Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old May 14, 2013, 12:10 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Firefox 21 Launches with Enhanced Social API Support, Health Report




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
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 12:16 PM   #2
mrgraff
macrumors 6502a
 
mrgraff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Albuquerque
Before anybody thinks this is a big deal, don't forget that Firefox 22 will be released later this week also.
mrgraff is offline   26 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 12:17 PM   #3
BreuerEditor
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Jersey
 
see vendor information in user profile
Send a message via AIM to BreuerEditor
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrgraff View Post
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.....
__________________
Late 2012 27" 3.4GHz i7 iMac, 1TB Fusion, 32GB RAM
2010 13" 2.4GHz MBP, 240GB SSD, 16GB RAM
32GB iPhone 5, 64GB iPod Touch (4th), 64GB iPad (3rd)
BreuerEditor is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 12:22 PM   #4
Simplicated
macrumors 65816
 
Simplicated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ingsoc
Still no Lion scrollbars and proper gesture support. I use it on Windows, but I hate it on OS X.
Simplicated is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 12:23 PM   #5
thepowerofnone
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
This is just getting silly now - have Mozilla not heard of decimal points and incremental upgrades?
thepowerofnone is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 12:28 PM   #6
Michael Goff
macrumors 68030
 
Michael Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepowerofnone View Post
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.
__________________
13" Macbook Air (2012) Ultimate
OS X 10.9
Michael Goff is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 12:38 PM   #7
outphase
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Parts Unknown
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepowerofnone View Post
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.
outphase is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 12:40 PM   #8
X5-452
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepowerofnone View Post
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.
X5-452 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 01:06 PM   #9
vsthsd
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
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?
vsthsd is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 01:10 PM   #10
SandboxGeneral
Moderator
 
SandboxGeneral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Great Lakes State
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepowerofnone View Post
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
__________________
Magnificent Seventh
SandboxGeneral is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 01:14 PM   #11
Simplicated
macrumors 65816
 
Simplicated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ingsoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsthsd View Post
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?
Simplicated is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 01:32 PM   #12
C DM
macrumors 604
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrgraff View Post
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?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by X5-452 View Post
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?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by vsthsd View Post
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).
C DM is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 01:39 PM   #13
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors 601
 
ArtOfWarfare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Send a message via Skype™ to ArtOfWarfare
Quote:
Originally Posted by C DM View Post
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.
__________________
Battery Status - On the Mac App Store
The only app that'll estimate when your wireless devices will need their batteries changed.
Including the ones paired with other Macs on your network.
ArtOfWarfare is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 01:41 PM   #14
lars666
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by vsthsd View Post
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.
lars666 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 01:47 PM   #15
Michael Goff
macrumors 68030
 
Michael Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtOfWarfare View Post
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!
__________________
13" Macbook Air (2012) Ultimate
OS X 10.9
Michael Goff is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 01:52 PM   #16
Amadeus71
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 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
Amadeus71 is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 01:57 PM   #17
roadbloc
macrumors 604
 
roadbloc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtOfWarfare View Post
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.
__________________
roadbloc is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 01:58 PM   #18
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors 601
 
ArtOfWarfare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Send a message via Skype™ to ArtOfWarfare
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Goff View Post
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."
ArtOfWarfare is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 02:32 PM   #19
Michael Goff
macrumors 68030
 
Michael Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtOfWarfare View Post
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.
__________________
13" Macbook Air (2012) Ultimate
OS X 10.9
Michael Goff is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 02:41 PM   #20
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors 601
 
ArtOfWarfare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Send a message via Skype™ to ArtOfWarfare
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Goff View Post
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?
ArtOfWarfare is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 02:43 PM   #21
Michael Goff
macrumors 68030
 
Michael Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtOfWarfare View Post
Are you a developer?
Anyone can be a developer, it isn't some special club.

Why do you ask?
__________________
13" Macbook Air (2012) Ultimate
OS X 10.9
Michael Goff is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 03:03 PM   #22
Shookster
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
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.
Shookster is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 03:04 PM   #23
mrgraff
macrumors 6502a
 
mrgraff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Albuquerque
Quote:
Originally Posted by C DM View Post
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.
mrgraff is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 03:16 PM   #24
Michael Goff
macrumors 68030
 
Michael Goff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shookster View Post
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.
__________________
13" Macbook Air (2012) Ultimate
OS X 10.9
Michael Goff is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old May 14, 2013, 03:44 PM   #25
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors 601
 
ArtOfWarfare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Send a message via Skype™ to ArtOfWarfare
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Goff View Post
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?
ArtOfWarfare is offline   3 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC