Slashdot Mirror

Modern JS jits (tracemonkey, crankshaft) seem to be able to get to within about a factor of 10 of well-optimized (gcc -O3) C code on simple numeric stuff. That's about equivalent to C code compiled with -O0 with gcc, and actually for similar reasons if you look at the generated assembly. There's certainly headroom for them to improve more.

For more complicated workloads, the difference from C may be more or less, depending. I don't have any actual data for that sort of thing, unfortunately.

There _are_ things "wrong" with javascript that make it hard to optimize (lack of typing, very dynamic, etc). Things like http://blog.mozilla.com/rob-sayre/2010/11/17/dead-code-elimination-for-beginners/ (see the valueOf example) make it a bit of a pain to generate really fast code. But projects like https://wiki.mozilla.org/TypeInference are aiming to deal with these issues. We'll see what things look like a year from now!

Because it appears they think the OpenGL situation on Linux is a fucking disaster. https://hacks.mozilla.org/2011/01/firefox-4-beta-9-a-huge-pile-of-awesome/comment-page-1/#comment-349829 for more info.

Well that is a real problem for games. Games these days almost all use 3D for their graphics, it is what people want and makes for a nice interactive world. Even if you are doing an isometric game like Civ, still makes sense to do your graphics on the 3D card.

Ok well for that, OpenGL is the only cross platform, one-stop-shop, option. Direct3D is wonderful, but Windows only. Mac and Linux only support OpenGL.

For Windows you are good. Anyone who has an nVidia or ATi card has a top-flight hardware accelerated OpenGL driver installed along with the rest of the driver installs. For nVidia cards it is in ever way as fast as their DirectX driver. For ATi the performance is a bit slower, but still works great and has full feature support for whatever the hardware can handle (OpenGL 4.1 on the latest 5000 and 6000 series cards). Even the integrated Intel chips come with an OpenGL driver, though it does lag a bit behind and they aren't really very good chips for gaming anyhow.

On the Mac, OpenGL is an assumed part of the driver. Apple provides you with the driver for your graphics hardware, and accelerated GL is part of what you get. Their GL stack isn't the best, it is a little pokey, you find performance is better under Windows, but they've improved it some, and will probably continue to do so. Speed issues aside, it works and doesn't crash. It works for games, a number use it, if the only side effect is lower FPS that is ok.

On Linux... The situation is a disaster. Only the binary nVidia driver, you know the one all the OSS heads hate on, has full support for modern OpenGL features, is fast, and is stable. Sorry, but that is not at all going to cut it for games. They need properly functioning drivers, since they need 3D.

So no, doesn't really look like you can just carefully choose libraries and code a game that'll run well on all the platforms.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=605222

Yes.

Firefox's Autopager does the same thing, I guess. Haven't tried Safari since leaving Windows.

Safari comes with a Reader mode built-in, and there's the Readability add-on for Firefox and a similar one for Chrome. For general browser-agnostic solutions, often with mobile variants, there is the web version of Readability, or the Instapaper service.

To the best of my knowledge, all of those will slurp in multiple pages of an article when producing the clean/readable version of the article.

They are doing as part of the electrolysyis project, though I can't see how this fits in with their release roadmap.

And that is exactly the problem. They hardly get the stuff on the roadmap done, so how do they every want to complete this project?

All the other browsers are adopting a decent security model with process separation and enforced sand boxing of plugins and tabs. How about catching up with some decent engineering, instead of another GUI mock up?

They are doing as part of the electrolysyis project, though I can't see how this fits in with their release roadmap.

Glen Beck is a Religious Fanatic (Mormon I believe) but thank you for the Ad hominem. At any rate most /.ers know how to opt out of the one evil Google could do. Though he mine as well told his viewers to stop using the internet because of the googleanalytic script.

For what it's worth, Flash is open. I wrote a few simple apps in raw flex, and some much more complex ones with Open Laszlo. True, Adobe opened it up in a desperate (and largely successful) bid to survive Silverlight. The openness of Flash made it possible for me to write this, so all and all I can't complain. Not as a developer anyway.

Yeah, they are called eyeballs, expensive but by far the most effective anti-SEO method. SEO is only meant to align your site with people likely to search for it, any more than that and you end up doing nothing but pissing people off. When using google there is this http://www.optimizegoogle.com/ and when combined with stylish https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/stylish/ , those crappy SEO sites disappear all together.

