Firefox Secrets

Craig Maloney writes "By now most readers have probably heard about Firefox, the Open Source browser that poses a serious challenge to Internet Explorer. They've probably even installed it on a few machines, and no doubt have customized it pretty much to their liking. They're pretty comfortable with how it works in their day-to-day browsing activities. Plus, Firefox is pretty open, and about:config, extensions, and themes have many pages dedicated to their use. What more could there be to Firefox? Firefox Secrets is a collection of tips and tricks to help wring out that last kernel of performance from Firefox, with specific ways to increase users productivity with Firefox. It also contains plenty of tips for new Firefox users to guide them to learning what Firefox is, and how it can improve their browsing experience." Read on for Craig's review. Firefox Secrets author Chean Chu Yeow pages 297 publisher Sitepoint rating 8/10 reviewer Craig Maloney ISBN 0-9752402-4-2 summary Firefox tips and techniques for new and experienced users.

Firefox Secrets presents the material in a well thought out manner. Each chapter starts with a specific task in mind, with helpful tips in performing that task listed throughout the rest of the chapter. In the chapter entitled "Revisiting Web Pages" (something we are all bound to do at some time in our lives), Firefox Secrets starts the chapter with sections on importing bookmarks from other programs, creating new bookmarks, and using the bookmark manager. (Pretty basic stuff which most Slashdot readers have no doubt mastered). The power, though, lies in the rest of the chapter, where the book lists out how to add a bookmark for a group of tabs, how to create several types of keyword bookmark, how to use the bookmarks tool bar, and how to use the bookmark manager and sidebar. It then talks about Firefox's RSS and Live bookmarks, and how to create them using the RSS icon, and create them manually. Finally the chapter finishes off with the cookie and history managers, as well as the password manager. Each section is described in detail with clear directions on how to use the feature, and clear explanations on why readers would want to use the feature.

Expert users need not worry, though, as this book has plenty for them too. One of the more powerful features of Firefox are the Extensions, which allow incredible recognizability in Firefox. The chapter on Extensions starts with an introduction to what Extensions are, and why they're so important. Next the author describes installing an extension, and uses the miniT extension (an extension that allows drag-and-drop tab placement) as a sample extension to install. The author begins by directing the browser to the extensions site, installing the extension, and configuring the extension once the browser has recognized it. From there the author discusses installing from sites other than the Mozilla Extensions site, installing from a local file, and using the extensions manager to track and configure extensions. As someone who has installed many extensions that proved less than useful, or prevented Firefox from even starting properly, the next section on uninstalling and entering Firefox's safe-mode could prove profile-saving. (I have had several occasions where knowing about safe-mode would have saved me a half-hour's work in rebuilding my profile). The author moves from this introductory material to a list of his personal favorite extensions. Unless the reader has an RSS feed tuned to the Mozilla Extensions site, there's bound to be several extensions that the reader will find useful. (I downloaded the Spellbound Spell Check, and Download Status bar extensions during the course of this review).

Of course no book on the secrets of Firefox would be complete without mentioning about:config. about:config holds a treasure-trove of configurable options for Firefox, many of which are not self-evident without a guide of some form. Firefox secrets does not provide a comprehensive look at about:config, but instead shows what about:config is, shows how to use it, and presents a few neat tips that can be set by about:config. Other somewhat hidden preference features include the .css and .js files under the user profile. Firefox Secrets quickly glosses over some key tips, such as CSS examples for marking unread tabs, and shifting the sidebar to the right. Also included are tips for customizing the user interface, and incorporating web development features which developers will no doubt find extremely handy in their daily development rituals. The book finishes off with best practices for downloading and using the Firefox nightly builds, and what sorts of issues to expect.

Some people out there may feel that Firefox Secrets doesn't offer any tips that can't be found on the web. It's a fair assessment that some of the ideas presented in the book should be pretty routine for expert Firefox users. However, unless you have RSS feeds to every Mozilla development site, and maintain an encyclopedic knowledge of every configurable doo-dad and Extension, you'll likely find many good tips and best practices for enhancing your browsing experience. I'll admit I was skeptical this book would provide me anything of value, and I've been pleasantly surprised at how insightful this book is. Firefox Secrets balances between beginning users who have yet to install their first extension, and experts who want to take their browsing to the next level."

You can purchase Firefox Secrets from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox"

[Anonymous Coward]

In the old days of Slashdot, that would've been "Most readers have probably worked on Firefox" Sheesh, this place really is on the way down.

Books for web browsers?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I can understand writing a book about a web browser, shouln't it be a webpage that teaches how to use it interactively?

Re:Books for web browsers?

