Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Firefox Mozilla Open Source Software

Firefox 43 Arrives With 64-bit Version For Windows, Android Tab Audio Indicators (venturebeat.com) 188

Posted by Soulskill from the onward-and-upward dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla today launched Firefox 43 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. Notable additions to the browser include a 64-bit version for Windows (finally!), a new strict blocklist for the browser's tracking protection feature, and tab audio indicators on Android. "There is, however, a bit of a caveat. Firefox 64-bit for Windows has limited support for plugins. Certain sites that require plugins and work in Firefox 32-bit might not work in this 64-bit version. But Mozilla doesn’t see this as a big problem, and says it is by design. After all, the company plans to drop support for NPAPI plugins in Firefox by the end of the year (though it will keep Flash around). Mozilla has just over two weeks to deliver on that promise." Here are the changelogs: desktop and Android.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 43 Arrives With 64-bit Version For Windows, Android Tab Audio Indicators More

Firefox 43 Arrives With 64-bit Version For Windows, Android Tab Audio Indicators

Comments Filter:

  • By Design (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @06:16PM (#51125521)

    But Mozilla doesnâ(TM)t see this as a big problem, and says it is by design.

    Yes, the shittyness of Firefox is by design.

    • Re:By Design (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BitZtream ( 692029 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @06:21PM (#51125561)

      Netscape has never been able to actually pay attention to what the users of its browser want. The new netscape, which you kids know as mozilla, is behaving 100% EXACTLY like the old Netscape ...

      Firefox stopped being the best browser right about the time ie6 was deprecated. Yes, IE sucks, but FF sucks more actually.

      This is all simply an extension of their inability to write a browser.

      Not that they don't have some talented developers, they do ... but they just let them do whatever they want and have no focus on actually delivering something users want, so they keep coming up with all these retarded silly side projects and all these retarded bloated 'features' in firefox ... its only taken them 15 years to realize doing everything in XPCOM and JavaScript was a fucking stupid idea.

      • Re:By Design (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bhcompy ( 1877290 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @06:30PM (#51125645)
        Unfortunately, it's the browser with the best implementation of NoScript. Thus, it is indispensable.

        • Re:By Design (Score:5, Insightful)

          by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @06:40PM (#51125723)

          For me it is "Tree Style Tabs". Unfortunately, Mozilla plans to phase out the current extension framework in favor of something more along the lines of what Chrome does - so we'll both be screwed shortly. But in the meantime, Firefox's killer feature is its extensions.

          • I am also a huge fan of that extension and will mourn when it dies.

          • Ditto! Between ABP, NoScript, TreeStyle Tabs and Sync I can't give up FF just yet.

        • Palemoon

        • To me, the most important feature of Firefox is the add-ons. I like Session Manager, [mozilla.org] for example.

          Question about Firefox: Microsoft's Process Explorer [microsoft.com] shows that Firefox uses the CPU while no Firefox windows are in the foreground. Why? Firefox's CPU use is especially intense when many windows and tabs are open. Also Process Explorer shows that often Firefox continually adds memory to its "Private Bytes" and "Working Set", even when there is no Again, why?

          Someone above mentioned Pale Moon. Pale Moon
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re:By Design (Score:5, Informative)

            by Barefoot Monkey ( 1657313 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2015 @06:34AM (#51128271)

            NoScript is an extension, not a plugin. Those are two completely different kinds of addons. Mozilla's quite particular about that distinction.

            Extensions are the things we all know and love, like uBlock, NoScript, GreaseMonkey etc. Plugins are things like Flash, the Java web plugin for running applets, Google Update, Silverlight, and so on. For the most part we really don't need plugins.

          • There are forged SSL for man in the middle in Comodo products. It is the same as Superfish or whatever that Lennovo thing that hit last year.

            Time to let Mozilla die or have someone fork it into something new. While in 2004 it was cutting edge and cleaned up compared to the dung of Netscape that preceeded it still in Mozilla suite it is stale again and not flexible which is why Google gave up on making a gecko Chrome and switched to Webkit during development.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ewhac ( 5844 )
          I dunno; the uMatrix [mozilla.org] plugin looks very interesting, and seems to have a lot more flexibility than NoScript. NoScript blocks/enables script domains globally, whereas uMatrix will allow script domains to run depending on the domain of the page they're running on. This means you can let Facebook scripts run while viewing Facebook pages, but block them from running on any other site.

          uMatrix doesn't offer defenses against Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) exploits, or provide Application Boundary Enforcement (ABE).

