Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Firefox Mozilla The Internet

Firefox 51 Arrives With HTTP Warning, WebGL 2 and FLAC Support (venturebeat.com) 130

Reader Krystalo writes: Mozilla today launched Firefox 51 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. The new version includes a new warning for websites which collect passwords but don't use HTTPS, WebGL 2 support for better 3D graphics, and FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) playback. Mozilla doesn't break out the exact numbers for Firefox, though the company does say "half a billion people around the world" use the browser. In other words, it's a major platform that web developers target -- even in a world increasingly dominated by mobile apps.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 51 Arrives With HTTP Warning, WebGL 2 and FLAC Support

Comments Filter:
  • you still my choice on all desktops and smartphones
  • Been using Firefox since the first beta release. Will always be my favorite.
  • Why? Who is Mozilla to assume that every damn website is important enough to require encryption? I mean Slashdot didn't support HTTPS for a good 18 years and we all survived. God forbid the NSA could pose as thegarbz on Slashdot, oh noes!

    • Who is Mozilla to assume that every damn website is important enough to require encryption?

      They haven't. HTTPS-less are still going to work.

      Slashdot didn't support HTTPS for a good 18 years and we all survived.

      Yes, having done things one way in the past is an excellent reason for continuing to do them.

      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

        are still going to work.

        Still going to work implies that it won't dick the user about for trivial things.

        Yes, having done things one way in the past is an excellent reason for continuing to do them.

        I noticed you sidestepped the question. The way we do something in the past is an intrinsic defence against change. If you can't come up with a good reason for a change then the way we have done something in the past is in fact an excellent reason not to change something.

        • I noticed you sidestepped the question.

          The only question you asked was a) rhetorical and b) logically fallacious, so yes, I did "sidestep" it. I don't remember agreeing to be the one to answer it, anyway, so I'm not sure you're getting snippy with me.

          If you can't come up with a good reason for a change then the way we have done something in the past is in fact an excellent reason not to change something.

          You really can't think of a good reason not to submit passwords in the clear? Or that a warning about same won't help to alert a user that he's on a spoofed page?

    • by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2017 @02:29PM (#53730231) Homepage Journal
      Not relevant to the HTTP/S issue, but not too long ago, the UK was spoofing slashdot [pcworld.com] to attack their targets, so it could happen.
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Re God forbid the NSA could pose as thegarbz on Slashdot, oh noes!
      The security services got to use quantum insert.
      GCHQ Created Spoofed LinkedIn and Slashdot Sites To Serve Malware (November 11, 2013)
      https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
      UK spies continue “quantum insert” attack via LinkedIn, Slashdot page (11/11/2013)
      http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
    • Who is Mozilla to assume that every damn website is important enough to require encryption?

      Answer: password re-use.

      Yes, that obscure website that you use to get movie reviews and choose which session you're going to watch in which theatre isn't that much important.

      Except that most of the dumb users will have used the exact same password in other much more critical places :
      - their bank account
      - their gmail account, which serves as the e-mail fall back for all the "password lost" on nearly any other website

      So by stealing "a" password on some obscure website, an attacker could completely steal the o

  • Yet? I'll give it a chance when it's at least as sandboxed as chrome.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The Firefox developers have been working on Electrolysis [mozilla.org] for years. I think they started around 2009. It's only very recently that they've started to enable it in the release builds for small numbers of users.

      It hasn't been a smooth process. Aside from taking many, many years to get something that kind of works, it has caused problems for a lot of users. There are some extensions that it doesn't work well with. Even if you aren't using any problematic extensions, it has been known to cause problems.

      I haven'

      • by Anonymous Coward

        If you're waiting for something comparable to what Chrome has

        Dear God, No! Chrome's approach just amplifies their already outrageous resource use.

        Why so many slashdotters still think Chrome has some memory/cpu/whatever advantage is beyond me.

    • by vux984 ( 928602 )

      The main trouble with chrome's sandbox is that google still sits in it.