[Guysmiley777]

You're missing the beauty of publishing a book about a web browser. You rake in cash from sales, and 6 months later the thing is obsolete so you can crank out a "2nd Edition" and cash in again.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[FireBreathingDog]

That reminds me of a story I heard in the mid-1980s. A manufacturer of VCRs shipped each box with a videotape explaining how to use the VCR. The tape included instructions on how to hook up the VCR.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I can understand writing a book about a web browser, shouln't it be a webpage that teaches how to use it interactively?

Good point. In addition, I find something creepy about selling something designed to help you use a free web browser. Seems like the right thing to do would have been to make it a free e-book or a web page (like you suggest).

Re:Books for web browsers?

[SComps]

Is that anything like the small local ISP putting a special "troubleshooting" section on their webpage detailing information about troubleshooting a modem connection problem, and what to do if they can't get connected to the internet?

Yes, that was actually done around here. They've since taken it down, no doubt due to the ridicule from even the most basic customer.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't needed to bootstrap Internet connectivity here since the early 90s... I have always had an alternative method, and these days most people in developed countries have friends with Internet access.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[drpimp]

How about a Firefox extension that teaches about Firefox?

Or better yet how about the default URL to be

about:firefox

And be a full tutorial w/ all the demo bells and whistles?

Re:Books for web browsers?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's worse is a set of Zip utilities that are compressed.

No, really. I've seen them.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[been42]

That reminds me of a story I heard in the mid-1980s. A manufacturer of VCRs shipped each box with a videotape explaining how to use the VCR. The tape included instructions on how to hook up the VCR.

A few years ago, my brother in law bought a hard drive that came with instructions on CD-ROM. He ruined the drive by hooking it up with the power still on, because the instructions never said to turn the computer off.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't laugh: I bought a late-model Sony CDU-33A, the one that came with the proprietary interface card before Sony went to ATAPI years back. Meh, it was cheap. The drive came with instructions and the DOS and OS/2 drivers, of course.

On CD-ROM.

:-?

Re:Books for web browsers?

[Politburo]

So have I.. but in an executable package.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[Tomaaah]

While I agree that would seem sensible and laudable, I do find it a little disturbing that no one seems to be "allowed" earn any money these days without being criticised.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[coolgeek]

You obviously have too much protein in your diet, and are thus unable to see the benefits of such a vegan hippie lifestyle.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[Tomaaah]

You might be right. I do find the blood and dripping from my salivating mouth messes with my keyboard.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[kimvette]

Guess you never bought any O'reilly books then, eh? There are plenty of O'reilly books covering the various GNU- and BSD-licensed tools.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[Skim123]

I know your comment is probably said in a lighthearted manner, but being an author of computer trade books, "cranking out a '2nd Edition'" is no walk in the park. It can take several months of several hours per day. Also, I don't think anyone "cashes in" with computer trade books, especially not the authors! Don't get me wrong, authors do get paid, but it's usually not enough to do for a full time job unless you're cranking out four to eight books per year.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[shawb]

With open source software, the mantra is that businesses can still make money supporting the software, helping streamline the whole experience. Writing a book describing tips and tricks to squeeze more out of it counts as support in my mind.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

It's not stupid at all. A great many internet connections were set up by friends etc, who had working connections. When they would run into trouble, they would often use their own connection at home, a laptop etc, to get troubleshooting advice.

And yes, I was a small ISP who had a troubleshooting web page. Installed when my customers *asked* me for it.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[shellbeach]

Yes, that was actually done around here. They've since taken it down, no doubt due to the ridicule from even the most basic customer.

Yeah, because everyone knows that there's no other way to access the internet other than a home connection. It's kinda funny that workplaces don't have internet access yet, and you'd have thought that local libraries would have provided it as a community service, but no ...

Geez, it's almost as crazy as the ISPs who allow you to sign up on their web page!! They must have been smoking crack or something, huh?

Re:Books for web browsers?

[toddestan]

That's not stupid. If I'm troubleshooting someone's non-working dial up connection, and I have a computer with a working internet connection - you can bet I'm going to check out the ISP's webpage and see if there is any suggestions. And then there are always the more clued in users who may check out the page when their connection does work, and thus have an idea where to start if it fails.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[Anonymous Coward]

But that O'Reilly dude publishes like a million a year! How does he do that?

Re:Books for web browsers?

[DigitalReality]

My favorite thing was when my University's dorm network service e-mailed me to tell me that my credit card number was wrong, and that they couldn't get my connection up because they were not able to process the payment.