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by KGIII ( 973947 )

            I've been using uMatrix for years but I use it with Opera. It's nice that you FF folks finally got it. ;-)

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by jjbenz ( 581536 )
          agreed, that's one reason why I haven't jumped on the chrome bandwagon.

      • Re:By Design (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @06:42PM (#51125737)

        What's wrong with acting exactly like how the older product worked? Newer is not better. A web browser is simple, it doesn't need biweekly changes to its UI. the old Netscape was just fine. Web browser as an application platform is the dumb idea. DRM in browsers is a dumb idea.

        If firefox goes away then there is literally nothing left. A browser must support adblock and noscript, as well as general purpose plugins.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PRMan ( 959735 )
          There are security problems and plugins are constantly fighting with each other over the same resource.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DrXym ( 126579 )

          Netscape was just fine

          Seamonkey still exists so use that. The more people who support it, the more likely it will continue to be maintained.

          Web browser as an application platform is the dumb idea

          Demonstrably false.

          DRM in browsers is a dumb idea.

          Demonstrably false.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        What actually is wrong with Firefox then?

        Works fine for me. I can't discern much difference between FF and Chrome for all the modern day HTML I throw at it.

        FF uses less memory and run my JS a bit faster. Not that I worry about that much.

        I just attended a Microsoft gig where they were enthusing about the Edge browser and how they had ripped out a ton of non-standards compliant junk from it whilst at the same time adding support for defacto standards implemented by FF, Chrome, Safari and Opera.

        The sooner all

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          What actually is wrong with Firefox then?

          Works fine for me. I can't discern much difference between FF and Chrome for all the modern day HTML I throw at it.

          That's the issue, it's constantly trying to be more like Chrome but anyone who wants Chrome is already using Chrome. Many of us used Firefox because it wasn't like Chrome, at least we have Pale Moon.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

          What actually is wrong with Firefox then?

          It doesn't solve 100% of the uses cases for 100% of people, therefore it is shit. I, of course, know what makes the perfect browser, but will not do anything to make it happen lest I be shown to be unsuccessful.

      • Re:By Design (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @07:43PM (#51126057)

        Firefox suffers from the syndrome known as "Bikeshedding".

        They long ago abandoned what should be their core focus -- fix bugs, improve performance and implement new standards as needed (CSS 3, HTML 5) -- and have focused instead on endless tinkering, completely destroying the UI and a parade of useless new "features".

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by sfosparky ( 2713215 )

          I was not familiar with the term "bikeshedding". Now I am -- thanks for that. And I was delighted to learn the term in the context of Firefox's constant breaking of the browser's U.I. for no good reason. Thanks to the many of other commentors who have articulated in their own different ways what I too believe about Firefox's usability destroying "upgrades". When I first heard about another FF "upgrade", my first reaction was to wonder, what part of the user interface that didn't need changing was going to b

      • No mater how right your word may sound, it can be covered simply by "I dont like it"

    • I think this removal of NPAPI is highly premature. Chrome removed it earlier this year leaving Firefox as the best non-IE choice for my needs. Our company relies on 2 different browser based products, one for our thousand employees remotdesktopping into our company and another for our employees remote VPN connecting into thousands of customer servers. Both of these products require NPAPI to function. So, I will either have to stay on an old version of Firefox or be forced to use IE until the providers o

      • Once upon a time there was a project called nspluginwrapper that allowed 64bit Firefox on Linux to run 32bit plugins such as Flash.

        I think it needs a new maintainer because non-Windows operating systems made the transition to 64 bit browsers some time ago.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        IE is on life support now too, MS is only really interested in developing Edge which, you guessed it, doesn't support NPAPI. For your company's needs, the best solution would be to create a little script that runs IE in "kiosk mode", where basically it hides the address bar, navigation buttons and so forth and just displays the web page. You can basically turn the NPAPI based site into a kinda native looking app, while not giving the user a way to navigate to other sites where they might be infected.