  • by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2017 @02:21PM (#53730177) Homepage Journal
    Although the world has largely switched to Chrome, the remaining use for Firefox is as the one browser that is still willing to support Java applets. Lots of people who work in IT have a VM or a jumpbox whose only purpose is to run Java applets inside of Firefox (for example, to do maintenance on some piece of equipment with a Java-applet-based configuration tool -- I'm talking to you, EMC) -- and *never* *run* *updates* because changing the browser or java version even slightly will break the whole thing.
    • I am one of those people who work in IT who have a VM w/FF running for necessary FUCKING JAVA applets. Fuck Java man. But on a related note, I don't use Chrome, but rather a Chromium-derivative (Vivaldi)...same difference really, I suppose.

      • Don't blame Java for this. Or at least not entirely. I think it's the application's vendor who should fix this. They should have upgraded their applications to use Java Web Start [java.com] instead of NPAPI-reliant applets. Besides, you can keep the Java plugin disabled and enable it only when you're gona use it, can't you?

        • ...Besides, you can keep the Java plugin disabled and enable it only when you're gona use it, can't you?

          Sure, but that only would only matter if I used FF by default. I simply keep it around almost exclusively for the purpose of the needed Java applets (I do use it in instances in which websites only don't seem to work in Vivaldi AND Chrome -- which incidentally, happened today). I do basically entirely blame the vendor, however, so there's that, heh.

        • by tepples ( 727027 )

          Proprietary software publishers tend to charge for the upgrade from NPAPI to Java Web Start.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Java Applets work fine outside the browser with Java Web Start. Java Applets inside any browser is a security issue (Spoofing/Phishing)

  • by T.E.D. ( 34228 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2017 @02:23PM (#53730195)

    In other words, itâ(TM)s a major platform that web developers target -- even in a world increasingly dominated by mobile apps.

    I'm not sure I understand this comment. I use Firefox as my main browser on both of my mobile platforms (phone and tablet). It probably just beats Twitter as my #1 app used on those devices. Why would someone imply they are some incompatible with each other?

    • by lgw ( 121541 )

      You may be the only person not related to the devs who still runs FF modile.

      • by Ded Bob ( 67043 )

        I also run Firefox mobile and desktop (FreeBSD, Linux, Windows, Mac, Android). It runs quite well on all of them. Chrome starts just about as quickly as Firefox for me when using about the same number of extensions.

        BTW, have you gotten uBlock Origin to work with Chrome mobile yet? ;)

      • I use FF on my mobile devices as well.

        Then again, I am a FF die hard. The only things Chrome seems to do better than FF is chromecasting and streaming DRM content on Linux.

        It seems like Chrome has about as many plugins as FF now, but the Chrome versions of plugins never allow seamless integration with the browser interface. It always seems more cumbersome to use Chrome plugins than the equivalent FF plugins.

        Not really sure why people love Chrome so much. I use all the major browsers regularly and I just don

      • Actually, while I use Chromium on the desktop, the Android version of Chrome is garbage (no extensions? WTF!!!).

        What do you run on mobile? Firefox is the only thing I've found so far, which is any good.

        I do keep Chrome around on my phone, but it's basically just for testing. "Oh right, and here's what our web site looks like, with all the ads."

        • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

          I do keep Chrome around on my phone, but it's basically just for testing. "Oh right, and here's what our web site looks like, with all the ads."

          If you have a recent version of Android, I don't believe you can get rid of Chrome. Even worse, the Google search Android app uses it, and can't be configured to use anything else. Its like we're at the point in real-life Animal Farm where Google has become Microsoft.

      • FF on the mobile as well here.

        And no, I'm not related to any of the devs.

      • I run FF on Android. It's terrible, but it's better than everything else, thanks to uBlock Origin, and Desktop By Default add-ons.

        On desktop, I run Chromium.

        If Google would enable extensions on mobile Chrome, I'd drop it in a heartbeat, but they don't.

  • ...it's a major platform that web developers target...

    I dunno about that. I am finding more and more websites where Firefox does not render the page properly. I retry Firefox in safe mode, and there still are problems rendering the page. So I switch to (gasp!) IE, and the page renders fine.

    .
    In my experience, it appears that web developers are beginning to abandon Firefox compatibility, probably because of its very low marketshare.

