PDA

View Full Version : Firefox 21 Launches with Enhanced Social API Support, Health Report




MacRumors
May 14, 2013, 12:10 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/05/14/firefox-21-launches-with-enhanced-social-api-support/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/01/firefox.pngMozilla has launched (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/) Firefox 21 for Mac, Windows, and Linux, adding a number of improvements (http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/21.0/releasenotes/), namely to the browser's Social API.

The Social API is designed to allow social providers to integrate directly with Firefox, displaying selected content on the browser's sidebar or toolbar.

With the update Mozilla has added several new partners, including Cliqz (http://cliqz.com), Mixi (http://mixi.jp), and msnNow (http://now.msn.com). Cliqz and msnNow are news aggregation services, while Mixi is Japan's largest social network.

Firefox 21 brings an enhanced UI for the Do Not Track (https://blog.mozilla.org/privacy/2013/01/28/newdntui/) Feature and preliminary implementation of the Firefox Health Report (http://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2013/05/14/firefox-heal-thyself/), which is a system that is designed to log browser health information like start up time, total running time, and number of crashes. It is designed to monitor browser performance and provide tools to fix potential problems. The update also includes a number of small changes and bug fixes, which can be found in the release notes (http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/21.0/releasenotes/).

Firefox 21 for the Mac is available for download (http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/) from the Mozilla website.

Article Link: Firefox 21 Launches with Enhanced Social API Support, Health Report (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/05/14/firefox-21-launches-with-enhanced-social-api-support/)



mrgraff
May 14, 2013, 12:16 PM
Before anybody thinks this is a big deal, don't forget that Firefox 22 will be released later this week also.

BreuerEditor
May 14, 2013, 12:17 PM
Before anybody thinks this is a big deal, don't forget that Firefox 22 will be released later this week also.

You beat me to it.....:D

Simplicated
May 14, 2013, 12:22 PM
Still no Lion scrollbars and proper gesture support. I use it on Windows, but I hate it on OS X.

thepowerofnone
May 14, 2013, 12:23 PM
This is just getting silly now - have Mozilla not heard of decimal points and incremental upgrades?

Michael Goff
May 14, 2013, 12:28 PM
This is just getting silly now - have Mozilla not heard of decimal points and incremental upgrades?

Yes, because what version something is... that's what matters.

outphase
May 14, 2013, 12:38 PM
This is just getting silly now - have Mozilla not heard of decimal points and incremental upgrades?

This was a paradigm shift back around FF6 or so. Mozilla decided to do away with decimal point versions and just release everything as a full integer update.

X5-452
May 14, 2013, 12:40 PM
This is just getting silly now - have Mozilla not heard of decimal points and incremental upgrades?

I agree. Surely a better naming system MUST exist?? When will it end?! I don't think anyone wants to have a version number in the 100's.

vsthsd
May 14, 2013, 01:06 PM
Google Chrome is at v.26, no one complains about that. Mozilla used to be slow on updates and people criticized their lack of keeping pace. Few use IE and Safari point releases are mostly for security issues alone. Why do we dislike rapid Firefox releases?

SandboxGeneral
May 14, 2013, 01:10 PM
This is just getting silly now - have Mozilla not heard of decimal points and incremental upgrades?

Mozilla has had this release schedule and versioning planned out since early 2011 therefore it's no surprise really.

RapidRelease/Calendar (https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar)

RapidRelease Plan (https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease)

Simplicated
May 14, 2013, 01:14 PM
Google Chrome is at v.26, no one complains about that. Mozilla used to be slow on updates and people criticized their lack of keeping pace. Few use IE and Safari point releases are mostly for security issues alone. Why do we dislike rapid Firefox releases?

Or alternatively, why are we glorifying almost everything Google does?

C DM
May 14, 2013, 01:32 PM
Before anybody thinks this is a big deal, don't forget that Firefox 22 will be released later this week also.Try 6 weeks.

It's just a crazy idea that software, especially something like a browser, which is there to support ever changing technologies, should be updated and improved (in one way or another) on a regular and not-so-long intervals, right? :rolleyes:

----------

I agree. Surely a better naming system MUST exist?? When will it end?! I don't think anyone wants to have a version number in the 100's.Why? Does the version number really matter somehow? Does it make the application, or really anything, worse in some way if it's on version 34 (or even 112) compared to 10.6.12?