Re:Books for web browsers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Zip utilities, but I saw StuffIt for Mac compressed with StuffIt. There was even an FAQ article on their site that says "We know that this is a chicken-and-egg problem, but you can always find an older version of StuffIt in a CD distributed by Mac magazines".

Re:Books for web browsers?

[SComps]

Too bad I can't moderate in topics I'm discussing. I'd give you mine. Thank you for a lucid response to an (originally) tongue in cheek type hopefully humorous post. None the less yes, most of us that are technically astute do check out our ISP's troubleshooting pages before a problem exists.

Many of the other suggestions defending such a facility (as if I was seriously deriding it) lack the forthought to understand that most of the internet population is *not* technically astute and wouldn't think to check it out ahead... nor admit to a friend they don't know etc and so on. Finally the concept of running off to a friends, work or library doesn't exactly hold water because part of troubleshooting is trying a potential solution and checking the results. For those of us that handle customer repairs, the value of an on-site visit jumps immediately to mind. Being away from the device in trouble makes it much more difficult to troubleshoot. This is why many cable company's won't offer you technical support for a connectivity issue unless you're actually sitting at the computer (with the modem nearby) when you call in. Sure they'll try and offer you some suggestions. They'll even give you an incident number, but the gist of it is to call back with that number when you're at the computer and possibly have tried the general solutions they've offered.

A better solution might be a simple photocopied or laser printed troubleshooting guide that the customer gets when they pick up their new customer package. For the companies that want to go hog-wild, maybe even copy those troubleshooting web pages to the new customer CD that the customer can go through from a nice "What? It doesn't work?" type link.

In the end though guys, it was mean to be a funny... a poor one yes, but still a funny. Don't get your panties in such a knot. (toddestan this isn't directed at you--you're only a convenient Reply to This link)

Re:Books for web browsers?

[StikyPad]

Next thing you know, people will be calling the phone company..

too much?

[jacobcaz]

I like Firefox, but at what point is something so extendible that it's to confusing?

I normally use Opera, and love the features it has. I've been able to make Firefox mimic Opera in functionality, but I was somewhat overwhelmed by ALL of the plugins.

I figure if someone who is fairly sophisticated technically is overwhelmed then God help someone like my wife or my co-workers (sorry, this is slashdot, my "cow-orkers"). They would be completely confused!

Open source is great, but now we need to have some time spent to "friendlyify" it for people who are between being a newbie and a power user.

Re:too much?

[drinkypoo]

I like Firefox, but at what point is something so extendible that it's to confusing?

At the point at which it becomes a language called English, apparently... It's to (sic) hard.

Seriously though, there's more automotive performance enhancement parts out there than there are firefox plugins. Does that make it hard to drive a car?

Re:too much?

[jcostantino]

That's dangerous talk, I commented here on how Linux isn't ready for mainstream home computer use because it's so intimidating and was crucified.

Re:too much?

[brandondash]

99% of firefox users have never heard of a browser plugin. They simply fire it up and it just works (tm). The fact that you can customize and extend it is only icing on the cake.

Re:too much?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the setup of firefox to mimic Opera is too complex for your co-workers, then use Opera.

Re:too much?

[skyhawker]

Seriously though, there's more automotive performance enhancement parts out there than there are firefox plugins.

Hey, what a concept. I wonder if somebody's working on a ricer version of Firefox.

Re:too much?

[jacobcaz]

At the point at which it becomes a language called English, apparently... It's to (sic) hard.

I realized my tyopgraphic error about 2 seconds after I hit submit - languange is indeed "to hard".

Anyway, a user will typically be a fairly hard-core "car guy" before they get into a lot of the aftermarket parts. My mother certianly isn't putting Fram performance air handlers on her car. The last time I bought a car I was basically given a menu by the dealer; there were a few option packages I could add on. I will probably not add any more than those options.

I would bet this is true for a very large percentage of car buyers. I would further bet there is parallel (proportionally) between the number hard-core computer "geek" and hard-core car "geeks".

I don't think car driving is a fair analogy; car buying is more likely. I still maintain that the open source community should spend a bit more effort on "friendlyifying" its wares.

Re:too much?

[m50d]

Seriously though, there's more automotive performance enhancement parts out there than there are firefox plugins. Does that make it hard to drive a car?

No, but it makes it easier to buy a Ferrari than buy a Honda and make it go faster, even if you get a better car in the end the second way. So I'll stick with Opera.

Re:too much?

[drinkypoo]

FWIW there's nothing you can do to get a better car by starting with a honda than with a ferrari. Now, if you said Nissan... :D

Re:too much?

[SydShamino]

Really, Adblock is the only basic Extension that, in my opinion, is required. Here at home it's the only one I install.