Now if google were less invasive and more polite and sought the output from OptimizeGoogle and all those annoying filtered website, it would go a long way to providing a far cheaper algorithmic method of clearing out SEO cheats.

Now where exactly do we see FireFox's VP8 implementation 5 years from now?

Working fine, because it's already working fine. Open, royalty-free video will be dominant on the Web.

Does anybody believe that Mozilla will spend lots of money developing a hardware accelerated implementation for any platform and shove that into the source tree? Would they even accept such a thing if someone else developed it for them? They probably wouldn't do that either, as then they would have to maintain two VP8 codecs... So basically FireFox will never have hardware accelerated VP8, right? They wont use that nice system codec, after all.

Firefox already uses the GPU for video colour space conversion:

http://www.basschouten.com/blog1.php/2010/04/07/firefox-video-goes-up-to-11

Mozilla already spent money on the development of a hardware accelerated Theora implementation for mobile devices:

http://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/04/theora-on-n900/
http://www.schleef.org/blog/2009/11/11/theora-on-ti-c64x-dsp-and-omap3/

And of course the WebM project is looking to develop GPGPU acceleration of VP8 so Mozilla may not, in fact, need to do anything:

http://www.webmproject.org/code/roadmap/

I understand the appeal of hate, but please at least try to bring some informed hate to the discussion.

> Firefox 4 has support for DEP but not ASLR

That's just false. Firefox 4 supports ASLR, as do current 3.6 security updates. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405523 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=559133 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=567134

> Firefox 4 has support for DEP but not ASLR

That's just false. Firefox 4 supports ASLR, as do current 3.6 security updates. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405523 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=559133 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=567134

> Firefox 4 has support for DEP but not ASLR

That's just false. Firefox 4 supports ASLR, as do current 3.6 security updates. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405523 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=559133 and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=567134

Is this still there on Beta 11?
Last I briefly looked at the FF Development Notes they're making progress on getting rid of 'blocker' bugs, which I figured yours would be.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/2011-02-08

I should add, the browser is fishing for X-Content-Duration headers.
If you don't serve them, you'll get an orbital bombardment of '206 partial content' requests, as it attempts auto-discovery on every single track.

I do believe he is referring to SkipScreen. It's pretty awesome.

the stubborn insistence upon sticking with Gecko

As opposed to what? Webkit? It would be a shame if suddenly one of the three major rendering engines vanished. I'd much rather they stick with Gecko than toss in their hat. Firefox doesn't have to match Safari or Chrome in everything - they're offering a different browser, and that is good for all of us. Gecko is better in some areas, worse in others, and just plain different in others yet. Mozilla makes huge contributions to the HTML spec, largely because they have their own rendering engine, and therefore are actually implementing HTML. They would have very little to say or contribute if all they were doing was creating the browser chrome.

To be honest, your entire post is offensive. "At this point, Mozilla aren't solving any problems with their browser. What's the motivation behind Firefox?" You should try reading Mozilla's mission statement: http://www.mozilla.org/about/mission.html It's a pretty good mission statement, in my opinion, and it answers your question. "Why is it so bloated, and why are any of its developers okay with that fact?" sounds like something you conjured up for yourself - a question that has no relation to the reality of the browser or its developers.

They already do that: http://nightly.mozilla.org/

Firefox obviously won't install the addon if its specified "max version" is lower than the version you're using. So I have a couple of addons that I use in Firefox 4, where I've had to manually change the "max version" to FF4. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. More to the point, it's kind of annoying to deal with, and I don't expect your Average Joe user to go around editing XML files just to see if it's possible that their favorite addon works.

That is what this extension is for: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap#Product_Priorities_for_2011

It states "Four technology shipment vehicles in 2011, including Firefox 4"

That does not mean four versions of FF will be released in 2011, just that FF4 is one of the projects.

WTF? I hope this is just marketing. My plugin already needed two days of tinkering just getting it working in 4; and when I add MP3 tagging and iTunes/Zune support I'll need separate code from version 3 and 4.

Maybe they're just trying to get to 9 fast, so they can match Microsoft, kinda like how the Xbox 2 became the '360'...