----------

Google Chrome is at v.26, no one complains about that. Mozilla used to be slow on updates and people criticized their lack of keeping pace. Few use IE and Safari point releases are mostly for security issues alone. Why do we dislike rapid Firefox releases?It's one of those "haters gonna hate" type of things--troll-like at worst, and maybe an inconsequential personal preference at best (which is still pretty much pointless in general).

ArtOfWarfare
May 14, 2013, 01:39 PM
Why? Does the version number really matter somehow? Does it make the application, or really anything, worse in some way if it's on version 34 (or even 112) compared to 10.6.12?

Yes. Changing the first number implies that it's such a big leap that existing compatible software has a good chance of no longer being compatible. Changing the second number implies that that new features have been added, but compatible software that was working will continue to work. Changing the third number implies that no new features have been added, but existing features have been fixed.

From the sounds of it, most of these first number changes should actually be second number changes - new features are being tacked on but they aren't tearing apart existing APIs and starting over.

lars666
May 14, 2013, 01:41 PM
Google Chrome is at v.26, no one complains about that. Mozilla used to be slow on updates and people criticized their lack of keeping pace. Few use IE and Safari point releases are mostly for security issues alone. Why do we dislike rapid Firefox releases?

We don't dislike rapid Firefox releases, we dislike the ridiculous way they sell every "normal" point update as a full version update just to win the "we have the highest version number and therefore have to be the most advanced browser"-game.

Michael Goff
May 14, 2013, 01:47 PM
Yes. Changing the first number implies that it's such a big leap that existing compatible software has a good chance of no longer being compatible. Changing the second number implies that that new features have been added, but compatible software that was working will continue to work. Changing the third number implies that no new features have been added, but existing features have been fixed.

From the sounds of it, most of these first number changes should actually be second number changes - new features are being tacked on but they aren't tearing apart existing APIs and starting over.

So the browser would mystically be better if this was version 6.5 instead of 21? Because I'm trying to think of this from a PRACTICAL standpoint.

Why not just re-name it and start with .1 and go from there? We could all use Phoenix Fire version .1 for 6 weeks and then it goes to .2 and so forth. Because the browser's performance is dependent on versioning!

Amadeus71
May 14, 2013, 01:52 PM
After reading this I went to check whether I even had Firefox installed on my system (a 2008 Mac Pro). Very much to my surprise, I had and found it was version 7.0. So it updated to 12.0 and subsequently to 21.0.

Now I'm wondering how many decades I neglected that poor browser...but then Wikipedia is telling me it's not even been two years...wicked

roadbloc
May 14, 2013, 01:57 PM
Yes. Changing the first number implies that it's such a big leap that existing compatible software has a good chance of no longer being compatible. Changing the second number implies that that new features have been added, but compatible software that was working will continue to work. Changing the third number implies that no new features have been added, but existing features have been fixed.

From the sounds of it, most of these first number changes should actually be second number changes - new features are being tacked on but they aren't tearing apart existing APIs and starting over.

Its just a number. Breathe. Take a walk maybe.

ArtOfWarfare
May 14, 2013, 01:58 PM
So the browser would mystically be better if this was version 6.5 instead of 21? Because I'm trying to think of this from a PRACTICAL standpoint.

Why not just re-name it and start with .1 and go from there? We could all use Phoenix Fire version .1 for 6 weeks and then it goes to .2 and so forth. Because the browser's performance is dependent on versioning!

Why not just refer to it by build number, if you insist numbers don't matter?

Normally version numbers have meaning to them. It helps you know which versions of an app a plugin will work. With Firefox, there's no indicator. I'd have to say, "oh, my plugin works from Firefox 7 until 20." Instead of, "my plugin works with Firefox 4.x."

Michael Goff
May 14, 2013, 02:32 PM
Why not just refer to it by build number, if you insist numbers don't matter?