I use a few more at work, but I need more from my browser there. I have Copy Plain Text, which works wonders when grabbing product specs, etc., to paste into Word and Excel documents. And I installed Focus Last Selected Tab, which helps when I'm blowing through page after page of slightly different ICs, looking for the one with the exact featureset I need.

If any of those were integrated into base Firefox, I wouldn't mind. But really, only Adblock is a necessity.

Re:too much?

[CastrTroy]

That really depends on what you consider better. If you want a car that seats 4, then you're going to have an easier time getting a Honda that seats 4, then trying to retrofit a ferrari to seat 4.

Re:too much?

[voxel]

but I was somewhat overwhelmed by ALL of the plugins.

You don't have to install ALL the plugins. You can pick one or two! :-)

Re:too much?

[jsight]

That really depends on what you consider better. If you want a car that seats 4, then you're going to have an easier time getting a Honda that seats 4, then trying to retrofit a ferrari to seat 4.

Why retrofit, when you can buy it that way straight from the factory?
Ferrari with 4 Seats (Ferrari 612)

It's certainly not the only four seater that they've ever made, either.

Re:too much?

[m50d]

I'm sure there is. Replace the chassis, then the engine,...

Re:too much?

[drinkypoo]

A lot of people get bolt-on parts installed on their cars even if they don't know diddly about cars, mostly headers, cat-back exhaust systems, and intakes, not to mention all the cosmetic crap. (Sure, a cat-back by itself may only add 3hp, but when you add 3hp to a 100hp car, that's something you might even be able to feel.)

similarly, a lot of people have am addon to their browser even though they don't know shit about browsers, like yahoo or google toolbar. All people knew when they got those things originally is that it would stop popups and help them search, which was enough for them...

Re:too much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Adblock, mouse gestures, and the linked images bookmarklet. You need the linked images bookmarklet in case you are opening a lot of images linked from thumbnails. Like... umm... art. Yeah... artistic pictures.

Mouse gestures is essential because it is hard to use a keyboard and mouse with one hand. Umm... because the other hand is being used to draw when you are viewing all the samples so you can get ideas and practice on new techiques. Or at least you have your pencil in your hand.

And Adblock? You need that cause porn^H^H^H^H^H art sites have a lot of popup ads.

Re:too much?

[wickersty]

So does using (sic) and bashing a too misspelling make you feel all good and high and mighty, and too cool for the room? Man, I look up to you.

Re:too much?

[MktDataguy]

Funny, AI have a 520 hp nissan, w 440/lbs torque, can spell too, and can use (sic) properly, and sleep with real women....damn, I just made myself obsolete on slashdot.org Oh damn...BaBaBooey

Re:too much?

[abstractmonkey]

>> there's more automotive performance enhancement parts

So, how lame is it to pound on someone for a typo and then make your own?

Perhaps you meant to say that there *are* more automotive performance enhancement parts?

Re:too much?

[m50d]

Sure, if you're an enthusiast then go for it. But you can't claim that's the best way for a typical user.

Mmm

[Saiyine]

unless you have RSS feeds to every Mozilla development site

I read Slashdot every day, you insensitive clod!

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[wDhan]

lol at Safari. An average browser nothing special and certainly not "better".

Target audience

[wombatmobile]

Some people out there may feel that Firefox Secrets doesn't offer any tips that can't be found on the web. It's a fair assessment that some of the ideas presented in the book should be pretty routine for expert Firefox users.

This is a hardcopy book to be sold in bookstores to normal people.

It makes the information plainly available to lots of people.

Re:Target audience

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have an account, but just felt that I had to reply to this.

"It makes the information plainly available to lots of people."
Isn't that the point of ... the internet? Making information plainly available to lots of people?

Re:Target audience

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh.. if it was to be "directed to normal people that would use Firefox", then it should be a website, not a book. This is just a tool to generate income for someone that probably scoured the web for tidbits about Firefox.
Kudos for him or her that compiled the book, but at the same time it's too bad there isn't a source that doesnt' have to be purchased and can reveal the same information in a neat package such as this for free...

The browser may be free, but the owners manual is gonna cost ya'! (sarcasm for those that couldn't tell)

Re:Target audience

[wombatmobile]

I don't have an account, but just felt that I had to reply to this.

Oh?

"It makes the information plainly available to lots of people." Isn't that the point of ... the internet? Making information plainly available to lots of people?

Ah. You're younger than me. Let me explain.

Heaps of old people go to bookstores to find out about new stuff. They aren't the same zillions of people that find out about new stuff online. That's because they evolved prior to the broad availability of the internet.

This book is useful for them.

Re:Target audience

[wmajik]

This is a hardcopy book to be sold in bookstores to normal people.

