Firefox 25 Arrives With Web Audio API Support, Guest Browsing On Android 144
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla today officially launched Firefox 25 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Additions include Web Audio API support, as well as guest browsing and mixed content blocking on Android. Firefox 25 can be downloaded from 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. The release notes are here: desktop, mobile."
I can't remember (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't actually recall the last time I was actually enthusiastic about a Firefox release. Nowadays it seems like a chore that rewards my expenditure of effort with features I will never use.
I mean... I get that mature software doesn't necessarily deliver awe-inspiring features all the time, but in that case, why is it news?
Re: (Score:2)
IE6 is at least supported. Debian might still support 3.5 but I don't know of anyone that actively supports 2.0 anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Id upgrade it just for avoiding driveby malware attacks. IE6 was/is horrible in this regard, not sure how targetted is FireFox 2.0 on Linux.
Re: (Score:1)
'Cause it's 25 man. 25 mostly meaningless releases.
Re:I can't remember (Score:5, Informative)
Web Audio API actually is an interesting feature.
See some of it in action: http://mohayonao.github.io/timbre.js/ [github.io]
Re: (Score:3)
Web Audio API actually is an interesting feature.
See some of it in action: http://mohayonao.github.io/timbre.js/ [github.io]
This is the feature I've been waiting for since I like to write games and port them to HTML5. I have an audio-only game that only worked in Chrome until today because I had the audacity to require left/right panning.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think it took them a long time to agree on what the audio standard would be.
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite example of Web Audio API is Plink: http://labs.dinahmoe.com/plink/ [dinahmoe.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"It looks like the browser you're using isn't compatible with Plink."
How nice of them to prevent me from trying the Web Audio API demo with my newly updated Firefox 25, instead of just seeing if it will work.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and here is a speech synthesizer using Web Audio API: http://www.masswerk.at/mespeak/ [masswerk.at]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I can't remember (Score:5, Insightful)
A chore? How do YOU install new Firefox releases? All I do is go to Help->About Firefox->Check for Updates->Install.
It's not exactly spring cleaning.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was hyperbole, chill.
Re:I can't remember (Score:5, Funny)
Frozen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Even then there are some that just don't have a way to re-enable. Like autocompleting URL bars that autocomplete entire URLs, and not just domains or partial URLs. Even more annoyingly, Firefox refuses to autocomplete ports - so if you visit http://localhost8080/ [localhost8080] Firefox oh-so-helpfully autocompletes just "http://localh
Re: (Score:2)
"Even then there are some that just don't have a way to re-enable. Like autocompleting URL bars that autocomplete entire URLs, and not just domains or partial URLs."
Or like the status bar. WTF was wrong with the status bar? If you didnt like it you could turn it off like all the other bars. They killed it all the way back @ firefox 4 (when the whole train seems to have gone off the tracks) and made it impossible for it to be fully reconstructed even through an extension. And, btw, that extension is now bein
Re: (Score:3)
Even then there are some that just don't have a way to re-enable. Like autocompleting URL bars that autocomplete entire URLs, and not just domains or partial URLs. Even more annoyingly, Firefox refuses to autocomplete ports - so if you visit http://localhost8080/ [localhost8080] Firefox oh-so-helpfully autocompletes just "http://localhost".
But I go to direct deep URLs on a lot of things.
FF plugin "Calomel SSL Validation" [calomel.org] has a checkbox on its Optimizations tab* to toggle the behavior you described. The prefs dialog must be accessed via the Tools menu; the toolbar button's sole functions are: 1) Changing color to indicate a weighted, aggregate measure of the security quality of an encrypted connection, and 2) when clicked, displaying score-points and the details from which they were derived (cert match,cyphers, key lengths, hash algo).
TLS 1.1 & 1.2 were added a couple versions back, b
Re: (Score:3)
The chore comes from having to spend minutes to hours to some cases days researching how to unfuck yet another UI snafu that mozilla's designers pushed in the update.
Re: (Score:2)
My time is so important that I'm viewing this site from last firefox I find to have a usable UI: 3.6.28.
Re: (Score:2)
Do stop your whining already. If your time was that important you wouldn't update willy-nilly before you knew the issues, and you would probably have switched to a long-term release by now. Besides, it's not like the other browsers don't screw things up between releases, often in equally boneheaded ways.
Mmmm, now if only websites wouldn't use the "latest and greatest" whiz-bang features to eventually force upgrades..
Re: (Score:2)
A chore? How do YOU install new Firefox releases? All I do is go to Help->About Firefox->Check for Updates->Install.
