
Firefox 23 is available - lambda_cube
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/
======
6cxs2hd6
I'm really looking forward to the overhaul on the road map that moves more
things off the main UI thread.

I keep switching from Chrome to Firefox for reasons of principle ... and keep
switching back to Chrome for reasons of performance. I hate myself, but can't
help it. Firefox will briefly freeze scrolling a long page. Firefox will beach
ball for 15 seconds after resuming laptop from sleep. And so on. None of it is
crash/burn awful, but it adds up to be just irritating enough that it makes me
mental. I tolerate it until I can't (for a couple weeks), then switch back to
Chrome. Just did so yesterday, which is why I'm ranting in response to this
headline.

This on OS X. Couple years ago when I was using Windows 7 all the time,
Firefox was great. IME the fit/finish on OS X is not the same.

tl;dr: Firefox, I want to love you and be exclusive. Please change.

~~~
acomjean
I love firefox too. But for me it always starts slowing down half way through
the day (about the same time as I do). Maybe its firebug? This has happened on
windows and mac. Restarting it makes it work better, like myself after lunch.

Its still my favorite browser though.

~~~
nhebb
Go to about:memory then click the "Minimize memory usage" button.

P.S. If anyone knows how to add that button to the FF toolbar, I would
consider you a minor deity for at least a whole day.

~~~
MikeCapone
Interesting. What does pressing that button actually do?

~~~
lambda_cube
If you hover that button with your mouse pointer you can read the following
explanation:

 _Send three "heap-minimize" notifications in a row. Each notification
triggers a global garbage collection followed by a cycle collection, and
causes the process to reduce memory usage in other ways, e.g. by flushing
various caches._

------
dchest
Haha, the note about removing <blink> tag is enclosed in <blink></blink>.

~~~
oinksoft
Is there any good reason for removing the distinctive behavior of an element
that so many older websites use, even if it is considered a design faux pas?
History should not be destroyed.

~~~
Zelphyr
I agree that history should not be destroyed and in sites that have old pages
with the blink tag it won't be. But I think its fine for the browser makers to
remove old cruft. Especially in this case where the behavior can easily be
replicated in Javascript.

~~~
bingaling
or css (shamelessly stolen from
[http://www.jwz.org/jwz.css](http://www.jwz.org/jwz.css)):

    
    
      @keyframes         blink { 0% { opacity:1; } 75% { opacity:1; } 76% { opacity:0; } 100% { opacity:0; }}
      @-webkit-keyframes blink { 0% { opacity:1; } 75% { opacity:1; } 76% { opacity:0; } 100% { opacity:0; }}
      @-moz-keyframes    blink { 0% { opacity:1; } 75% { opacity:1; } 76% { opacity:0; } 100% { opacity:0; }}
      @-ms-keyframes     blink { 0% { opacity:1; } 75% { opacity:1; } 76% { opacity:0; } 100% { opacity:0; }}
      @-o-keyframes      blink { 0% { opacity:1; } 75% { opacity:1; } 76% { opacity:0; } 100% { opacity:0; }}
    
      blink {
        text-decoration:   inherit;
        animation:         blink 0.75s ease-in infinite alternate;
        -webkit-animation: blink 0.75s ease-in infinite alternate;
        -moz-animation:    blink 0.75s ease-in infinite alternate;
        -ms-animation:     blink 0.75s ease-in infinite alternate;
        -o-animation:      blink 0.75s ease-in infinite alternate;
      }

------
melling
It's great to finally see that Firefox is updating almost everyone like
Chrome.

[http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-
weekly-201322-...](http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-
weekly-201322-201331)

Those first few (dozen?) releases people constantly complained about the
version number changes, the rapid release cycle, and there was quite a bit of
fragmention.

There days there are a billion people getting a new HTML5 browser every 6
weeks.

~~~
ishansharma
Link is broken.

It is great seeing people update fast. I am waiting for the day when IE 6-8
usage goes down to 0.

------
M4v3R
> Support for new scrollbar style in Mac OS X 10.7 and newer

Finally. That one took quite a long time for them. It looks simple in the
change log, but I suspect that it was actually quite a big change under the
hood.

EDIT: Woops, it seems that this is an error on release page, since they've hit
a regression [1] and they've pulled the feature, it's due to come back in v24.
And is seems I was right that this was actually a pretty big change under the
hood [2].

EDIT 2: And they now removed the error about new scrollbar from the article.

