/article-new/2013/01/firefox.png?lossy)
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.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)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.
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? :rolleyes:
----------
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?----------
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).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?
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.