It's not exactly spring cleaning.
su
[root password]
zypper update
Unfortunately, there is a delay between official release and openSUSE repository binary package, but it's relatively short. I think the "chore" part of it that he's referring to is that there's no longer any real reward: Firefox has become old and boring, and new updates (if anything) cause more trouble than anything in terms of fucking stupid design and GUI decisions, as well as extension hell (although the extension problem has been solved for while now it seems). Not to me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But we're talking about Firefox. It's not mature by any stretch of imagination.
Hype. The whole purpose of ditching major.minor.build versioning was to get the hype of a major release for every single new build. Well, that and it makes it less convenient to maintain old branches in bugfix state, thus forcing everyone to buy into every new feature and feature removal unless they want to be
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't understand why everyone complains about the Firefox release cycle when it is nearly identical to the Chrome/Chromium release cycle."
We laughed at the Chrome brain damage and the fools that used it, secure in the knowledge at least our browser wasnt THAT stupid - and then it started doing the same thing. That's kind of it in a nutshell.
I do use ESR but I would be much happier with a fork going back to version 3 or earlier and maybe fixing some of the more annoying ancient bugs instead of trying to c
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... 2.x IMO was the last truly great release, and after that it went downhill. For 3.x I was forced to start bookmarks, because of that god damn [anything-but] "awesome" bar, and I refused to use it until 3.6 (which added a few notable features that made it worth it). The problem is, 2.x is now obviously horrible out of date, lacks things like out-of-process plugins, leaks like a sieve, and is just unstable. Backport the rendering engine, security fixes, memory leak plugs, and maybe some of the better (
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why everyone complains about the Firefox release cycle when it is nearly identical to the Chrome/Chromium release cycle.
Because most people thought the Chrome way was damned silly, and there was a lot of eye-rolling when that "infection" spread to other projects.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even mature, or at least, stable-mature.
I had it crash randomly earlier (yes I reported to Mozilla) and I was doing some stuff with dynamically showing/hiding table rows with Javascript where the first row was full of th tags, bordered, 1px and the rest of the table cells had no border. When I showed the third row, and hid it again the whole table got vertical borders on table cells.
No other browser did this, and even inspecting the computed values showed no border set so a rendering bug I guess.
Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately... (Score:2)
Unfortunately it's a Javascript API.
You can't actually write a web page in HTML with some kind of HTML-A audio inline, like you can put SVG or MATHML inline.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is wrong with the HTML5 audio tag.
What I hate it the PERLesque - There's more than one way to do it. You know there will be 15 billion ugly, unreadable javascript hacks the the API interface where the HTML interface would have been just fine, as with all other areas of overlap between HTML and javascript.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you think someone will write a relatively good web game without some kind of programming language API for sound?, Web Audio API is more than simple play and stop calls
Re: (Score:3)
They could write a program instead. A web browser is just about the worst container for an application.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but this is Mozilla we're talking about. Their whole modus operandi now is to augment the browser for their Firefox OS project in which there are no 'native' programs.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just use the html5 <audio> tag, no js required.
The api is for playback control and advanced processing & effects.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd care but... (Score:5, Interesting)
The developers refuse to release a 64-bit browser, fix bugs, keep breaking 3rd party plugins between releases, like Citrix/Xen apps for example, or create a Metro option for the kiosk market. That would be news worthy instead of this rapid release schedule of major version releases.
Re: (Score:1)
Calm down, version 26 will be out tomorrow and it will include new playback options for flash encoded video.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
$ file -L /usr/bin/firefox
/usr/bin/firefox: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.26, BuildID[sha1]=0x351721d7eba5940fb79872c01865bfcf86eda51d, stripped
Looks 64-bit to me.
Re: (Score:3)
64-bit is available in the nightly builds. It's not in the main tree because more people would have problems with it (most plugins, like flash, are 32-bit only)
It's why the default browser even on 64-bit OSes is 32-bit - plugin compatibility. Unless you're Google which ships Flash with every version of Chrome and can thus ship a 64-bit version with the 64-bit version.
Doing so in Firefox would just lead to a bunch of support tickets on why Flash refuses to wor
Re: (Score:2)
At least on Linux, Adobe provides a 64-bit flash player which runs fine in 64-bit Firefox. That's the only plugin most people care about.
Re: (Score:1)
And on Linux 64 bit firefox is available by default, usually packaged by your distro.
And it isn't the only plugin people care about. At least over here, the ones people care about seem to be Adobe PDF, Adobe Flash, Oracle Java.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. I'm really tired of the almost-daily random crashes. And why is it that when I start after a crash or reboot, it tells me it can't restore my session, but then when I click the button it does so without fail?
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's not actually restoring your session - it's reaching across the void between dimensions, piercing the paper-thin veil that separates this from that, and stealing the session from another reality.