[1]
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564#c244](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564#c244)

[2]
[https://bug636564.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=744...](https://bug636564.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=744631)

~~~
actionscripted
Scrollbars aren't bad at the moment, but this one has bothered me for a while:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=780726](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=780726)

A quick resize (redraw) fixes things, but it's the only app on my machine that
tweaks like that going from space to space.

------
lambda_cube
I know that the release notes still says Firefox Beta when I submit this, but
my browser just updated itself to version 23. The beta release notes usually
are pretty accurate when it comes which features will be in the next stable
version.

I believe the new baseline compiler is included in this release as described
here:

[https://blog.mozilla.org/javascript/2013/04/05/the-
baseline-...](https://blog.mozilla.org/javascript/2013/04/05/the-baseline-
compiler-has-landed/)

If that is the case it's the most interesting new feature for me, but I'm a
compiler guy :-)

------
CmdrKrool
Nasty surprise for me: 'Remove the ability to not "Always show the tab bar"'
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=855370](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=855370)

'browser.tabs.autoHide' config also removed, tab bar now always visible no
matter what.

Add-on to restore old behaviour: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
us/firefox/addon/hide-tab-bar-...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
us/firefox/addon/hide-tab-bar-with-one-tab/) (There is an unnecessary gradient
to the background of my navigation toolbar now though.)

Discussion threads of indignant catharsis:
[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.support.fire...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.support.firefox/N56FKFAHeFc)
[http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2687123](http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2687123)

~~~
mhaymo
The keyword.URL setting
([http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyword.URL](http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyword.URL))
was also removed, and of course addons have been made to re-enable it:

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/keywordurl-
ha...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/keywordurl-hack/)

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/keyword-
searc...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/keyword-search/)

I didn't understand why they would disable this feature which I love so much,
but reading the bug explained that it was to prevent malicious apps from being
able to change the default search in a way that is not easily reverted by
users (keyword.URL can only be changed through about:config). Makes sense to
me, and fortunately we have add-ons which can restore this functionality :)

------
sbi
I see that Mozilla is now signing hashes of Firefox downloads with a 4096-bit
RSA key. But the key used to sign firefox-23.0.tar.bz2 (id 0x057CC3EB15A0A4BC)
is only self-signed and was created three weeks ago. It's not on pgp.mit.edu.
Is there any actual way to "validate the authenticity of these keys in an out-
of-band manner" as the KEYS file recommends?

~~~
zobzu
the primary key is 2B90 598A 745E 992F 315E 22C5 8AB1 3296 3A06 537A not 5445
390E F5D0 C2EC FB8A 6201 057C C3EB 15A0 A4BC

if you search for the primary its there (at least it's on pgp.mit.edu as far
as I can see) it's the primary that you need to trust for the trust to work

For FF 23:

gpg --verify SHA1SUMS.asc gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jul 2013 09:32:39 PM PDT
using RSA key ID 15A0A4BC gpg: Good signature from "Mozilla Software Releases
<releases@mozilla.org>" gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted
signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
owner. Primary key fingerprint: 2B90 598A 745E 992F 315E 22C5 8AB1 3296 3A06
537A Subkey fingerprint: 5445 390E F5D0 C2EC FB8A 6201 057C C3EB 15A0 A4BC

gpg --sign-key 0x8AB132963A06537A

gpg --verify SHA1SUMS.asc gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jul 2013 09:32:39 PM PDT
using RSA key ID 15A0A4BC gpg: Good signature from "Mozilla Software Releases
<releases@mozilla.org>"

It is however, indeed, only self-signed right now as far as I can see.

~~~
sbi
Thanks; I had searched on pgp.mit.edu for the primary key but forgot to add
the hex prefix 0x.

Curiously, the 1024 bit DSA key used for some previous releases
(0x7f4d66451ebcab3a) has been signed by "Someone at Mozilla Should Sign the
Release Key (so users can verify the key's owner!)
<anonymous@lulz.example.com>".

