Firefox 21 Launches with Enhanced Social API Support, Health Report

MacRumors · May 14, 2013

Mozilla has launched Firefox 21 for Mac, Windows, and Linux, adding a number of improvements, 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, Mixi, and msnNow. 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 Feature and preliminary implementation of the Firefox Health Report, 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.

Firefox 21 for the Mac is available for download from the Mozilla website.

Article Link: Firefox 21 Launches with Enhanced Social API Support, Health Report

mrgraff · May 14, 2013

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

mrgraff said:
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.....

Simplicated · May 14, 2013

Still no Lion scrollbars and proper gesture support. I use it on Windows, but I hate it on OS X.

thepowerofnone · May 14, 2013

This is just getting silly now - have Mozilla not heard of decimal points and incremental upgrades?

Michael Goff · May 14, 2013

thepowerofnone said:
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

thepowerofnone said:
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

thepowerofnone said:
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

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

thepowerofnone said:
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

RapidRelease Plan

Simplicated · May 14, 2013

vsthsd said:
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

mrgraff said:
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?

----------

X5-452 said:
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?

----------

vsthsd said:
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

C DM said:
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

vsthsd said:
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

ArtOfWarfare said:
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

Version numbering

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

ArtOfWarfare said:
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

Michael Goff said:
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

ArtOfWarfare said:
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

Michael Goff said:
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

ArtOfWarfare said:
Are you a developer?

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

Why do you ask?

Shookster · May 14, 2013

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

C DM said:
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?

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.

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

Michael Goff · May 14, 2013

Shookster said:
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.

ArtOfWarfare · May 14, 2013

Michael Goff said:
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?

Firefox 21 Launches with Enhanced Social API Support, Health Report

macrumors bot

macrumors 65816

macrumors 6502

macrumors 65816

macrumors member

Suspended

macrumors 65816

macrumors 6502

macrumors member

Moderator emeritus

macrumors 65816

macrumors Sandy Bridge

macrumors G3

macrumors 65816

Suspended

macrumors member

macrumors G3

macrumors G3

Suspended

macrumors G3

Suspended

macrumors regular

macrumors 65816

Suspended

macrumors G3

Our Staff