Love this change. There's some good conversations in Bugzilla about it. 
As one of the comments in the discussion notes, also possibly better for security. Manual entry is a negative incentive for complex passwords (reduces average complexity across the whole userbase). It also preferences keylogger attacks, which is one of the most widespread computer infections.
Though you can have Firefox ESR installed and use it as your primary while still having a copy of Firefox Portable handy for other user on a flash drive or even right in My Documents.
While I didn't make this change myself, I made the change that sparked this discussion (and was a part of the discussion). Been getting mails about it on both sides of the spectrum :P
It really was a illogical feature. Too much power to the website, and as one person put it, "When the browser fails to fill in my password for me, I must assume that the browser is broken".
The discussion stresses that Firefox is the third major browser to implement this feature, but what I don't think they understand is that their username/password detection algorithm is the weakest of the three browsers.
If I create a form that contains a dozen fields, one of which is labeled "Owner's Email" (type=text) and another that is labeled "Owner's SSN" (type=password) with several fields in between, Firefox thinks this is a login and prompts the user to save this information. Chrome and IE are smart enough to recognize that just because an email address and password field were somewhere on the same form, that this isn't login information.
If we can get it down to just Flash and nothing else, hopefully a few years from now Mozilla's HTML5 implementation of Flash will take off (similar to PDF.js), which pushes Flash inside the browser sandbox, and ensures that it has no more privileges or capabilities than normal in-browser content.
A new proprietary plugin is coming (which might reduce the need for Flash, but still), the EME CDM (content decryption module).
I'm afraid you'll never have "just Flash and nothing else". W3C EME is coming, unfortunately.
Note: If I'm not mistaken, most other browsers won't have CDM as a 'plugin' per se. Because they are proprietary browsers (IE, Safari, Opera, and Chrome, too), they can afford to make deals with devilish entities to make your machine execute code that makes your computer slower for no good reason (Because video decryption is useless. Come on, everything is already torrented anyway! This is so that CDM deciders can allow or disallow playback devices at will for the default user, and have power over device vendors). I don't know if Chromium will ever support EME, but it is in the same boat as firefox: plugin necessary.
So the proprietary browsers will integrate directly the CDM in their code, while for open-source browsers this would be repugnant (and impossible).
I had completely forgotten about that page but you're probably thinking about:
Don't think there's any GUI way to get to it, it feels like years since I last saw it. Also, I don't have any plug-ins so can't check if it lists those there.
There is no way to disable / hide the "enable plugins" message.
There is no way to temporarily enable plugins for a single page load.
Flashblock works great.
No plugins are available for all OS/browser combinations. You can't really have even flash on a mobile device now.
That's what's wrong with Windows and most desktop Linux distros.
The Mac App Store likely also prevents apps from clobbering other apps' folders while installing.
I try to avoid software the requires an installer if at all possible.
There are add-ons for suspending tabs but in my experience not very robust ones
: Full text search and search operators for time intervals would be great.
Use of line-height allowed for <input type="reset|button|submit">
I'm one of the devs who fixed it, btw.
I am not saying it's not a real issue but why it's more a problem for some then others...
(Personally, I run the Aurora channel - v31 right now on my machine - and I never have any problems.)
EDIT: Here's the relevant bug.
If that isn't your issue, definitely file a bug report!
Once you know how the calendar on your OS/browser works, you know how the calendar on all the websites works. Also, adding accessibility for those with visual problems is a job to be performed once, by browser implementors, and can be completely ignored (at least for wrt calendars) by everyone who ever writes a website.
Learning keyboard shortcuts becomes worthwhile (or even just possible).
Overlaying the events from your personal calendar, say when hovering over a date, would make it possible to easily pick dates that coincide with (or avoid) the holidays associated with your particular culture - which your OS knows about, but J. Random Website doesn't - without leaving your browser. (Not all cultural holidays are as easily predictable 8 months in advance as Dec 25! Think of those based on lunar calendars, e.g. Easter)
Heck, I find it annoying when websites want to use custom drop-down lists or buttons. The drop-downs and buttons that my OS provides are beautiful, thanks very much, and easily recognisable to boot. I know just by looking at the page where the controls are and how they're going to act. If I want them to look and act differently, I can change that in one place, in my OS settings, and the controls all change in a totally consistent manner for every website ever written, except those that try to be clever and break my setup instead.
I can't believe I've heard some people complain that they thought that the standard controls are "too ugly". Well, get a prettier browser/theme/OS then!
Anyway they're not that similar. Firefox has a search bar, refresh button on the right, and no greyed-out "forward" button. Opera has the speed dial buttons. And Chrome would be the most "minimal" if it weren't for the extension icons over on the right.
Perhaps it's what is commonly understood as "what users want" on a windowed desktop OS... perhaps we need to look to new UI inputs/frameworks (mobile, voice) to break out of the current mold?
Hopefully this gets some more people over from the closed-source Google Chrome.
