It doesn't have Facebook integration. It has support for a Social API, which is a structured way to essentially build social toolbars if you will. Facebook just happens to have implemented it. Facebook integration comes when you visit Facebook's Messenger for Firefox page and turn it on and "install" the messenger.
You still have to have in mind that even knowing that the FB parasite is somehow "in my browser and I cant remove it", even if it is not activated, makes me want to immediately toss it away in disgust and go Chrome exclusively.
16 is the latest FF I will be using and recommending and I am very likely not alone. Mozilla forcing FB on us is high treason, and many of us will start recommending Chrome instaed of FF to people we can influence just to harm Mozilla because of this betrayal.
The FF user base rose quickly by word of mouth and by word of mouth it can even more quickly disappear in Chrome's mighty shadow. FF needs us more than we need FF. Keep that in mind when you make decisions like pushing FB on us. You cannot afford playing a dictator.
It is not high treason, and it is far more than integration with Facebook. Here's a bit of explanation from the following article:
"The idea is to be able to have a quick view into a site without having to switch back and forth between tabs...The Social API doesn’t have to work with only social sites. The API could be used by financial and sports sites to maintain a ticker or email providers could use it to make it easy to check in-coming messages. And since Firefox is open source, other browser makers could implement the Social API, though no other company has announced their intention to do so."
It's fine if you want to debate whether such functionality belongs in a web browser, but this isn't the 90s, and I think these capabilities make sense given what I often do on the web. You can find out more about its capabilities here:
Yes, entrusting all your browsing data to Google in order to spite a non-profit sure makes sense to me!!!
...come on. What Firefox have implemented is an API. Facebook is not involved until you go to Facebook and give them permission to be involved. Quit being so hysterical and remember that Mozilla is a non-profit organisation and has your interests far more at heart than Google does.
There is no "FB parasite" in your browser. FF is not "pushing FB on us". Social API is an API for any social service...fb just so happens to have a client for it (which is not packaged with ff).
I think you (and many other people here) are confused about what Social API really is.
It's like BrowserID - a protocol that enables authentication. Facebook can implement BrowserID, StackExchange can implement BrowserID, Google can implement BrowserID; you get the idea.
The same goes for Social API. It's just a protocol for social networks. Anybody who wants to create a social site, can support the Social API and users can enable it to work on any site that offers such functionality.
Moving social stuff into the browser should actually help make it more open. If a page/framework uses this Social API instead of hardcoding against a few popular networks, it opens the door for you to choose how the integration works.
Hundreds of millions of folk use their browser for social stuff. It's not an unreasonable use of developer time to make the web better for those people. (It probably springs from their work on FirefoxOS in any case.)
The small set of folk like you can just disable it. (Or, as is pointed out elsewhere, just never enable it in the first place!)
Yes, I'll probably turn it off. And then when they add some strange mapping API, I'll turn that off too, and then finally when they add a storage API I'll switch to a browser that isn't trying to be everything to everyone.
Until it gets accidentally turned on by a browser update, or by some rogue plugin (wouldn't put it past Adobe actually), or by an optional Windows Update, or by some grayware that I mindlessly install on a computer.
If it's off by default, it should be in a plugin. If you want it, come and get it.
I guess I'm not the only one who feels that way. What I value most in my browser: security, usability, speed, and standards compliance. Since FF is not perfect (but always improving) in all of these areas, I'd rather see progress there than feature creep.
Everything else can be a plugin. I guess that means the plugin mechanism better be pretty good.
If I recall, these were some of the reasons people flocked to Chrome (Speed & Usability).
The sandbox support for iframes looks particularly helpful.
Sadly this is the first version of Firefox in a year or two that actually breaks things for me: the "animate once" setting is no longer being obeyed for GIFs in some cases and the
"secure login" plugin seems to have stopped working despite a recent update.
Mostly intact though and I've finally turned off Flash completely since enough of the web and youtube supports it properly with pure html5
"secure login" plugin seems to have stopped working despite a recent update
I believe secure login stopped working on several popular sites due to changes in those sites' webforms. A while ago I applied a patch mentioned in the addons.mozilla.org comments, and the extension worked again.
I've just checked out and diff'd the most recent v1 update. The only change is the addition of a pretty spammy looking URL that appears on first launch. No bugs were fixed. Sad.
Does the 'Activate JavaScript protection on login' option work for you with 'Secure Login'? It has been working for me for a long time now; I am just wondering if I am doing something wrong.
In the year 2012 when you have a 3D view for DOM, you still can't reorder nodes or edit the inner html in the markup panel.
What the hell are those crap on the developer menu anyway? Oh right they are there because you still can't do live editing in meaningful ways in the inspect bar. See point above.