Normally version numbers have meaning to them. It helps you know which versions of an app a plugin will work. With Firefox, there's no indicator. I'd have to say, "oh, my plugin works from Firefox 7 until 20." Instead of, "my plugin works with Firefox 4.x."

Here's how plugins should work:
>Automated system says whether or not it still works
>If fail, Firefox then sends a message to the developer telling them how it failed exactly
>Developer fixes

It should not be based on version number. They should get rid of that entirely, imo.

ArtOfWarfare
May 14, 2013, 02:41 PM
Here's how plugins should work:
>Automated system says whether or not it still works
>If fail, Firefox then sends a message to the developer telling them how it failed exactly
>Developer fixes

It should not be based on version number. They should get rid of that entirely, imo.

Are you a developer?

Michael Goff
May 14, 2013, 02:43 PM
Are you a developer?

Anyone can be a developer, it isn't some special club.

Why do you ask?

Shookster
May 14, 2013, 03:03 PM
For some reason Mozilla is not highlighting what I think is the biggest feature in Firefox 21 - it now supports H.264 in Windows 7 and 8 (Mac coming soon). Mozilla was the last major holdout and I like the idea of being able to ditch Flash completely on my website in the near future.

mrgraff
May 14, 2013, 03:04 PM
Try 6 weeks.

It's just a crazy idea that software, especially something like a browser, which is there to support ever changing technologies, should be updated and improved (in one way or another) on a regular and not-so-long intervals, right? :rolleyes:

Try I was just making a snarky comment in regards to how often Firefox seems to update their software. We all understand the concept of software updates.:rolleyes:

Could somebody point me to the "no-humor" rule for these forums because I never seem to learn.

Michael Goff
May 14, 2013, 03:16 PM
For some reason Mozilla is not highlighting what I think is the biggest feature in Firefox 21 - it now supports H.264 in Windows 7 and 8 (Mac coming soon). Mozilla was the last major holdout and I like the idea of being able to ditch Flash completely on my website in the near future.

Yay, now my YouTube videos can.. err... no, they still take up huge amounts of resources to play with html5. :o

ArtOfWarfare
May 14, 2013, 03:44 PM
Anyone can be a developer, it isn't some special club.

Why do you ask?

True, anyone can be a developer, just like anyone can be a doctor or anyone can be a rocket engineer or anyone can be president of the United Stares. I wasn't asking if you could be a developer, I was asking whether you were a developer.

It is a special club, just like any other grouping of people that know things that most other people don't.

It matters because I could either speak as one developer to another regarding this topic or I could say "I don't tell you how to do your job; you don't tell me how to do my job. Deal?" If it turns out our jobs are the same job, we're actually qualified to make suggestions to each other and such a deal doesn't make sense.

So I repeat, are you a developer?

Michael Goff
May 14, 2013, 04:28 PM
True, anyone can be a developer, just like anyone can be a doctor or anyone can be a rocket engineer or anyone can be president of the United Stares. I wasn't asking if you could be a developer, I was asking whether you were a developer.

It is a special club, just like any other grouping of people that know things that most other people don't.

It matters because I could either speak as one developer to another regarding this topic or I could say "I don't tell you how to do your job; you don't tell me how to do my job. Deal?" If it turns out our jobs are the same job, we're actually qualified to make suggestions to each other and such a deal doesn't make sense.

So I repeat, are you a developer?

Yes.

Yes I am.

C DM
May 14, 2013, 05:00 PM
Try I was just making a snarky comment in regards to how often Firefox seems to update their software. We all understand the concept of software updates.:rolleyes:

Could somebody point me to the "no-humor" rule for these forums because I never seem to learn.Just like there can be snarky comments there can be snarky or not so snarky replies to them. Right? Right.

Macrolido
May 14, 2013, 05:08 PM
I donīt use FF since one year ago, it was excruciating for my Mac.

Brandon263
May 14, 2013, 07:22 PM
I don´t use FF since one year ago, it was excruciating for my Mac.

I find Firefox, with it's tab mechanism, highlight search function, implementation of pinch to zoom and privacy options more convenient to use than Safari. I really like the dictionary/Wikipedia lookup in Safari, but the fact that Safari doesn't have a clear cache when browser closes function is a deal breaker.