This is a major reason why I use firefox, chrome may be open source but firefox extends that to open governance.

1. Ship Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the 2011 calendar year
2. Always respond to a user action within 50 ms
3. Never lose user data or state
4. Build Web Apps, Identity and Social into the Open Web Platform
5. Support new operating systems and hardware
6. Polish the user experience for common interaction tasks
7. Plan and architect for a future of a common platform on which the desktop and mobile products will be built and run Web Apps

I would encourage everyone to read through the full roadmap: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap you shouldn't be disapointed.

Edit: Ugh, slashdot ol means ordered list, stop styling it like a ul.

HTML5 can store data locally, i guess this includes the applications files, so you can still use them while offline.

So what should your application do when it runs up against A. the user agent's limit of 5 MB for offline application files linked from the CACHE MANIFEST, B. the user agent's limit of 5 MB for data in localStorage, or C. the user agent's lack of methods first introduced in Firefox 4 for file input objects (<input type="file">)?

Quoting WP:

A footnote in Mozilla's 2006 financial report states "Mozilla has a contract with a search engine provider for royalties. The contract originally expired in November 2006, however Google renewed the contract until November 2008 and has now renewed the contract through 2011.[8] Approximately 85% of Mozillaâ(TM)s revenue for 2006 was derived from this contract."

The financial FAQ dated November 18, 2010 says:

What is the status of the organization's contract with Google?

We have had a productive relationship with Google since 2004 and that relationship remains healthy. To date, we have renewed our contract three times, in 2005, 2006 and 2008. The current version extends through 2011.

So through 2011 Mozilla has a very good deal. But then Google didn't have a browser of their own and desperately needed Mozilla to break the IE monopoly. I suspect that these negotiations will go quite differently. I'm sure the deal will be extended but I doubt the terms will be anywhere near as favorable as they have been. Google has seen how easily they can now push their own browser into the market, they don't "need" Firefox that much anymore. And from a strict business point of view, where would they go? Bing? Yeah, I'm sure the open source community would love Microsoft as their default search engine. Not to mention that currently Chrome has targeted the IE holdouts. If they go their separate ways, Google will do their best to win Firefox users too. I'd put good money on the browser market looking completely changed in 2-3 years.

https://addons.mozilla.org/af/firefox/addon/configuration-mania-4420/

Install this addon.

Click Edit for Mac/Linux or Tools for Windows, Configuration Mania, which should be under preferences.

Make sure Browser is highlighted on the top row, if not click it. Click Browser Cache on the Left Column. Press Disabled under Max Number of Pages Stored in Memory.

It keeps closed pages all in RAM, and decides based on your total RAM how much it will save. There are almost no leaks, just dumb decisions (developers) and judgments (users).

they'll activate your webcam and track your eyeballs.

This would be scary.. if it wasn't potentially true.

How long, exactly, until major websites "require" for a flash / silverlight bug to play.. the sole purpose of which is to enable the camera to track your eyeballs. Resolution? Not that great... but matched with mouse movements and matched up against clicks.. it could well be data worth having.

Of course, we all use flashblock, so it won't be a problem for us. Right?

If you use Firefox there is an add-on called Scroogle that sidesteps these cursor-movement worries, plus leaving no tracks for Google to assimilate. It will add itself to the list of available search engines. I use it almost exclusively nowadays. Of course one must trust Pathetic Cockroach, the author, but the 5-star reviews speak loudly to me. I've never heard any criticism of it and would be interested if there is...

They've already started doing a very hacky thing to their search results in order to monitor us. The links are changing to a redirect url when clicked. Had to use YesScript to block it.

If you're running firefox, install the moderatrix script for greasemonkey. It adds a confirmation button. I haven't had mod points since the site redesign so I'm not sure if it's still in working order, but if that's the case then it should be fixed soon

To save typing, "inurl:wikipedia [search terms]" or even "wiki [search terms]" works just as well.

You can also create your own custom search plug-in - pretty simple actually, just an XML file.

Not according to Mozilla.

https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Accessibility/AT-APIs/Web_Specifications

"MathML is supported in Gecko starting from Gecko 1.8.0 (Firefox 1.5)"

Yeah, no great loss.