The reality Firefox has reached in may differ only in the angular momentum of a single sub-atomic particle. Ever notice that sometimes the session you
Re: (Score:2)
I'm running the 64-bit version now. I grabbed it from ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/25.0/linux-x86_64/en-US/ [mozilla.org]
Nobody cares about 64-bit Windows because Windows is a legacy OS.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the alternative? With the power consumption (laptop) getting worse and worse lately, I'm looking to switch to something... sleeker.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still a good thing. 64 bit means much more than just increased address space, at least on x86_64. More registers might increase speed for example.
Re: (Score:3)
More than 4 gig of memory is a waste for a browser.
Obviously you are not a serious Javascript experimenter! Now that we've got canvas, WebGL, web workers, and audio, there's plenty of memory intensive stuff we can do inside the browser. The only limiting factors that distinguish web pages from real applications nowadays are your understanding of Javascript and how shitty of a browser you're willing to target.
Re: (Score:2)
More registers is about the only thing better for a browser. More than 4 gig of memory is a waste for a browser.
You can routinely go over 1GB if you're a heavy user or the pages themselves are heavy. Sometimes it's tab hoarding, I'm beginning to roll that back. But I can reach the 32bit 2GB limit without problem and with a 64bit linux, 3GB ram, 1.9GB swap, 64bit firefox I managed to fill everything up.
The best reason to use a 32bit firefox on a 64bit system would be so it cannot possibly fill up all your memory and send you to swap hell.
Also, Chrome is a lot more memory hungry and can always fill up all RAM, because
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes it's tab hoarding, I'm beginning to roll that back
Same here. The browser can bog down a bit when you load 10 slashdot articles as tabs. In addition to the other BS I might have open.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, facebook chat is very resource intensive. It was the reason I first tried and then switched to Chromium. It was unbearable in firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
However, at this point it is rather silly there is no windows 64bit version. They have had a linux and mac version for ages now. At this point is it really that big of a deal? Most of the 64 bit problems were worked out long ago...
Part of the Windows culture seems to be that most userspace apps are released as a 32bit version only.
Re: (Score:1)
Why? computers with 12GB of RAM are getting cheap, I don't see how it's bad to have that much of a RAM cache.
Android version sucks. (Score:2)
Its had too many features removed and freezes for up to 20 seconds if you stop a page load, pages screw their formatting up, it has no solution for popup boxes that center themselves offscreen. gmail.com, mail.com both pretty unusable. (galaxy note 2). no undo close tab. most options removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Another Firefox release
Another security hole in Microsoft products
Another Firefox release
Another security hole in Apple products
Another Firefox release
Another security hole in Adobe products
Another Firefox release
Another Firefox release to fix a security hole in the previous three releases
Another Firefox release just to catch up to the Chrome version
Re: (Score:2)
Another Firefox release just to catch up to the Chrome version
Yet that would only be necessary if chromw was updating continuously.
Only you didn't complain about that.
Massive double standards there.
Re: (Score:2)
My last line was targeted at Chrome. It's Google's fault that we have insane major versions of browsers today.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh OK. I misinterpreted. It sounded like you were blaming firefox for massive vresion churn and being behind Chrome. I can see now that it could be read as blaming Chrome for churn too.
TLS 1.2? (Score:1)
How about support for TLS 1.2? Or even 1.1?
That's the main feature I'm looking at for most browsers.
Nice one, Mozilla (Score:2)
Funny - I switched on my computer, intending to look up whether Firefox has the audio API implemented so that I can use it for my next project, and the first thing I saw was this update which added exactly that :P
The things I'm hoping to see soon from Firefox are CSS3 grids and support for multiple cookie jars.
Make sure you patch Java if you use it (Score:1)
I found it went from version 40 to version 45 for both the 32 and 64 bit versions that work as Firefox plugins when the Firefox patch was added.
Maybe I'll go Android (Score:2)
I find browsing on the vendor built in browsers to be TERRIBLE. All the adds and crap flying around is twice as bad on a little tablet or phone because it is too easy to misclick. And browsing is already slower b/c of all the ads loading, it just ruins the experience for me.
Thank GOD for Firefox and the tweaks you can apply with 3rd party pieces. LOVE IT and I will NEVER change to something else.
Re:Maybe I'll go Android (Score:5, Informative)
Recommended. Firefox on Android still has many issues, but recent stable versions are much, much better than the first beta versions. There aren't that many add-ons available, but the ones that are available make the Android tablet browsing experience much more pleasant. The ones to look for: Adblock Plus, Self-Destructing Cookies, Ghostery and NO Google Analytics. Visit your favorite sites with the stock/vendor browsers, compare with Firefox+addons and decide for yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ghostery was added fairly recently. I just never got around to removing the other one. Doesn't seem to hurt anything in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No fine-grained control. Available settings are: Enabled, Enabled, excluding 3rd party, Disabled
Re: (Score:2)
Horses for courses. It depends on what sites you prefer to visit, I guess. I tend to regularly visit sites on my tablet that present information for reading (blogs, local newspaper, articles etc), not all-dancing, all-singing multimedia extravaganzas. But to be honest, I run across few pages these days that it has trouble with. Firefox is a little slow to load some pages, but that doesn't really bother me much. Earlier releases were somewhat buggy, but recent releases (in the last 6 months or so) are s
New interface? (Score:2)
The release notes do not mention Australis or any major UI changes. Are they keeping mum, or was the Chrome-alike change pushed back?