        I'm for

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bengie ( 1121981 )

        Both of these products require NPAPI to function.

        Some applications require IE5 to work. Your point?

    • "Shitty by Design" So, they've been paying royalties to Microsoft to be permitted to do this?

    • I've used mozilla for ages and version 42 was total crap, just loaded v43 and hope the bugs were squashed

  • Well, time to upgrade.

    • Well, time to upgrade.

      To what?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

        Chrome. Now before anyone mentions calling home to Google and spying on you, can anyone demonstrate this behavior? Surely by now someone has captured packets of what is being sent.

        • Re:Time to upgrade (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jlv ( 5619 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @06:42PM (#51125733)
          I won't use Chrome again until there is a reliable way to prevent extensions from auto-updating. I got tired of finding out "surprise!" that something that worked yesterday is no longer around because the extension has gone "pay".

        • Re:Time to upgrade (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @06:47PM (#51125763)

          Chrome has all the disadvantages of Firefox, but from Google. Rapid fire unnecessary updates unrelated to security, dropping of support for plugins, development oriented towards developers rather than users, frequent kissing of advertising butts, etc.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by MAXOMENOS ( 9802 )

            Chrome has all the disadvantages of Firefox

            Really? Because video on Firefox sucks ass, but on Chrome it's slicker than snot.

          • Oh sweety, Chrome doesn't have anywhere NEAR all the disadvantages of firefox.

          • 1st off Chrome is designed to be updated frequently without breaking. Firefox is not. I never hear of things break between releases besides a few small bugs here and there that get rapidly fixed.

            IE 6 had the same bugs for a freaking decade. Slashdot is now conservative and hates updates for anything but frequent updates mean web developers do not have to incorporate bugs and hacks that only work with certain versions as they get fixed fast.

            The plugin model is designed to interface least in Webkit browsers s

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Every time you go to a google site (google, gmail, etc), it "calls home". And it leaves plenty of traces. Of course, it's not forcing people to do that. But it encourages.

          But yes, it also calls home by itself by insidiously installing google Keystone at the first opportunity.

        • Chrome was severely broken from the Dec 2nd to the 8th due to the 48.x upgrade, NTLM didnt work with squid based proxy servers. It broke offices around the world for a week, since chrome auto updates. And if you're a google office user, it impacted your entire company.

          Google knew about this issue in regression, fixed it, yet it still made it into production code due to the "devops" mentality..
          https://code.google.com/p/chro... [google.com]

          A major problem with firefox, it doesnt support installed certificates in window

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by alantus ( 882150 )

            A major problem with firefox, it doesnt support installed certificates in windows. Chrome does.

            What you mean is that it uses its own certificate storage instead of the one provided by the OS. The same happens in Linux.

            But what is even more ridiculous is that Firefox and Thunderbird don't even share a certificate storage.

            What they should do is implement a build time option like --ca-cert-store=...
            Then I could specify something like: /etc/ssl/cacert.pem or some special keyword to indicate Windows' thingy.

          • Sounds like your IT department needs to look into this

            http://www.google.com/intl/en_... [google.com]

            Google has GPOs and tools to integrate with active directory for pushes so your sys admins can control that

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by labnet ( 457441 )

          Does chrome support tree tabs as well as the firefox treetabs extension. (I dropped chrome because I could find no such functionality)
          I don't know how people browse without vertical tabs (I usually have 60+ tabs open at a time)

      • I meant upgrade from the previous version of Firefox to the latest version. Most of my browsing is in Chromium.

  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @06:25PM (#51125589)

    Which about:config preferences do I have to mess with to disable all the unwanted "features" in this version?

    • Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @10:18PM (#51126965)

      Which about:config preferences do I have to mess with to disable all the unwanted "features" in this version?

      browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete to false will remove the worthless "Search For..." entry from the autocomplete dropdown when typing in the URL bar.

    • Start with "about:config?filter=browser.urlbar.unifiedcomplete" - also consider "about:config?filter=xpinstall.signatures.required" if you need to use unsigned addons.

  • Did you guys hear something?

  • Recently tried out the nightly builds v.45 64bit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AbRASiON ( 589899 ) * on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @06:51PM (#51125785) Journal

    So I'm a bit of a Firefox loony, maybe visible from my post history.

    I've been a "hardcore" web browser, ever since using NetCaptor (a shell replacement for Internet Explorer which offered tabbed browsing, IIRC the first tabbed browser)
    Anyhow, I like Chrome performance but GREATLY dislike my ability to customise it, specifically tab control (which tab will the app go to if I close the current tab, left or right? will a new tab open in the foreground? what if I middle click a URL, foreground / background?)

    I've loved FireFox for years, but the 32bit builds are frankly, unstable dog shit for me, crash extremely regularly.
    I switched maybe 12 to 18 months back to WaterFox, some dude compiling up the 64bit code of FireFox and packaging it. It runs exactly the same as FireFox for me, all plugins work and it virtually never crashes. Problem is, as an "extreme" browser (anywhere from 30 to 300 tabs open at a time) FireFox / WaterFox can get slow.
    REALLY slow, CTRL-TAB to change tab? Can take .5 to 3 seconds. Clicking some buttons can be slow to react. Generally after a few seconds of switching into a tab though, it responds /mostly/ ok (Don't even think about Flash Video in a tab though, I just put that into Chrome and drop it on to a second monitor)
    I just checked, I currently have 393 tabs open (working on getting this down) of all the things I'm currently reading / researching etc.

    So to get to the point,.....
    I was hoping that E10s (Electrolysis, multi-threaded Firefox) would fix my problems, when it finally got better. I installed said nightly builds and I have to report that sadly. The performance difference between WaterFox and standard 64bit FF Nightly 45 (with E10s) virtually identical to one and other.
    I've confirmed E10s is on and being a nerd but without programming skills, I kind of blindly, optimistically figured, hey, latest builds, 64bit official, e10s, I bet if anything nightly might be less stable but fast as hell!
    Not in the slightest, it really is virtually identical :/ the one surprising thing I'd say is it's stable as heck for me. I notice almost no different between WaterFox and Nightly 45.
    Note: I did try this, with and without my plugins to make FF nice and usable.

    For what it's worth, my #1 plugin I can't live without is Tab Mix Plus. That fine control on tab behaviour and the fact I'm an extensive keyboard shortcut guy, makes the browser far, far more usable for me. I'd say I browse between 4 to 12 hours a day, every day.

    Please note, I do COMPLETELY realise that running in excess of 30 to 50 tabs is ridiculous, but back 6 years ago, I could do this under FF32 and while it was unstable, the performance of the primary UI for FF was fine.
    All I want the damn code to do is HIGHLY prioritise the current tab in front of the user and HIGHLY prioritise the ability to switch tabs, preferably the ones nearby (left, right of the active tab) - the process of going between them shouldn't be slow. Considering I've got 4 threads at my disposal here, it's a bit of a shame.

    At least it's stable and at least I can control the behaviour and look, how I like. I think Googles stubborn attitude towards Chrome is ghastly, personally.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No, a browser not being able to handle 50 tabs is ridiculous. That's like a document editor that fails after 100 pages (or all the text editors that crap out when you have 0.5MB of text on a single line). I use Firefox with under 2500 tabs. Anything over 1500 and Firefox starts crapping all over itself, but I've been up to around 2500 before (most of these are suspended tabs, though they seem to take up far more resources than they should. Suspended tabs should be the equivalent of bookmarks but they ar

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Merk42 ( 1906718 )

      Please note, I do COMPLETELY realise that running in excess of 30 to 50 tabs is ridiculous, but back 6 years ago, I could do this under FF32 and while it was unstable, the performance of the primary UI for FF was fine.

      Whoa. FF32 had a time travel feature?

    • I think Googles stubborn attitude towards Chrome is ghastly, personally.

      Does this sound like Microsoft and IE 15 years ago to anyone else?

  • Does it still have Pocket? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Has Pocket been removed yet?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PRMan ( 959735 )
      The first thing I do is Customize that crap right off the toolbar... Doesn't make it go away, though.

