Firefox 106 | Hacker News Reader

Firefox 106

mozilla.org

42 pointsNiekvdMaas14 comments

> It is now possible to edit PDFs: including writing text, drawing, and adding signatures.

That's a fantastic feature. No more Adobe Acrobat for me!

Still does not handle digital signature. Why? Over a decade ago if someone asks editing or something like the lock in the adressbar for https comes sooner for pdfs.. (libreoffice or ubuntu's pdfsig command shows the signature and check its validity)

On the other hand this is the only browser showing its attachment.

From the release notes:

> It is now possible to edit PDFs: including writing text, drawing, and **adding signatures**.

I do not find more details about that. BI tried the editing (so the update happend), and I guessed it is not "digital", but something like drawing a signature.

Test with a gov. signed pdf, other tools show the sig correctly, firefox nothing. (Address bar shows a shield that it is not tracking for not signed too. The menu has a pdf details which show nothing relevant.)

Are you talking about cryptographic signatures? That's a different thing - one that I expect very few people care about (or even know about, for that matter).

Without cryptography the digital signature makes no sense, everywhere it is called digital.

But proably you are "right". Https became a thing because big companies needed the online thing, and it has to be secure. Pdf is one of last remnant of an era, called offline, so it is an enemy. And Mozilla is not an independet thing.

> Without cryptography the digital signature makes no sense

Outside of the HN bubble, people are still happily scribbling ink on paper and calling it legally binding, blissfully unaware of the existence of a mechanism to mathematically prove that a specific person/key was responsible for that particular signature.

Even as someone who is aware of that, I've never had to cryptographically sign a PDF. Ever. I've either dropped a scanned image of my handwritten signature onto a PDF and re-exported it or in rare/annoying cases where it's "required", printed out the document, physically signed it with a pen, scanned it, and passed it along to whoever is making me jump through those hoops.

> Setting Firefox as your default browser now also makes it the default PDF application on Windows systems.

But I'm fine with Sumatra. I would prefer it to ask for confirmation instead of doing it automatically.

  >I would prefer it to ask for confirmation instead of doing it automatically...

Not on Windows, so it doesn't affect me. But I agree with you. One of my major annoyances is having to go preference diving becasue some application which I've just updated has added a new 'feature' [which I don't want] and has enabled it by default --instead of asking me "XXX can now do YYY. Do you want to enable this?"

Strangely enough, browsers seem particularly prone to doing this.

I guess I'm still waiting for Firefox to be usably fast.

Try going here in Firefox vs. any other browser:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/160...

I feel like that is a very specific issue with the congress.gov website. Probably worth filing a bug about that!

TIDAL's web player (listen.tidal.com) started working again in Firefox v106 on macOS for me (unlike in v105, where the incompatibility seemed to exist).

Way to go!

> Setting Firefox as your default browser now also makes it the default PDF application on Windows systems.

This is not very nice.

Well, for most Windows users the default PDF application is...Edge, so I think that is reasonable actually.

I feel like I could even make an argument how Microsoft is forcing Mozilla's hand here, by showing regularly showing prompts asking people to switch to Edge... I mean use "Microsoft's recommended Browser settings".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com