Firefox 21 Launches with Enhanced Social API Support, Health Report

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 14, 2013.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    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
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    mrgraff

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    Location:
    Albuquerque
    #2
    Before anybody thinks this is a big deal, don't forget that Firefox 22 will be released later this week also.
     
  3. macrumors regular

    BreuerEditor

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #3
    You beat me to it.....:D
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    Simplicated

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2008
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON
    #4
    Still no Lion scrollbars and proper gesture support. I use it on Windows, but I hate it on OS X.
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    #5
    This is just getting silly now - have Mozilla not heard of decimal points and incremental upgrades?
     
  6. macrumors 603

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #6
    Yes, because what version something is... that's what matters.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    X5-452

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    #9
    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?
     
  10. Moderator

    SandboxGeneral

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    #10
    Mozilla has had this release schedule and versioning planned out since early 2011 therefore it's no surprise really.

    RapidRelease/Calendar

    RapidRelease Plan
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Simplicated

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2008
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON
    #11
    Or alternatively, why are we glorifying almost everything Google does?
     
  12. macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #12
    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:

    ----------

    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?

    ----------

    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).
     
  13. macrumors 604

    ArtOfWarfare

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 603

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #15
    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!
     
  16. macrumors newbie

    Amadeus71

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2013
    #16
    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
     
  17. macrumors G3

    roadbloc

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Its just a number. Breathe. Take a walk maybe.
     
  18. macrumors 604

    ArtOfWarfare

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    #18
    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."
     
  19. macrumors 603

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 604

    ArtOfWarfare

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    #20
    Are you a developer?
     
  21. macrumors 603

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #21
    Anyone can be a developer, it isn't some special club.

    Why do you ask?
     
  22. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    mrgraff

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    Location:
    Albuquerque
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 603

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #24
    Yay, now my YouTube videos can.. err... no, they still take up huge amounts of resources to play with html5. :eek:
     
  25. macrumors 604

    ArtOfWarfare

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    #25
    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?
     

Share This Page