Firefox 51.0
mozilla.org
mozilla.org
I can't think of another product that does release notes as well as them. Usually your hunting down ticket numbers (often on a private tracker) that are referenced from a changelog.
Though that's cheating a bit because it's easier to get pretty pictures of features in Blender.
http://us.battle.net/heroes/en/blog/20481262/heroes-of-the-s...
Makes me wonder if there is a market for a release notes platform for keeping customer up to date, something that's more focused on how changes are announced to customers than bug tickets.
There apparently is, we use https://headwayapp.co/ for that.
I like LoL's current ones better: http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/patch/pat...
https://www.unrealengine.com/blog/unreal-engine-4-14-release...
Here was the old style:
http://website-archive.mozilla.org/www.mozilla.org/firefox_r...
And the new style:
http://website-archive.mozilla.org/www.mozilla.org/firefox_r...
The new style has since been tweaked a bit since we left Mozilla.
They also always had a list of all bugs fixed (for example, http://website-archive.mozilla.org/www.mozilla.org/firefox_r...).
> For privacy reasons, both BatteryManager.chargingTime and BatteryManager.dischargingTime now round the returned value to the closest 15 minutes (bug 1292655).
See [1] for an explanation of how the battery status API can be used to track you.
[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/51#Chan...
[1] https://www.hackread.com/smartphone-laptop-battery-invading-...
Done locally in JavaScript, info is not stored anyway (and, of course, you can see that for yourself here: https://github.com/aleksandar-todorovic/battery).
Basically Firefox no longer allows you to deny websites access to camera individually. This means that while on a voice call on messenger.com, the camera is still always on, even if the video is "muted".
> This locale hasn't seen any activity in almost 2 years, and we failed to revive the community effort.
> The plan is to stop building Firefox Beta and Firefox Release, and move existing users to Russian.
> I think it would also be a good idea to stop building Firefox Aurora, and remove Belarusian from product-details, but I'm open to different opinions.
- bug 1304743
You reach a point where the amount of English strings is so high in the UI that is more confusing than helpful to ship a localized version like that. Also considering the target of localized builds.
The good news is that we can start shipping back Belarusian if there are new volunteers working on it steadily (it just happened for Georgian in 51).
There are a few working already, but they need all the help they can get https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.l10n/dxf7HliMGE4... https://pontoon.mozilla.org/be/firefox-aurora/
By the way, I'd really love to visit Iceland some day. My cousin went there a few years back and he said it was amazing!
The only downside is that you'll always want to go back, and you'll always have a part of you be sad that you aren't there.
Certain people like different things and cultures but now I'm convinced I must see Iceland.
Fuck it, I'm just gonna book some tickets.
Some of the highlights:
* Users can view passwords in the save password prompt before saving them
* Firefox will save passwords even in forms that do not have “submit” events
* A warning is displayed when a login page does not have a secure connection
* Improved video performance for users without GPU acceleration for less CPU usage and a better full screen experience
* Added support for WebGL 2, with advanced graphics rendering features like transform feedback, improved texturing capabilities, and a new sophisticated shading language
* Added support for FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) playback
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases/51#Chan... (e.g. JS/CSS api changes).
Aside; the FF dev release notes always impress upon me the scale of modern browsers. There's just so much new stuff, and lots of it isn't trivial at all, and that's despite the rather rapid release calendar, and the need to be pretty much rock solid on a huge variety of systems, and the list of tricky non-functional aspects like perf, size, security, maintainability, etc. that all this code needs to at least consider. It's daunting.
The web really has come a long, long ways.
They tackle a very common misconception: Many people think it's enough to transfer the password encrypted, because they think https is only about secrecy. But it's crucial to also submit the form via https, otherwise attackers can mess with the form itself.
A lot of webpages will be surprised by this, there are still quite a few who have insecure login forms.
Yes, in the limit. But current best-practices for user caution ("when you're entering personal information, check the address bar for the domain name you're expecting [and a lock icon]") would be enough to thwart that attack.
The Web is basically just a runtime you don't have to host your files on a server if you don't want. You can distribute them via CDs if you prefer. Also you can use Service Workers now.
That said monetisation all depends on the product not the medium. Just look at Minecraft. It didn't use ads or microtransactions and yet it was run from a Java applet in a browser.
Minecraft also notoriously performs terrible. Given what Minecraft is sure that might work for Minecraft. It wouldn't work for an AAA game.
Framerates aren't the same, memory usage isn't the same, and you can't easily tweak these things once they've come out the other end. The web _isn't_ just a runtime. It's abstracted like that, but browsers are glorified HTML renders with JavaScript bindings, event handling, and sound and video playback to game developers.
HN has a subset of the community constantly raving about these things for game developers, but where are the game developers actually praising these things? I don't know of any, personally. We're all too busy with desktop games.
[0] Mind you, said order of magnitude applies to uncapped framerate.
Mainstream gaming will never catch on the Web. But Mozilla is working on WebVR to create an open and distributed platform for VR (https://mozvr.com). You'll be able to publish VR content in seconds and traverse from world to world. WebGL2 is exciting for that space.