    • I think its the Rust code. Firefox has been quite unstable the last few months, with tabs crashing and pages failing to render images.
  • by Torodung ( 31985 ) on Tuesday January 24, 2017 @03:47PM (#53730767) Journal

    Is there any way to tell which extensions are blocking multiprocess? My about:support page says multiprocess is disabled because of extensions, but it doesn't say which ones. It seems like they should publish this information, perhaps in a field on AMO [mozilla.org]. A Google only turns up results for developer testing or small lists, it says nothing about a complete list of incompatible extensions.

    I don't know if anyone at Mozilla reads Slashdot any longer, but I think this would be a worthwhile documentation project that would help users demand extension authors make their software compatible, thus aiding the roll-out.

  • I don't need a bunch of annoying security messages that either tell me something I already know, or that tell me something I have already decided to ignore. What, I think, _everybody_ wants from a browser is: - decent memory management (I don't care if I page takes 2ms more to load, especially if the price is to have a browser taking 2gb of RAM and making my system unusable) - minimalist interface - fast startup time - fast page load Extra points if it also has: - add-on support - sound and
    • It's sole purpose is to render web-pages. I don't need another operating system. If I wanted that, I'd install a VM or emacs.

      That boat has long since failed and it's not Firefox's fault for sticking in port and pretending the tide isn't going out. Many web pages now have heaps of javascript and are more like programs than pages. They require a VM and an OS to use.

      I browse the web in Dillo and Links-2 if I can, firefox with noscript when I cannot and enable scripts when I have to. It's much, much faster and

  • I don't need a bunch of annoying security messages that either tell me something I already know, or that tell me something I have already decided to ignore. What, I think _everybody_ wants from a browser is:

    - decent memory management (I don't care if I page takes 2ms more to load, especially if the price is to have a browser taking 2gb of RAM and making my system unusable)
    - minimalist interface
    - fast startup time
    - fast page load


    Extra points if it also has:
    - add-on support
    - sound and videos
  • Mozilla today launched Firefox 51 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android

    And the on-line world responded with a huge, jaw-cracking yawn.

  • Firefox was just getting too heavy for me. I'm on Linux, (Mint 18 XFCE) and it was taking 30-45 seconds to become responsive after launching. It would just sit there. Even if I launched it from the command line with a url, it refused to do anything for that time period was up. CPU and memory were not taxed or even being used by FF. I have an older processor, but plenty to handle a damn web browser. (Intel Core2 Quad Core, 8GB of RAM) Unless I open a ton of tabs and GIMP, I barely ever get past 4GB us

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The funny thing is that if you'd have just reset your profile in Firefox and settled for the same relatively limited experience Pale Moon offers you, then you would probably have better performance then even Pale Moon offers. Firefox is often only truly slow because of all the customizations and unexpectedly heavy addons people toss at it, and when you switch to another browser you end up losing a lot of those things in the process. It's only later on that you realize that Pale Moon suffers the same problem

      • by gosand ( 234100 )

        The funny thing is that if you'd have just reset your profile in Firefox and settled for the same relatively limited experience Pale Moon offers you, then you would probably have better performance then even Pale Moon offers. Firefox is often only truly slow because of all the customizations and unexpectedly heavy addons people toss at it, and when you switch to another browser you end up losing a lot of those things in the process. It's only later on that you realize that Pale Moon suffers the same problems, and you're left worried about whether they'll be able to keep it going or whether it will collapse as it cannot adopt the very necessary improvements that Firefox is making right now, because the core of Pale Moon is too obsolete.

        I use Adblocker Plus and a Gestures addon. That's it. No customizations. I even tested it out with a new profile, thinking maybe it was my browsing history or something that was causing it. I search my browsing history a lot when trying remember something I had looked at in the past. I have a lot of bookmarks, many of them old and I haven't cleaned them out. But I imported all of those into PaleMoon.

        So while I appreciate the idea, that isn't what was slowing down my Firefox. It was just Firefox.

  • Even numbered versions or odd numbered versions that are good for FireFox

    I know one thing you can count on is that a new version will change the UI just to be annoying
    oh, and break all the add-ons

    One of these days I 'll switdh to just using SeaMonky

  • by preflex ( 1840068 ) on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @12:24AM (#53732951)

    Did they really roll out Firefox 51 for Android?

    F-Droid, Google Play, and their own direct download link [mozilla.org] all seem to still have 50.1.0. Clicking the "check for updates" on the "About Firefox" screen says "no updates available".

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Working...