Sir, I take grave offense at your implication that the slashdot crowd is not normal! In fact, I challenge you to a roll of 1d20 post-haste. Draw your sword, knave!

.. er.. ok fine, you win.

Re:Target audience

[kosmicki]

I'll have you know I have a vicious short sword! *Rolls* Lets see... 1d6 base... add 2d6 +1 for vicious... I'm a 4th level rogue so that's 2d6 sneak attack... Did you see me? Nevermind, so add that up and...

Err... Uhh...

Nothing to see here... Move along...

Funding?

[IAAP]

I agree with yow. Something else to consider: I see that the editors are active in the OSS/Mozilla authoring. Yeow actually writes extensions (all for free!). This would be a great way to make a living while doing something you love and contributing to OSS.

At least, that's the way I look at it.

Re:Funding?

[chromatic]

Actually, writing technical books is a terrible way to make a living, when you consider the money earned versus time spent ratio.

Re:Funding?

[deesto]

If you think the payback for writing technical books is bad, try writing e-Learning courses on technical subjects: just as much time and writing involved, and the pay ratio doesn't get much worse.

Definitely a "just search the web" opinion here

[mopslik]

However, unless you have RSS feeds to every Mozilla development site, and maintain an encyclopedic knowledge of every configurable doo-dad and Extension, you'll likely find many good tips and best practices for enhancing your browsing experience.

Well, I don't have any Mozilla RSS feeds and I'm sure not familiar with the majority of available extensions, but any search engine will quickly point you toward something useful if you have some idea as to the nature of the problem you want to solve. For example, after giving in and buying a LCD monitor (ooooh shiny!) the menu/tab/statusbar/etc. fonts looked huge in Firefox. Changing my KDE settings did nothing to fix this. A fast Google search on "firefox font size menu tab" produces this page as the second result (was the first a few days back). Instant fix.

I guess the book might be good for "uber-n00bs", but aren't the majority of Slashdot readers outside of this category?

Re:Definitely a "just search the web" opinion here

[Kimos]

But how are you going to search the web if you don't know how to use Firefox yet!?

Re:Definitely a "just search the web" opinion here

[geekoid]

well, you had a problem so you could search for a solution.
What about just have a cool book of tips you can skim? this way you might find somthing you wouldn't have thought of.

Re:Definitely a "just search the web" opinion here

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the book might be good for "uber-n00bs", but aren't the majority of Slashdot readers outside of this category?

No.

Re:Definitely a "just search the web" opinion here

[techno-vampire]

I guess the book might be good for "uber-n00bs", but aren't the majority of Slashdot readers outside of this category?

Probably. But Aunt Minnie isn't, and this would make a great present for her. That's the value of having the review here, just in time for geeks to get copies for their friends and family.

Firefox confirms it, Slashdot is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashwhat? The slashdot effect is dead. The new kid on the block is digg.

Re:Firefox confirms it, Slashdot is dying

[aftk2]

You may be right, but it's really too bad that the typical digg submission makes the typical Slashdot submission look like a Graduate thesis.

Re:Firefox confirms it, Slashdot is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of seeing links to Digg. Digg is a community of complete and utter retards. Everything at Digg is of abysmal quality; the programming behind the site, the comments, the stories etc. Go back to watching that dumb ass Kevin Rose drink some beer and talk about things intelligent people knew about years ago. That guy is the dumbest script kiddie I've ever met and that's taking it to a whole new level of incompetence.

Fucking Digg idiots should be scientifically examined so we as a human race can find out how to avoid creating this kind of trash in the future. Go back to Digg idiot, you never know you might have missed a few basic CSS tutorials.

Re:Firefox confirms it, Slashdot is dying

[carnifex0]

Please, tell us how you really feel..

Re:Firefox confirms it, Slashdot is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of seeing links to Slashdot. Slashdot is a community of complete and utter retards. Everything at Slashdot is of abysmal quality; the programming behind the site, the comments, the stories etc. Go back to watching that dumb ass Rob Malda drink some beer and talk about things intelligent people knew about years ago. That guy is the dumbest script kiddie I've ever met and that's taking it to a whole new level of incompetence.

Fucking Slashdot idiots should be scientifically examined so we as a human race can find out how to avoid creating this kind of trash in the future. Go back to Slashdot idiot, you never know you might have missed a few basic CSS tutorials.

Weird. It works even more with a couple of search-and-replaces.

Useful secrets for those with FF memory leaks..

[cyclocommuter]

Disable back/forward caching in about:config:

browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers 0

Enables trimming Firefox memory usage when you minimize all Firefox windows:

config.trim_on_minimize true

Re:Useful secrets for those with FF memory leaks..