------
robin_reala
The biggy for me is <input type="range"/> support. I’ve already ripped jQuery
UI out of an internal project today; it was only there because of that
omission.

~~~
undershirt
Man, that was a long time coming! Glad it's finally here.

------
shmerl
Looks like gstreamer support for non-free codecs (like H.264) is not enabled
in this build yet:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282#c78](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282#c78)

------
sirn
For those who upgraded and still see the old scrollbar: despite what Beta
Release Note said, Lion-style scrollbar is _not_ in this release due to
regression. It will be available in Firefox 24 instead[1]:

>The new scrollbars has been disabled on Beta for Firefox 23 due to a serious
regression. It is now scheduled to be released in Firefox 24 as long as there
are no serious regressions.

[1]:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564)

~~~
workbench
What a joke

------
levosmetalo
It's funny to read those release feature announcements while running on Aurora
channel which is on 24.0a2 right now, and 25 in a few days.

~~~
aclevernickname
How are you finding the Aurora channel to be, stability-wise?

~~~
levosmetalo
Never had any stability problems for more then a year now, on both work
Windows 7 x64 and various Linux variants at home.

A year ago there were a few addon problems here and there, but these days
addon authors are used to the new release cycle, so I don't have even these
problems anymore.

------
ciferkey
The network monitor addition to the developer tools is a welcome change. Now I
won't have to switch into chrome for that.

~~~
MisterWebz
Same here. However, it's still not showing local resources that are not being
loaded because the path or the name of the script or stylesheet is wrong.

------
01Michael10
Firefox 23 release notes... [https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/)

------
CapitalistCartr
So what about "Disable Javascript" option to be removed in Firefox 23? Was it?
That is a dealbreaker for me.

~~~
nsmartt
The idea is that non-technical users shouldn't have options in preferences
that will break the web for them, and that technical users will use
about:config or an add-on (e.g. NoScript). I find it difficult to argue with
that.

edit: clarity. total rewrite.

~~~
Gormo
"Non-technical users" is a contradiction in terms. If you're using technology,
you're a "technical user".

If you don't know how certain options work, you should leave them alone; but
if you don't leave them alone and something breaks, it takes only common sense
and not specialized knowledge to suspect that the thing you changed has some
relationship to the thing that broke.

De-featuring software for the presumptive convenience of a presumptive lowest-
common-denominator user is not a good practice.

~~~
nsmartt
It's true that users should not break things without some mind as to how to
fix them, but it's also irrelevant. If a user breaks your product, it makes no
difference to him or her who broke it. It's still broken. Users will have a
bad experience.

This doesn't mean advanced options shouldn't exist, but it does mean that they
should be out of the way for non-advanced users. In this case, the setting is
moved to about:config or to add-ons, so I don't see how we've lost anything.

Are you opining that some users may not be able to find the setting in
about:config? Would they not just enter "How to disable JavaScript in new
Firefox" into a search engine?

> _" Non-technical users" is a contradiction in terms. If you're using
> technology, you're a "technical user"._

This is a debate about semantics. "Non-technical" is a colloquialism. I see no
benefit to this train of thought.

~~~
Gormo
Users will have a "bad experience" as a consequence of an action that they
took, and can undo just as easily.

A good user experience can be achieved by providing users with an efficient
way to understand and fix problems that they encounter.

De-featuring a product to prevent users from ever encountering a problem
reduces the utility of the product, which produces a worse experience for
_everyone_ , not just the ones who would have had a problem they couldn't
solve.

Those who _would_ have had a problem they couldn't solve will _still_
ultimately have a bad experience, because it's their own pattern of usage, and
not any defect in the software, that's ultimately getting them stuck.

Moving an "advanced" setting to a different interface is fine, but the release
notes don't say that the JavaScript toggle was moved to about:config; the
notes say that it was removed (and that user-set values will be reset to
default, which, IMO, is an unacceptable thing for an update patch to _ever_
do.)

~~~
nsmartt
> _A good user experience can be achieved by providing users with an efficient
> way to understand and fix problems that they encounter._

Agreed.

> _De-featuring a product_

If I were building a browser today, I wouldn't want the option to be where
Mozilla had placed it. I think of this more as a correction than as removing a
feature. I don't think we're going to agree on this one, which is fine.

> _produces a worse experience for everyone_

Not at all. The majority of users do not need this feature, and those that do
are likely to be sufficiently experienced to find it anyway.

> _Those who _would_ have had a problem they couldn 't solve will _still_
> ultimately have a bad experience, because it's their own pattern of usage,
> and not any defect in the software, that's ultimately getting them stuck._

This is debatable. Good UX means preventing these kinds of pitfalls.

> _the notes say that it was removed_

This is a failure on their part to communicate the move, which sucks. It's
also possibly a direct attempt to prevent people from using this feature for
whatever reason, which is kind of sleazy.

> _and that user-set values will be reset to default, which, IMO, is an
> unacceptable thing for an update patch to _ever_ do._

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement here. I take no issue with moving the
option to about:config. I also wouldn't take issue with it being removed
entirely, because add-ons such as NoScript are superior to that feature
anyway.

------
ihsw
The very large banner at the top of the page seems to indicate that this is a
_beta_ release, so shouldn't that be indicated in the submission title? I was
excited about a new release of Firefox (namely to see if performance
improved), but if this is beta then I won't be touching it.

~~~
sp332
The mobile version seems to have the old version of the banner. The desktop
version says: "(First offered to release channel users on August 6, 2013)"

------
chrisblackwell
Wasn't this the release that was suppose to disable third-party cookies by
default? What happend?

~~~
lambda_cube
That was supposed to be switched on by default in Firefox 22, but Mozilla
noticed some issue with it. The feature is there in FF22, but you have to
switch it on yourself. If you you want to know more about the issues, you can
read what Brendan Eich had to say:

[https://brendaneich.com/2013/06/the-cookie-
clearinghouse/](https://brendaneich.com/2013/06/the-cookie-clearinghouse/)

------
mmuro
It feels like OSX will be on Mavericks before the Lion scroll bars are
supported in Firefox.

I've been using Safari a lot lately. Only thing I'm not crazy about is the
inspector. It's easily the worst of all the browsers, but at least they are
fixing that in the next update.

~~~
Jgrubb
Just out of curiosity, why Safari?

~~~
M4v3R
I also use Safari on a daily basis, with Chrome when testing web apps.

\- iClouds tab sync

\- quite fast

\- two-finger swipe for back/forward with nice "cover" effect

\- scrolling is silky smooth*

\- iCloud keychain*

* available on Mavericks. Scrolling was good enough earlier, but on Mavericks its butter smooth.

------
glub0t
Some of configuration setting has been removed or burried deep in
about:config. Now I can not find TLS 1.0 checkbox, because I am hoping this
release support TLS 1.1 and 1.2. But, there is no sign of this support.

Beside that, I love FF. Thank you for this release and everything.

------
Siecje
I'm surprised the <blink> tag was removed, just for historical reasons.

------
Siecje
My biggest issue with Firefox is that it is hard to copy the html of a form or
table, using the developer tools.

~~~
kbrosnan
Is the following what you are doing? Is there a dev tool that makes that flow
better?

* inspect the element

* right click on either the element in the breadcrumb view or in the source view

* select copy outer html

* paste into your document

fixed formatting

------
ck2
Stuck on FF21 until they fix the scaling on windows xp

Which might never happen :-(

~~~
gecko
Why on Earth would you not upgrade to at least Windows 7?

~~~
drcube
I'm on XP at work. I get a new computer in January though and all the new ones
have W7. I must have been one of the last people to get an XP computer here.

This OS is what, 12 years old now? Linux was on version 2.4.x when XP came
out. OSX wasn't around yet, or was brand spanking new. I hate MS as much as
anyone but that's still pretty impressive.

~~~
ck2
Technically each SP refreshed the code base and many other libraries are
independent of the platform, which is why it has lasted so long.

SP3 was released late 2008, so it's "only" 5 years old.

I'm not a gamer so DX9 is fine, all the .net libraries work on it, it has NTFS
support just as fine as W7 and W7 32-bit cannot support any more memory than
XP can.

XP is just a way for me to launch programs, W7 is not going to launch them any
better.

Just want to get two more years out of this.

------
maxcan
sayonara <blink> tag. you won't be missed.

------
negativity
...and remember, kids. JavaScript is now compulsory.

~~~
scott_karana
By what definition of compulsory?

~~~
negativity
In that inexperienced users are not well-informed of the option to disallow
it, and might not understand that indiscriminate, promiscuous execution of
JavaScript as a default behavior can be hazardous. ...at least as hazardous as
connecting to unencrypted Wi-Fi.

To whit: [http://beefproject.com/](http://beefproject.com/)

New users aren't even readily informed that JavaScript is a thing.

~~~
ghostdiver
Didn't ever hear of pure JS browser exploit, only a mix of Flash or Java.

~~~
aclevernickname
I have an omegle exploit that exists entirely in javascript. it was written
for Chrome (Windows/Mac specifically), but still 100% javascript. I'd be happy
to email a copy of it (in .zip form) to anyone interested.

Also, the recent Tor Browser Bundle exploit (RIP Tormail) was javascript-
based.