I proposed something to the W3C many years ago that would have improved web security (and if implemented would have stopped the myspace and other XSS worms). But the W3C are just interested in more and more "Go" buttons and they didn't even want a single "Stop" button.

Anyway, Mozilla has finally proposed something in concept (more encompassing but also more complex) CSP which might help: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/CSP.

NoScript. Whitelist.

The example script correctly showed me being logged in on Facebook.
Glad it did, made me realize that I'd forgotten to turn CsFire back on for God knows how long.
Now it falsely states that I'm not logged into Facebook. What'd I do without my tinfoil-firefox-plugins?

Mozilla and Opera have a revenue stream from Google for placing a search field next to the address field.

Or just find a CA that is either sympathetic to your cause or subject to your coercion.

read and weep. A list this long and spread through so many different countries is not the way to run a tight ship security wise.

I use Perspectives out of paranoia about this sort of thing. It's easy - just install and hope it never alerts you.
This is a tool activists should be aware of and employ religiously.

Link for Netscape and Mozilla SeaMonkey users:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/ghostery/

and is called Ghostery. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ghostery/

fun ff addon... dont leave homepage without it https://addons.mozilla.org/7en-US/firefox/addon/refcontrol/

Copy from Vista's security model: it already treats even admin users in hostilely and sets Command line and file operation warnings so that you must "elevate" manually. A simple implementation for Firefox is a concept like a "Disk firewall" some company already sales:
Encrypt your config folders and/or files so that the files aren't intelligible to anything else.

Like paranoid applications that only trust the Windows registry, put decryption keys, checksums and whatever in undocumented binary bitmaps and checksum even those registry keys somewhere else. Done... random programs mustn't be snooping beyond Firefox's addin API and must ask user nicely for the right^Wprivilege to install. We're tired of Antiviruses, Adobe download managers, HP printers and even random websites easily bundling unannounced toolbars that nobody removes later on.

However, any attempts would block a particularly useful shortcut for extension devs who must constantly uninstall and reinstall after every XPI "compile"

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=231062

...they took away even the *option* to have the status bar.

No, torn between the people that demand that all Firefox features be reduced to addons and the people who want everything in their browser, they gave in to the addon people and made it an addon if you need the old status bar back.

At this point, Mozilla can't win no matter what they do. If they take features away and put them in addons, the people who want everything (like me :) ) complain. If they add features in, the people who want all the features they in particular don't need to be addons complain. They're in a no-win situation

A statusbar isn't a friggin option. It has been a standard UI element for as long as there haven been GUIs (hell it even existed in text-based pseudo GUIs.)

Firefox still has lots of holes in its CSS support. Here's just one ancient example. And its XML viewer is confused by namespaces. Is it 1999?

I use Feed Sidebar. It's not perfect but usable. Sometimes the feed pane freezes, maybe that's related to what grandparent describes.

The development notes say they are trying hard to crank down the bugs.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/2011-01-18

we have fixed 90 hard blockers since the last code freeze

beta10 proposal: code freeze this Friday to get coverage on 90+ hard blockers fixed since b9

The development notes say they are trying hard to crank down the bugs.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/2011-01-18

we have fixed 90 hard blockers since the last code freeze

beta10 proposal: code freeze this Friday to get coverage on 90+ hard blockers fixed since b9

Not as old, but close: SRV support has been lingering since 1999.

Truly reliable hosting (professional uptime) from a SOHO? Not until this is fixed.*

* Unless we set our A records to have obscenely low TTL and have some external monitors that immediately switch to backup servers if / when main goes down.

(P.S.: wow, pasting from chromium now works..???)

...they took away even the *option* to have the status bar.

No, torn between the people that demand that all Firefox features be reduced to addons and the people who want everything in their browser, they gave in to the addon people and made it an addon if you need the old status bar back.

At this point, Mozilla can't win no matter what they do.

I think they could. I just want a little sanity in their choices of what's core browser functionality, versus what you need to install addons for.

Per-domain cookie control and per-domain script permissions are basic necessities on the web if you want to avoid malware and preserve your privacy--yet Firefox developers refuse to put the functionality in the browser. As a result, pretty much any real use of Firefox involves half a dozen add-ons, with consequent reduction in stability and performance.