[Anonymous Coward]

Also disable the "download manager"

Re:Useful secrets for those with FF memory leaks..

[Anonymous Coward]

browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers 0
That disables "blazingly fast back", which makes browsing significantly faster for most users.

Re:Useful secrets for those with FF memory leaks..

[deesto]

browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers is actually browser.sessionhistory.max_viewers in 1.0.7. config.trim_on_minimize does not seem to exist in 1.0.7.

Re:Useful secrets for those with FF memory leaks..

[Anonymous Coward]

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24151 8
I'm sure this one when it lands will help even more. :)

Re:Useful secrets for those with FF memory leaks..

[AlanS2002]

config.trim_on_minimize does not seem to exist in 1.5 either.

Re:An 1.5 x64 version!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... My Debian distribution has this.

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8)... Debian/1.5.dfsg-2 Firefox1.5.

Ta

does it tell the secret

[Anonymous Coward]

to making 1.5 stop crashing and hogging 100% cpu?

Re:does it tell the secret

[Anonymous Coward]

Look one post above yours.

experts?

[ltwally]

"Expert users need not worry, though, as this book has plenty for them too. ... The chapter on Extensions starts with an introduction to what Extensions are, and why they're so important."

A description of what extension are and how to install/configure them is deemed expert. Eh.. I'm sorry, but even my technologically illiterate mother could figure this one out.

Though there is a section on about:config and the .css & .js files, is there any information here that could not be found with 2 minutes of your time and google? I doubt it. And, this book, unlike the information you can find using google, will be out of date in a matter of months.

"Firefox Secrets balances between beginning users who have yet to install their first extension, and experts who want to take their browsing to the next level."

<shrugs> I'm not saying this book is bad.. I'm just saying that the author of this review doesn't seem to understand what an "expert" is. From the review, I see little here that most /.'ers won't already know.

Re:experts?

[Sebastopol]

I used to write jacket copy for Prima publishing ($100 a pop!), and jacket authors never read the book! You just skim it, pick up some big words, get to know the TOC, look for a few important concepts, and big-bang-boom, you're done in about 1~2 hours.

Don't judge a book by its cover, because the people that write the covers are idiots (yes, that means me).

Re:experts?

[InfiniteWisdom]

Slashdotters might still want to know about the book, say, to give as gifts or recommend to friends and family members.

Re:experts?

[Anonymous Coward]

It already is out of date. It uses a plugin which adds tab-reordering functionality. Fx 1.5 already has that.

Re:experts?

[Craig Maloney]

"Some people out there may feel that Firefox Secrets doesn't offer any tips that can't be found on the web. It's a fair assessment that some of the ideas presented in the book should be pretty routine for expert Firefox users."

That portion of the review was tailor made for you. :) By expert, I was referring to people who are open to learning from a book. I understand there's gobs of information waiting to be searched via Google and the like, but having that information in print-form is handy, at least for me.

Re:experts?

[Anonymous Coward]

is there any information here that could not be found with 2 minutes of your time and google?

It's a book. You are talking about googling for a solution to a problem that *you* have identified. What about problems that you haven't seen yet, or mere tips to improve your surfing experience? How can you google for stuff you're not even aware of, because it's bleeding-edge (as far as browsers go, that is). I'll take the dead-tree, soon-to-be-dog-eared bathroom browser version, thank you. Googling may work but in a tunnel vision sort of way. You can surf, all the while blissfully ignorant of what other things the browser is capable of.

Re:experts?

[JaLooNz]

Wait... experts submit bugs to Mozilla. This book doesn't seem to cover how to submit bugs to Mozilla! https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/

Thumbnails in firefox

[Some Programmer]

Talking of firefox extensions this one is a must have https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=1457 It lets you see thumbnails of your open webpages.

Re:Thumbnails in firefox

[geekoid]

if only is supported currect FF

Re:Thumbnails in firefox

[flosofl]

if only is supported currect FF

???

Can someone point me to the extension that does "geekoid" to "English" translations?

Re:Thumbnails in firefox

[LordSnooty]

This is coming in IE7. A big killer feature for charlatan web tceh-experts to rave about. Except I don't see the fuss. I have the, er, you know, page titles across the top. If I want to see the pages, I "roll" through them with the m-wheel. Is this a feature for people who operate One Page One Window? 22 Internet Explorer I've seen on a friend's taskbar once.

Re:Thumbnails in firefox

[RemovableBait]

According to Mozilla Update, it supports versions 1.5b2 to 1.6a1. So whats the problem?