Krafty
May 14, 2013, 07:55 PM
I donīt use FF since one year ago, it was excruciating for my Mac.
Same here. After heavy browsing., it eats up about 2GB of RAM and responds really slowly. It also gets slow when browsing sites like tumblr and after scrolling, it starts to lag and the fans start flaring.

Still, I use it cause of the add-ons.

till213
May 15, 2013, 03:28 AM
Its just a number.

For some, yes. For all others: http://semver.org/

JosephAW
May 15, 2013, 06:18 AM
"Enhanced Social API Support"
I'm still waiting for the day when all these social sites will stop using 3rd party plugins like flash and siverlight. I stopped using these insecure plugins altogether. Other than that ff 21 is pretty snappy.

Yvan256
May 15, 2013, 09:38 AM
For anyone who's wondering why some people hate the new "fast major version numbers" thing, here's the explanation.

When signing contracts with clients, we used to be able to say things like "your website will work on the current versions of browsers and one previous major version". So if Firefox was version 7 when signing, the website would be compatible with a version from a year or so ago, more or less. Different browsers had different update windows.

But now, what can you say? By the time you start talking to the client about their website and delivering it, both Chrome and Firefox will probably have increased by 5 versions, if not more.

thepowerofnone
May 15, 2013, 09:39 AM
So the browser would mystically be better if this was version 6.5 instead of 21? Because I'm trying to think of this from a PRACTICAL standpoint.

Why not just re-name it and start with .1 and go from there? We could all use Phoenix Fire version .1 for 6 weeks and then it goes to .2 and so forth. Because the browser's performance is dependent on versioning!

No, don't be silly, it would not be mystically better, but releasing updates numbers in a X.Y.Z makes it much easier to track as a consumer which major improvements you can expect from each version. Everyone who says "its just a number, what does it matter" ask yourself, why not just release their updates in a completely random, non sequential order, and just pick a number between 1 and 1000 out of thin air. The answer is obviously that the number gives you an indication of what to expect from the version you are running, and by having an order you can assume that the higher the number, the better the program, and for developers it gives them an idea of what features they can and can't utilise in this version to made a successful addon or module for the program. Using decimal points just gives the user even MORE information about the quality of the update: is it a big leap or a little leap. It is a well established convention in computing and Mozilla are choosing to ignore it just to have the biggest number.

q64ceo
May 15, 2013, 12:01 PM
Anyone else remember when FireFox wasnt a joke?

Michael Goff
May 15, 2013, 01:11 PM
Anyone else remember when FireFox wasnt a joke?

Firefox is a joke?

Parasprite
May 15, 2013, 03:07 PM
Anyone else remember when FireFox wasnt a joke?

When I used Windows I preferred IE or Opera over Firefox, when I used Linux I used Konquerer or Opera, my Android phone had Dolphin or Opera, and now that I have my Mac I stick with Chrome.

So, no I don't remember.

SandboxGeneral
May 15, 2013, 03:37 PM
Anyone else remember when FireFox wasnt a joke?

I guess I missed the punchline. What was the funny part?

Parasprite
May 15, 2013, 04:20 PM
I guess I missed the punchline. What was the funny part?

A running joke, think like "Safari is snappier :D". I think FF's especially slow release cycle for major point upgrades contrasted with the new system is the joke.

Whether that is funny or not... well...

At least it's snappier.

Verbatim Cookie
May 15, 2013, 05:42 PM
Few use IE
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/173/580/Wat.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

ಠ_ಠ
:rolleyes:

Macrolido
May 18, 2013, 10:43 AM
I find Firefox, with it's tab mechanism, highlight search function, implementation of pinch to zoom and privacy options more convenient to use than Safari. I really like the dictionary/Wikipedia lookup in Safari, but the fact that Safari doesn't have a clear cache when browser closes function is a deal breaker.

I prefer Google Chrome.

calderone
May 18, 2013, 12:50 PM
True, anyone can be a developer, just like anyone can be a doctor or anyone can be a rocket engineer or anyone can be president of the United Stares. I wasn't asking if you could be a developer, I was asking whether you were a developer.

It is a special club, just like any other grouping of people that know things that most other people don't.