      • Isn't flipping "about:config?filter=browser.pocket.enabled" enough?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Wouldn't a pocket add-on have been enough? Why does this function that only benefits a commercial company need to be built into the core browser rather than them making an add-on like anyone else?

  • Firefox 43.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Excelcia ( 906188 ) <slashdot@excelcia.ca> on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @07:01PM (#51125847) Homepage Journal

    The version number almost says it all. How can you get excited about a new Firefox release with any feature, when it's just another rapid release. It could have true hard AI and no one would notice any more. It would get lost in the staggeringly mediocre array of non-features nobody wants, forced UI changes, broken addons, and developers that decide they know more about what people want than the users do.

    Firefox adopted Google's rapid release cycle on a project that it was neither technically nor culturally suited for. One has to actually admire their dogged persistence to holding course in the face of what is an almost a completely unified chorus of "WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE?!?!?".

    I recommend Palemoon. A fork of the previous Firefox LTR, it has refused to add features unless they make sense, is compatible with most addons, and has its own growing body of its own addon developers that are quite loyal to the project for the simple reason that the project remains loyal to them. That's not to say that it's a static browser. Just one that took the best of what Firefox was and decided to continue in the direction of sensible goals and not alienating its user base.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sadly palemoon has decided not to support MSE (Media Source Extensions), which means no 1080 hd videos from youtube. This may not be huge issue for some but is killer for me. Every browser sucks in some ways..

  • It's 64 bit now? (Score:3)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Tuesday December 15, 2015 @07:37PM (#51126035)
    It's 64 bit now? Woo Hoo! I can wait faster!

  • Remember back when IE 6 refused to die because corporations had ActiveX stuff that prevented upgrading? NPAPI has become like that as well. I can't upgrade because I have apps that run as Java applets and I'll lose them. I already can't use Chrome...

    So, here's to vendors migrating away from Java and issuing updates I guess...

    (And I find it ironic that Flash gets some kind of exception even though even Adobe wants it dead.)

  • Can we still use the same extensions, addons, etc.? Or do we have to get separate 64-bit versions? Speaking of separatation, does 64-bit Firefox install a different location?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It now installs in Program Files unlike the versions before - in Program Files (x86).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DrXym ( 126579 )
      I expect most add-ons will work, the way they do already across different versions of Firefox running on different operating systems. Sounds like plugins won't work though I wonder why Firefox-64 doesn't just ship with a 32-bit x86 plugin-container executable. Maybe something about the Wow64 / thunking stops them from doing it or maybe there is no point if they're getting rid of plugins entirely.

  • Lightning Fast (Score:4, Informative)

    by nowsharing ( 2732637 ) on Wednesday December 16, 2015 @04:07AM (#51127973)
    I just moved to the 64-bit FF and it's lightning fast and my entire big list of extensions still work perfectly. I'm really impressed. My only gripe is that the about:config hack to restore the old drop-down search engine list isn't working yet. The string is still there though, so I assume it will come back to life eventually.
  • This update broke my Tree Style Tabs and ScrapBook Plus. It was relatively easy to fix Tree Syle Tabs, it was possible to reinstall the extension, but they completely blocked ScrapBook Plus!!! Ok, I installed ScrapBook X, but it seems they are on the quest to kill the best extensions. Next time they will kill ScrapBook X and then I'll have scrapbook directory with years of precious saved pages and no way to view them.

  • Bring e10s and kill the old extensions, even XUL if it be although I've always liked it.

    Likely most everyone is fed up now, users are less technical than ever too and so good luck explaining them that the browser making 5-second pauses all the time is good for them.
    On a former story's comment someone compared it to Mac OS 9, which is about right. Mac OS 9 was a consumer OS from the 1980s, but sold around 1999. It was killing the parent company.

    I'm sorry for you people with extension XYZ but extensions are u

  • After updating to v43.0 this morning (32-bit version), I found that the Avira Browser Safety extension had been auto-disabled. This extension is unsigned by Mozilla but, coming from Avira, can surely be trusted. That decision, IMHO, should ultimately rest with the user, not with Mozilla.

    To re-enable it, it was necessary to turn off signature checking for all extensions (xpinstall.signatures.required) -- a somewhat risky and therefore perhaps sketchy measure. To re-install it, it was necessary to manually

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close