Wish there was more on about:config and CSS/JS

[m-wielgo]

seems like 90% of the book is things most of us know already.. I for one wish it went over CSS and JS hacks more and the different things you can do.

And perhaps explain some of the options and values in about:config (stuff that's not easily recognized from the name)

n'th attempt at trying Firefox, back to ie again

[Anonymous Coward]

So this time I am trying to use 1.5... of course, the only thing that makes it worthwhile is the extensions, so I install the automatic refresh extension, configure it to once every 15 minutes, and noticed 24 hours later that it is reloading once every five seconds.

Onto the keyboard shortcut extension for links, but that pales in comparison to the full voice control of Dragon NaturallySpeaking which numbers via a browser helper object links, form elements, etc.

Back to what works for me..., rather than another piece of OSS which epitomises the problem with the bazaar model: a million neat features, only half implemented.

I wish scrolling would be silky smooth on all...

[Wisgary]

browsers :(

Secrets that I search for

[Elixon]

Are there some secrets that will keep my Firefox stable? ;-)

say again?

[ajdowntown]

By now most readers have probably heard about Firefox

What is this "firefox" thing you speak of?

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Weird...

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[mugnyte]

I'd sooner use the cancelled Internet Explorer...

  FYI, your worm-laden machine silently posted this without your knowledge. Perhaps you should stick to surfing with MS Word.

Firefox has very serious problems.

[Futurepower(R)]

For those who do extensive research using a browser, Firefox has serious problems. Opening and closing many Firefox windows and tabs causes crashes and CPU and memory hogging. That kind of heavy user often sees Firefox using 99% CPU and/or more than 400 Megabytes. See these Information Week articles:

Firefox 1.5: Not Ready For Prime Time?

Firefox 1.5 Stability Problems? Readers And Mozilla Respond

The problems are the same in the Mozilla browser. Both have had a CPU and memory hogging bug for more than 2 1/2 years.

The evidence is that Mozilla leaders don't care. Quote from the second article linked above: "Schroepfer and Beard admitted that Mozilla is not working on any of the problems in our bulleted list except for the high memory usage issue. So problems like high CPU usage, program freezes and lock-ups, and long pauses before a tab or the browser opens from hyperlink clicks in other applications might not be fixed in the next version of the program."

For both Firefox and the Mozilla browser, there is a lot of talk about crashes and how to avoid them. Here are some quotes about crashes from the Known Issues for SeaMonkey 1.0 Beta page:

"A significant number of SeaMonkey crashes are actually caused by Java. Please make sure you are using the latest available version of Java."

"Sun's JRE will crash at startup if your useragent does not begin with Mozilla/5."

"Some SeaMonkey crashes are actually caused by Flash. Please make sure you are using the latest available Flash plugin (Bug 211213)."

"On Windows the Adobe SVG plugin crashes. Workaround: Don't copy it (NPSVG3.dll, NPSVG3.zip) into your plugins folder. If you want to view SVGs, SeaMonkey builds (except Linux GTK1) include native SVG support. (Bug 133567)"

Mozilla developers refuse to consider bugs that bug reporters cannot characterize completely. See this Slashdot comment: Leadership problem? See this list of excuses: 1) Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly version. 2) Yes, this bug exists, but it isn't important. 3) No one has posted a TalkBack report. (If they read the bug report, they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too.) 4) If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug. 5) This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. (The other bugs aren't specified.) 6) You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software. 7) I don't like the way you worded your report. 8) You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[CastrTroy]

I think that many of the problems that have been pointed out with Firefox have to do with the plugins. I run firefox and never encounter any problems like high memory usage, or lots of CPU usage. If you install 2000 plugins, weird things will happen. If you don't install that many plugins, or just the ones you really need, everything seems to run smoothly.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet Explorer uses the same resources if not more. It's just that MS hides memory usage inside DLL's and other areas not easily seen by task manager.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[Anonymous Coward]

i've used firefox/mozilla for years and never had those problems. i'm sure they exist, but i don't really care, sorry. if you have those problems maybe you should look at fixing them.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I have a dinosaur of a computer that's starved for memory, but I've never had issues with it running Firefox with only a few essential plugins. Internet Explorer (or many other programs), on the other hand...

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[jafac]

I use Firefox on both Mac OS X and Windows and Linux.

I've seen Firefox crash on the Adobe plugin. And I've seen Firefox use lots of memory when I have lots of tabs open - and I reckon IE would suck just as much RAM if not more by having the same amount of Windows open (while making mulitple-window management of these pages an onerous chore).

