Open link in next tab
https://9to5linux.com/mozilla-firefox-119-is-now-available-for-download-heres-whats-new
https://9to5linux.com/mozilla-firefox-119-is-now-available-for-download-heres-whats-new
I would just rather see direct link than blogspam:
my list of cool features:
Gradually rolling out in Fx119, Firefox now allows you to edit PDFs by adding images and alt text, in addition to text and drawings.
If you're migrating your data from Chrome, Firefox now offers the ability to import some of your extensions as well.
As part of Total Cookie Protection, Firefox now supports the partitioning of Blob URLs, this mitigates a potential tracking vector that third-party agents could use to track an individual.
The visibility of fonts to websites has been restricted to system fonts and language pack fonts in Enhanced Tracking Protection strict mode to mitigate font fingerprinting.
Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) is now available to Firefox users, delivering a more private browsing experience. ECH extends the encryption used in TLS connections to cover more of the handshake and better protect sensitive fields.
Firefox is now available in the Santali (sat) language.
Several enhancements have been made to the Inactive CSS styles feature. This feature assists in identifying CSS properties that have no effect on an element. Pseudo-elements such as ::first-letter, ::cue, and ::placeholder are now fully supported.
The JSON viewer is particularly useful for debugging REST APIs, as it displays formatted JSON responses. Now, if the JSON is invalid or broken, it automatically switches to a raw data view, improving the user experience.
Grouping of items in an array (and iterables) is now easier by using the methods Object.groupBy or Map.groupBy.
Hmm, only system fonts doesnt seem to help? Wouldnt that circumvent having the browser in a fake environment like Torbrowser does that, with the same fonts?
Torbrowser is based in Firefox, but it could make sure that its anti-tracking mechanisms keep working.
I keep waiting for better profile management. Not saying it needs to mirror chrome exactly, but feature wise it falls short (at least how I would like to use it).
While they are passable, if you have used/setup profiles in Chrome, it's a far better user experience with more flexibility. Normally, I would go into app grouping in the start menu, but I just realized I am commenting in the Linux community. 😂
They are completely isolates browser settings. Account, session, settings, hardening, history, everything.
To a certain extent you can do that with multi-account containers.
For instance, I can have Amazon always open in my "Shopping" tab to keep it separate from my "Social Networks" tab.
I'd much rather use a separate Firefox (now Mozilla I think) account for my professional work. I also would prefer having separate extensions, notably Zotero connector is kind of useless for my personal browsing
Yes to some extent, but no addons, settings, user account, passwords, synchronized stuff etc.
Also afaik you can have profiles be encrypted with different master passwords
I use multiple accounts with Firefox containers, on office.com specifically. One container for my normal account and one for my admin. It works great for me but maybe there are other sites it doesn't like.
Basically you use it to have multiple browser instances with their own configuration(settings, extensions, tabs) for whatever reason. I use it to separate work and personal stuff.
If you're migrating your data from Chrome, Firefox now offers the ability to import some of your extensions as well.
Nice.
I think this is misleading. They're offering to match your Chrome extension with an equivalent Firefox extension. But they are not providing an extension compatibility layer to run Chrome extensions.
Yeah. I agree with you. New non-tech-savvy person might misunderstand.
However, new user rarely look at the changelog. So I think this wording does not affect much.
And whether this is using equivalents or a compatibility layer, to the average non tech savvy person is irrelevant. They don't care as long as it's the extension they had and it works.
Yes, agree.
Currently the only browser (I know) that has the compatibility layer is the Orion browser by Kagi search engine. It is based on WebKit but expose API for both Firefox and Chromium extensions.
Not total compatibility but FF web extension compatibility is higher in number than Chromium.
I don't. If they meant that they would've said it. I had no moment of misunderstanding at all. Of course it would mean "I'll automatically match to the equivalent one so you don't have to do it manually". They just wanted to state it in a way it was easier to understand
I dont think that is misleading. They're functionally the same extensions made by the same authors, if you trust one you trust the other.
This is in my opinion the biggest issue holding Firefox back in the mobile market. I would be perfectly fine with no more feature updates whatsoever as long as all addons worked.
I'm guessing way less than 1% of people would use mobile extensions. I personally do but I don't think most people use chrome on mobile because of the lack of full extension support on mobile Firefox (which btw is coming). I think people use chrome because "everyone else does".
@TrickDacy @parpol I just wish that in 2023, Apple would relinquish their claw-like grip on mobile browsers on iOS. Give me ACTUAL Firefox, please.
People use whatever 'Internet icon' came with their device and live their ignorant, but happy life :)
I think you're underestimating how valuable tab groups are to people. I would make a full switch if Firefox could offer that feature on mobile in any reasonable way. Since it's already a desktop extension, I'm just waiting for them to be made available on Android
I think you're underestimating the diversity of browser users out there.
The majority simply doesn't care about extensions. They just use whatever is already installed on their phones, as long as it's useable enough.
Sure, but not even close to all. It's been literal years since the change. I was understanding at first, but now it's just becoming frustrating. Things that are very easy in desktop Firefox just isn't possible on mobile Firefox. And yes, I am running Firefox nightly and custom collections for my extensions on mobile.
The visibility of fonts to websites has been restricted to system fonts and language pack fonts in Enhanced Tracking Protection strict mode to mitigate font fingerprinting.
I'm happy to see this. It's crazy how hard advertisers try to determine who I am when I'm actively attempting not to be shown their garbage and won't buy it from their links. Browsers should be sending far fewer html headers, and restricting the listed fonts to a common list is a good step forward.
There are extensions that do that, use those along with userChrome and you can effectively replicate the look and feel of any other browser.
It should be built in at this point. It's annoying to apply userChrome.css tweaks to remove normal tabs and sidebar header.
Slightly odd they are opting to gradually roll out several features this release.
If they aren’t ready then maybe push them back to the next release?