense developers use it (broken memory management).
I've got mysqld running at home. The only DB on it is a few megabytes of data, and yet mysqld uses 1.5Gb. Why? Because it's available. It doesn't harm the system, as far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer FF over other browsers. But it's mainly because it's what I'm used to and the tree style tabs. I'm sure you can get the same for Chrome. But I haven't gotten around to checking.
FF became pretty unstable a few versions ago, though I don't recall which. It seemed to be a memory leak or something. It got up to around 2.5 GB of RAM and then became unresponsive and would eventually crash. My system has 16 GB of RAM, and was never near 100%. The next release took a little longer to reach this point, a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
firefox would have crashed long before i was able to open up that many windows with that many tabs.
after a few hundred pageviews using no more than a few tabs at a time firefox gets close to 2 gigs memory used and stays there.. ui gets sluggish (even more than usual now since the omg-it-looks-like-chrome version), pages start stuttering on scrolling and taking longer to load up in the first place, and acknowledgement of mouseclicks can be delayed so much that what firefox 'clicks' on isn't even what *I* cli
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The next time it gets that bad, open about:memory and see what stands out as eating the RAM. There have been issues with AntiVirus software, old crufty features like "ask me about every cookie", the YouTubeCenter addon gobbles up RAM (developer version doesn't), and video drivers with shared RAM being problematic. Adobe has also stopped caring about Flash on Firefox, so that's becoming a real turd in the punchbowl lately. But if you try to dig deeper and help Mozilla find out what the problem is, I'm sure t
Re: (Score:1)
Grim Reefer, " I have 13 FF windows open with 5 to 24 tabs open in each." Yes, just try exactly this on Chrome and report back on memory usage.
I have no desire to install Chrome. Partly because I get sick of other programs trying to sneak it onto my computer. But I'm curious about what you are inferring. Will Chrome perform better than FF? Or worse? TIA.
Re: (Score:1)
Two tabs. TWO.
http://imgur.com/8oaZW6D [imgur.com]
Zero excuse for that bullshit. Slashdot and Fark are NOT loading up nearly half a gig of information.
Re:And still leaking memory like a fucking sieve (Score:4, Informative)
You're right. There's zero excuse for you blaming your problems on Firefox. Since you complained about other people not posting images here you go:
7 tabs open.
1 tab running a video
16 plugins installed
7 extensions running (10 installed).
350MB of RAM used. Go fix your browser instead of bitching about it on Slashdot.
http://s28.postimg.org/3zhxwhuzx/firefox.jpg [postimg.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try, I didn't actually know about about:memory until you posted this, nor will I ever care enough about memory (I have 32GB in this machine) to ever type that in my browser again. Also I don't actually give a crap about Firefox because I use Chrome, but your anti-Firefox rant just needed correcting.
Interesting side note is that Chrome will show Firefox and IE memory usage in it's about:memory page. I decided to put that to the test. Both browsers have 8 identical tabs open, 7 slashdot tabs, and roundcu
Re: (Score:2)
Well the total n00b thing is you ignoring the fixes that have actually happened. There was an entire campaign centered around reducing the memory footprint of Firefox and closing out all open memory leak bugs. That campaign started at Firefox 3.5 and the memory footprint has been improving very steadily since making it now quite light weight on par with a browser heavily integrated into the system and far better than the competition.
But don't let my facts (or those of any of the other people posting and mod
Re: (Score:2)
So, yea. That screenshot I posted is of the latest version of Firefox. So something is NOT fixed.
So what actually got fixed, hrm? RAM usage was most fucking certainly not one of them.
That screenshot that disagrees with all the others in your thread? I take it your problem is reproducible and that you have filled a bug report complete with all the info required to reliably reproduce your problem? If not then kindly screw yourself, if so then wait for the outcome of the bug report.
But coming on a forum and saying everything is broken and nothing has been fixed since Firefox 3 is absurdly wrong and childish, not to mention disagrees with what others are seeing.
Or maybe do you think RAM usa
Re: (Score:1)
http://imgur.com/8oaZW6D [imgur.com]
Only installed plugin is AdBlock Edge.
Two pages. Almost half a gig of RAM used.
Absolute rubbish.
Re: (Score:1)
Zero extensions. If I had extension, I'd have listed them. Are you that incapable of rational thought?
Re: (Score:1)
Why would I ever need any of this? If anything ever happened, I would just bring up MyCleanPC and fix the problem.
I'll trust a respected companies solution over some guy-in-a-basement's free hosts program who is probably just out to scam me. At least MyCleanPC lets me hold someone responsible if I have a problem! What guarantee do I have that some "Anonymous Coward" will respond if I need support?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)