It matters because I could either speak as one developer to another regarding this topic or I could say "I don't tell you how to do your job; you don't tell me how to do my job. Deal?" If it turns out our jobs are the same job, we're actually qualified to make suggestions to each other and such a deal doesn't make sense.

So I repeat, are you a developer?


This made me laugh. Thank you.

Because ONLY developers can have a discussion about developer matters.

ArtOfWarfare
May 18, 2013, 01:11 PM
This made me laugh. Thank you.

Because ONLY developers can have a discussion about developer matters.

His total ignorance of APIs made it impossible to continue a discussion with him. As someone who makes plugins, I need to be told if a new version is going to require my plugin to change. Firefox's lack of organization with their numbering makes it impossible for me to be able to gauge how different their API without me looking at it all, and given they release a new version every week, I don't want to bother. Fortunately, I don't make Firefox plugins so it doesn't matter, but if Apple started following the same pattern, that would be problematic for me.

Michael Goff
May 18, 2013, 01:21 PM
His total ignorance of APIs made it impossible to continue a discussion with him. As someone who makes plugins, I need to be told if a new version is going to require my plugin to change. Firefox's lack of organization with their numbering makes it impossible for me to be able to gauge how different their API without me looking at it all, and given they release a new version every week, I don't want to bother. Fortunately, I don't make Firefox plugins so it doesn't matter, but if Apple started following the same pattern, that would be problematic for me.

Actually, I basically just said that it should work how it does work.

I'm the ignorant one, though, right?

How will this process work?
There are three key parts:

Firefox and platform developers should take add-on compatibility into account with any changes they make. Add-on compatibility will be included in the criteria for changes being promoted to Aurora and Beta channels. It’s especially important to minimize breaking changes for Firefox 5 & 6 when the Add-on SDK is not yet stable. Once released this summer, the Add-on SDK will be an excellent alternative to dealing with compatibility.

Before any compatibility-breaking changes land, Firefox developers should follow a standardized compatibility notification process with a description of the change, the reasons for the change, and patterns we can look for in add-ons to identify those affected. This will be used to update documentation, make blog posts, and add the patterns to the AMO compatibility scanner.

The day before we branch for Aurora, AMO’s compatibility scanner will be run on the latest versions of all add-ons compatible with the most recent release. Any add-ons flagged as potentially incompatible or that use binary components will not have their compatibility bumped and the authors will receive an email with the identified problems. After testing and fixing any problems, the author can then manually set compatibility and rejoin the automatic process for future releases. Add-ons that have not been flagged will have their compatibility bumped to the new version.

calderone
May 18, 2013, 10:19 PM
His total ignorance of APIs made it impossible to continue a discussion with him. As someone who makes plugins, I need to be told if a new version is going to require my plugin to change. Firefox's lack of organization with their numbering makes it impossible for me to be able to gauge how different their API without me looking at it all, and given they release a new version every week, I don't want to bother. Fortunately, I don't make Firefox plugins so it doesn't matter, but if Apple started following the same pattern, that would be problematic for me.

If you can read API documentation*, it shouldn't be a problem at all. I don't think Michael Goff exhibited any "ignorance." You jumped on your high horse and automatically eschewed him from your special developer club.

*This of course assumes decent and navigable documentation.

ArtOfWarfare
May 18, 2013, 10:26 PM
If you can read API documentation*, it shouldn't be a problem at all. I don't think Michael Goff exhibited any "ignorance." You jumped on your high horse and automatically eschewed him from your special developer club.

*This of course assumes decent and navigable documentation.

They update it every few weeks. I don't want to have to check to make sure the API hasn't changed every week - generally if the major number hasn't changed, it's a good indicator that nothing from the API has been removed. It's interesting that Mozilla sends out automated notifications to developers when their plugins break during beta tests - that does seem to resolve my complaint.

MacGizmo
May 21, 2013, 12:10 PM
People just like to complain. I'm not a huge fan of Firefox anymore, but honest to gosh, does it really matter what version number a web browser carries?

tekboi
May 21, 2013, 01:27 PM
What has firefox really changed with the last 10 versions? I'm failing to notice...