Font rendering is still terrible by default for Asian fonts BTW. Argh. I'm going back to Safari.
Request to firefox devs hanging here. Please make the linux version better.. I use firefox on Windows but have to use Chromium on Linux. I'm mostly talking about the UI interface, it's really not the same standard.
As a Firefox dev and a Linux user, I also want a better user experience on Linux. Hopefully, the work we're doing on Australis (new firefox theme) will satisfy most of the Linux users.
It's a rather good emulation of Chrome's, er, browser chrome. Fingers crossed that australis can save me from the embarrassment of Firefox's default look on Linux.
Mine also very specifically crashes on the Linux version (but not OS X or Windows) when I try to search on http://ukulelehunt.com, which is rather odd. I did report it but I really don't know what's causing it.
fwiw, I don't mind Fx's default UI at all. Thought I'd add my contrary voice in, since everyone else so far has concurred.
I think Chrome is the more awkward of the two. I used Chromium for about two years before switching back to Fx with version 4 (Fx has better extensions and comparable speed, and I like using a browser that's not so closely linked to Google's services). I have been using Linux nearly exclusively for 7+ years.
Will have to check out Australis and see if it makes me feel angry or not.
Yep, this annoys me mightily too but I've always thought of it as a web-design fail rather than a browser fail.
I was about to ask how the new Firefox knows what constitutes a "fixed header" and what doesn't - like, what if the overlay only goes part way across the page, or something? Then I read at the above link that they've drawn up some clever heuristics to guess the 'right' scroll amount in each case.
"It works well on many pages. No doubt there are some pages it doesn't work on. It seems like a good idea to start conservatively here."
I cautiously welcome this 'fix' for my own casual web browsing, while fearing for the rare trouble it might cause a responsible web dev who might have a legitimate need for a particular kind of overlay while having page up/down still work in the currently established way. No such need springs to mind but I'm sure that if I thought about it for long enough, in this age of games in the browser and whatnot... (some sort of fancy web comic perhaps?). Now needing to workaround what is more complex and unpredictable behaviour, this is the kind of push/pull between web developers and browser implementers which a few years down the line could turn into a bloody impossible mess for all concerned.
That screenshot looks less like "Firefox displays horribly with retina scaling" and more like "everything other than Safari displays horribly with retina scaling."
Which Apple may consider a feature rather than a bug :-D
No, this is great. It will make version numbers not matter anymore. Either you use the latest version or you can't really complain about security, stability or feature issues.
I totally disagree with this philosophy. I do not want my software to be a living-breathing entity. My browser even less so. Security issues aside, I do not want to ever update until a new feature is released that compels me to upgrade. God knows how many times I've upgraded a perfectly good piece of software just to be greeted with unwanted bloat or regressions in features. I hate this trend towards removing the meaning of version numbers. Don't get me wrong, I understand the massive boon to security that this model will bring. But there's no reason why software can't auto-update just security releases.
As a practical matter, the more releases that have to be supported with security fixes, the less secure each will end up being, as there is less testing of each individual version, and divergent code bases may need different security fixes.
tl/dr; summary: 12 months of security only releases. Each year the ESR branch is rebased on the current version of Firefox. I believe Firefox 17 will be the basis for the next year of ESR releases.
If you click on the yellow star in the URL bar and the pop-up window doesn't open to let you pick a folder to save the bookmark in, see if you are running HTTPS-Everywhere. Turning off that extension got bookmarks working for me again. Alternatively, you can copy and paste the URL into a new tab and bookmark it there fine, even with the extension on. If you're trying to reproduce this bug/?feature? consistently I can give you steps that make it occur 100% of the time.
I commented on the previous release of FF15 when they fixed the plugin memory leak fixes, but since I've used it a lot for responsive design, I've noticed this is still a big problem for normal everyday use, even with just two tabs open. I'm not sure what FF15 fixed, but I just don't notice the improvement I was hoping for.
List of features still waiting for.
Generational GC
OMTC - Off main thread composition
SuperSnappy - a mini e10s
Support of H.264 Codec - aka playing H.264 using the codec that comes default in Windows Vista, 7 & 8. XP Users get fallback to Flash
Four Big features, lets hope Mozilla will finish them off in 2013.
No idea. Few years ago it was announced as a soon to be implemented feature. Every update I clicked on the preference button just to be disappointed-ish, I totally forgot it thinking it was at the bottom of the todo-list, and now I stumble upon it randomly browsing about:about.
I was using click-to-play whitelisting for all plugins for a bit and it didn't work really well for me. There are some services that use hidden flash movies, like how grooveshark plays audio. There is no where to click to allow it so you just can't use the service with that feature enabled.
I've been using noscript intstead. It provides an easier interface for approving plugins and more.