And Still No Flexbox Support (Score:2)
Why is Mozilla taking so long to fully implement Flexbox? Even IE11 supports it: http://caniuse.com/#search=flexbox [caniuse.com]
It feels weird to say it but Firefox is holding back the web. This is probably one of the most important changes to layout since designers/developers abandoned tables and moved to pure CSS based layouts.
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla fully supports single-line flexbox (that is, flexbox in which the child flex items are all layed out in a single row or column), which is what most flexbox use cases want, and has for a while.
What's missing is support for multiline flexbox.
And Stil (Score:2)
Every stinking time I go to upgrade Firefox I have a laundry list of incompatible extensions and add-ons. So I get to wait a month or two and try again. Hey Mozilla, why not incorporate a little backward compatibility to allow the add-ons and extensions to work? That way we can accept a new update without losing functionality we had with the old version!
Re: (Score:2)
Just install the add-on compatibility reporter (it's an add-on itself)... that wlil allow you to use all the add-ons regardless of official compatibility. They pretty much all work even if they're "incompatible".
Re: (Score:2)
I've tried that in the past but my lament is the fact that ever since Mozilla went on the rapid version upgrade they keep changing things sufficiently to force the add on folks to do an about face nearly every time they push out a new release. Right now for example my AV add-ons for malware sites etc. don't work even with the compatibility reporter, so Firefox gets pushed to the side until that gets fixed and back to using Chrome or IE for now.
Re: (Score:2)
Weird... I have like 20 add-ons and they all work in FF25 :S
I'm not nuts enough to run an AV add-on in a browser though, so maybe it's just you xD ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well it's Kaspersky, so I'll let them fix it. That's what they get paid for.
I wish they would fix the power consumption... (Score:2)
... instead of adding new features. FF22 (or 23?) brought with it WebRTC and a bunch of other crap that sent my installation's power usage skyrocketing. My laptop's battery life with Firefox running has dropped by about 30% (!!!!) - so much that I've stopped using GMail online and switched to Thunderbird so that I don't have to constantly have Firefox open.
And nobody seems to give a fuck.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=887129 [mozilla.org]
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=925629 [mozilla.org]
Chrome is not much
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, let's give in and give all our data to google. They clearly deserve it for writing a web browser.
privacy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome sends every site you visit to google. Firefox sends google searches(naturally) and awesome bar searches to google.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Not true.
Re:privacy (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't turn off "phishing protection" it's absolutely true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bloated horseshit (Score:4, Informative)
Not anymore.
The last 2 (well, now 3) versions of Firefox have been stellar. Look at the benchmark tests. These latest Firefox versions are smoking everyone else, including Chrome. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-opera-next,3534-12.html
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, microsoft's browser is actually better. Sadly.
The only thing that keeps many of us on FF are add-ons.
Re: (Score:2)
Screw that. The googles browser is +5 better! Long live the googles!
I, for one, embrace our new chromey browsing overlords.
Re:Firefux (Score:5, Informative)
Your tone is flamebait, but your question is valid. Firefox has a project called MemShrink [mozilla.org] whose focus has been on reducing memory usage. In the time they've been going they have found and fixed leaks in Firefox; come up with better ways to find leaks in add-ons, which were the biggest culprit; changed how Firefox handles memory used by add-ons to eliminate virtually all such leaks; and optimized Firefox's memory management in a bunch of non-buggy cases.
So yes, if memory usage is what drove you away from Firefox you should take another look.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't noticed any shrinkage of memory usage at all since version 3.6. Both memory usage and the size of the browser download have increased a lot.
From someone who's used Firefox since it was called Firebird, whatever they've been doing for the last few years hasn't been working.
Re: (Score:2)
Web Audio seems to be about actually generating audio i.e. synth, mixing, filters, in javascript games or apps. That's different from providing dumb playback of sound files. OSS or ALSA would come after it in the chain, hopefully with the work they're doing the output sound server would end up being transparently selectable, i.e. choosing between ALSA, Pulseaudio, OSS, dummy, other..
BTW I tried to like OSS but have a few issues. No panel applet for xfce, mate, lxde etc., doesn't seem to work with my Xonar,