In practice, service workers seem to mostly be drive-by installs of forms of hostile code. Look at "about:serviceworkers" in Firefox to see what's running. Did you ask for any of those? I have, excluding sites where I have a login:
* https://www.youtube.com, https://plus.google.com I've never signed into Youtube, or Google, on this machine, but have watched YouTube videos.
* https://www.bajajfinserv.in - A financial service in India. I was checking out something from Wikipedia, and this drive-by installed.
* https://www.theguardian.com - I've read their site, but do not have a login.
* https://weather.com - checked weather, don't have a login.
* https://v6p9d9t4.ssl.hwcdn.net - No idea what this is. Going there returns XML with "<Message>Access denied.</Message><Details>Anonymous users does not have storage.objects.list access to bucket itchio.</Details>".
* https://fee.org - "Foundation for Economic Education", a right-wing think tank. Does a drive-by install for any home page access.
Switching to Skia on linux for rendering is interesting too, I wonder how this affects rendering performance and correctness vs cairo ?
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis
>In Mozilla documentation "Electrolysis" is often shorted as "e10s".
WebRender is actively being ported to Gecko (the "Quantum Render" project), but it is a large effort and won't ship until late 2017. It's an all-or-nothing feature, so it can't be enabled incrementally.
So now I'm back on Chrome. Felt good to be on FF for awhile, felt like I was preserving freedom or whatever. But now that I'm on Chrome, I won't switch back until Firefox actually becomes a better browser.
I thought Chrome was famous for being a resource hog. It consumes more RAM on my Windows PCs, though I confess I use more tabs than are viable in Chrome....
That's only in comparison to Safari and Edge. If you open enough tabs to cause memory issues on Chrome, Firefox would have frozen and slowed down to a crawl before filling the memory, anyhow, and electrolysis still isn't in a state where it could change that: there's still one process for the renderer so if enough intensive webpages are run your web browsing experience will still slow down.
Swings and roundabouts. I find chrome uses much more memory, and the plugins I care about (tab group view, NoScript) don't have effective parallels in chrome last I looked. I also have a pet hate for any application which decides that it needs its own look-and-feel and you should discard your own window decorations.
Also, the mozilla entity is much more about preserving freedom, and I think that's worth the minor inconveniences you get from webdevs who think that chrome is the only browser in existence.
It's also worse on power. FF tends to drain my battery much faster than Chrome. That's with <20 tabs open, mostly light weight sites.
I'm still using FF as my main browser but will probably switch to Chrome again.
That kind of marketing is an admission that their browser is not as good as its competitors. If Firefox was the best, Mozilla would drop the freedom-fighter baloney and simply say "Choose Firefox because it has the best features and user experience."
People say that IE didn't adapt fast enough, and that's why it died. But imagine how behind we'd be today if Firefox had never come along!
In a world where almost every piece of software you run (from your OS to your favorite toolbar) and every site you visit, tries to gather as much information about you. Mozilla's open-source stance and mission to improve privacy is protecting the web, by protecting us.
Perhaps privacy is not your favorite feature, perhaps it does not enhance your user experience, but for many others it does. It serves an important niche, and I hope that it succeeds and continues to disrupt what could otherwise be a browser monopoly.
But it is now 2017, and when I decide which browser I should use, I choose one that is good today, and I don't care about the blows its parent company struck for or against freedom 13 years ago.
I also disagree with the assertion that Firefox is better for security or privacy than Chrome is. They are comparable in their security and privacy features.
It's totally fine to prefer one browser or the other. It's great to have an actual choice. But the ideals and values aren't just for show.
What has Mozilla actually done in the past few years to push the web forward in security or ensure that a web specification protects user freedom?
Things that Microsoft or Google or Apple were also trying to do don't count -- what good things did Mozilla succeed in doing that the other browser companies opposed?
@namespace url(http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul);
#urlbar-zoom-button {
display: none !important;}Switched to uBlock origin and removed the other two, performance is normal again.
On linux I also saw a lot of benefit to making sure hardware acceleration was force enabled (it's disabled on the platform by default for some reason; I also had to start optirun-ing it on my laptop). Firefox has literally never been faster or behaved better since making those two changes.
They are the biggest reason why I use an extension to stop or unload background tabs.
Nevertheless, Firefox is part of the problem. And performance is still sub-par since I applied the fix (although not quite as bad).
Gotta love the people that answer "works for me".
Startup times are only comparable when you start Firefox for the second time and at least for me, Firefox is faster then. Rendering and the developer tools however seem to be slower in Firefox indeed, sometimes significantly.
Anyone knows why they removed it by curiosity?
Zooming is such a basic thing, and it really sucks in Firefox in my opinion (using a Macbook with its trackpad that is.. if using a mouse it obviously doesn't apply)
What were they using before?
Can anyone explain that last bit. I know WebGL 2 goes with GLSL ES 3.0, but that seems to be the same ol' GLSL with a few tweaks. Is this "new sophisticated shading language" just overblown PR, or is there an actual new shading language?
But I'm running 51.0b5 on Linux, so maybe it's already been fixed.