Rather, it's not so much that they refuse to implement features until they're standardized, it's that each browser maker refuses to implement the features dreamed up by the other browser makers until they're standardized.
>Rather, it's not so much that they refuse to implement features until they're standardized, it's that each browser maker refuses to implement the features dreamed up by the other browser makers until they're standardized.
I guess that's what happened with this. A Mozilla engineer explicitly argued against implementing something because it's not a standard in this issue: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=782233
You also have the rather new Social API² which is still in development and what about the whole ASM.js spec³?
Or, at least, that is how I experience things.
Rather than being developed in a closed room by a committee, features emerge in a sort of darwinian sense, in that usable features survive (they're played with, commented on, blogged about, critiqued), and bad ones tend to end up being ignored. And it works because good developers won't touch features that would break a site's cross-browser compatibility, but might sneak in stuff that can gracefully fall back. Thus the whole world becomes an "agile" test bed for a potential standard until everything slowly coalesces into a stable status quo.
It should hiccup on Firefox for Mac but virtually no other browser: http://jsfiddle.net/K7Ukb/8/
but this is Win7.
It should hiccup on Firefox for Mac but virtually no other browser:
Hopefully it will be fixed soon (if not already)
This happened on both OSX and Ubuntu(my laptop and workstation) at the same time when Firefox 28 was introduced.
If you would rather not do that in public, please feel free to e-mail me links: bzbarsky at mit dot edu.
> The two major advantages of this model are security and performance. Security would improve because the content processes could be sandboxed (although sandboxing the content processes is a separate project from Electrolysis).
ubuntu 13.10 firefox 27.0.1
In general Nightly has been very stable for me, but sometimes things sneak in that are annoying or simply broken. If you can live with that, then welcome to Nightly! :-)
So it adds < / input > etc
var xs = 1, 2, 3
[for (x of xs) x * 2]
SyntaxError: Unexpected token for
I guess my kids are going to use Firefox 142...
Edit: do you really want your grandkids to be stuck with version 5? :)
Update - Really? I am being down-voted and not gedrap?
Yours added nothing.
Please try to avoid comments like this in the future.
My opinion is his comment was a waste of time and mine was funny.
1. Upgrade and use one of the theme and extension combinations to get a look you want.
2. Upgrade and just get used to the new look since it's similar to Chrome and others.
3. Downgrade to Firefox ESR 24.5.0 which IS fully secure.
If security is such a hot button worry wart issue, then it shouldn't be permissible for Mozilla developers to bind minor UI tweaks to security fixes. Firefox user interface changes should not be tightly coupled with essential security updates, since they introduce the hazard of many users refusing to comply with good security practices, simply because some asshole design wonk decided to enforce their tastes upon millions of users and disrupt existing, productive, habitual user interface behavior.
And by the way, it's absolutely possible to securely run an instance of Firefox 28 in a read-only, sandboxed, firewalled VM, restricted to connecting to specific trusted hosts.
Permitting a third party to control and modify your behavior by enforcing automatic updates in a manner that does not match your schedule can be an insidious security hazard unto itself. Organizations like Mozilla, Google, Apple and Microsoft have no interest in and no concept of what might be hugely disruptive to their end users, nor do they necessarily have any concept of a given environment's actual security posture. They simply cry "security" and then rampage all over everyone's shit with righteous entitlement.
And a bonus of actually having a 64 bit build for my Windows partition without having to run Nightly.
Or rather, the latter is dramatically slower than 28.0, just about unusably slow. And this is true with a very minimum installation and usage, Session Manager and Track Package the only extensions, a version of Shockwave Flash auto installed the only plugin. As little as 3 windows with 7 tabs.
And it might just be my impression, but Pale Moon might have been faster than Firefox 28.0.
Have you tried the two side by side?
However the Firefox builds I'm using are the generic ones from Mozilla, Debian doesn't supply Firefox due to IP issues, they do their own "Iceweasel" build (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_r...).
Out of curiosity, I ran the tests again on FF30 on Windows and Sunspider is about the same as FF28 was while PeaceKeeper and Dromaeo increased a couple percent.
And it's rather notably more lightweight in terms of RAM usage.
Works fine in literally all other browsers. Oh well.
Browsers like Internet Explorer 'fix' it so designers never know. Browsers like Firefox show it as properly broken so designers fix their mistakes. That's why it's always important to test your site in a proper browser.
Edit: The advantage to rapid releases is that you can roll out minor updates when they're ready without having to wait for big ones, and you don't have to rush big ones for a deadline. If you miss one release, it's no a big deal because there's another one coming right up. Release when it's ready!
The Linux kernel is on version 3.15, for example.
As did Java. Java 1.4 was released in 2002, and the next version was Java 5 in 2006.
> In principle [...] the major number is increased when there are significant jumps in functionality such as changing the framework which could cause incompatibility with interfacing systems, the minor number is incremented when only minor features or significant fixes have been added, and the revision number is incremented when minor bugs are fixed.