I really don't have a problem at all with Firefox's bug fixing process. They tend to fix the critical security ones much more rapidly than Microsoft does for IE.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[renoX]

I wonder why web browser allow plugins to kill the browser?
It is well known that complex plugins (such as flash) are often buggy and that they will often crash and kill the browser, why not run the plugin in a different process?
This way if the plugin fails, the browser can detect it and restart the plugin or the user could ask the browser to restart the plugin.
The only shared memory between the browser and the plugin would correspond to the part of the window rendered by the plugin (you could have several parts handled by the same plugins process to reduce load), this way the plugin process could not corrupt the browser.
Granted it wouldn't help website fully rendered in Flash, but they usually suck, so this isn't a problem :-)

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[CTho9305]

I am a SeaMonkey developer. I fix SeaMonkey bugs, a small number of Gecko bugs, and a very small number of Firefox bugs.

Mozilla developers refuse to consider bugs that bug reporters cannot characterize completely.
You have to understand that we get a HUGE number of useless bugs filed - bugs that say "Huge memory leak", and claim that it's easy to reproduce, or bugs that claim large amounts of CPU usage and again claim it's easy to reproduce. Just because it's easy to reproduce for YOU doesn't mean it's easy to reproduce for US. Additionally, many users use extensions, which basically invalidate their bug reports since we can't possibly debug under the effects of the many changes extensions make, ESPECIALLY if we don't know what extensions and versions of extensions you're using. A report that doesn't completely explain a problem is not necessarily bad if the user is helpful enough and provides good answers when we ask them questions, but too many people file bugs and then can't give us the answers we need.

See this Slashdot comment: Leadership problem? See this list of excuses:
1) Maybe this bug is fixed in the nightly version.
MANY bugs are fixed every day, and it's very aggravating to spend hours of our time tracking down a problem only to find that it was fixed already. It takes the user 5 minutes to try a nightly. I think asking the user to get a nightly build is reasonable.

2) Yes, this bug exists, but it isn't important.
Many bugs that are filed aren't important to 99.99% of the userbase.

3) No one has posted a TalkBack report. (If they read the bug report, they would know that there is never a TalkBack report, because the bug crashes TalkBack, too.)
I would hope that isn't the normal case. I haven't catualy heard of situations that crash talkback anyway (other than maybe flaky hardware).

4) If you would just give us more information, we would fix this bug.
If we don't see it, and you don't give us more info about it, how do we fix it? Read your mind? Other magic?

5) This bug report is a composite of other bugs, so this bug report is invalid. (The other bugs aren't specified.)
Ask what bugs.

6) You are using Firefox in a way that would crash any software.
Example?

7) I don't like the way you worded your report.
If you file a bug that says, "You guys are idiots, you write shitty software that leaks 500MB", you get what you deserve. If you use awful grammar and difficult-to-read style, well, why do you expect us to put hours into fixing a bug when you don't bother to spend 5 minutes properly reporting it?

If you can't write in English (or a language one of the developers understands), it can be very difficult to figure out what the problem is.

8) You should run a debugger and find what causes this problem yourself.
That's not a nice answer, but sometimes developers don't have the time to fix the problem. You're free to pay somebody, but if you want it done for free, you might have to do it yourself.

You have to remember that people have their own lives - SeaMonkey comes after school for me (the 1.0 beta release would have happened a few hours earlier if not for a final exam I had that day, which I had to study for over the weekend). When I'm fixing bugs, it's at the expense of playing games, seeing a movie, studying, or doing something else fun. Fortunately for you, I happen to find it interesting enough to do it anyway, fixing not only bugs that interest me personally but bugs that other people want fixed. The least you could do is say thank you, rather than bitch that I and people like me are not doing enough free labor for you. For developers who are paid, many have specific tasks assigned to them, and need to complete those tasks before they work on other things.

I'm not saying there aren't problems that need to be acknowledged, but many common complaints are ignorant and/or unreasonable.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[CTho9305]

One more comment about bad bugs - many users think >0% CPU usage is excessive, and >20MB memory usage is excessive. How do you think pages get rendered? The CPU does some computation. Of course the CPU usage will spike while a page is loading. If you're viewing a page with a lot of pictures, where do you think the bitmaps are stored? A single 1024x768x32-bit image takes 3MB. If you load a page with 100 large images, of course the browser will need >300MB.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[briancarnell]

"If you're viewing a page with a lot of pictures, where do you think the bitmaps are stored? A single 1024x768x32-bit image takes 3MB. If you load a page with 100 large images, of course the browser will need >300MB."

I love Firefox, but this is a ridiculous comment. Firefox will regularly consume 200-400mb on my machine even when I'm viewing pages that have at most 1 or 2 small 20-30k images.

There seems to be a very large overhead with each tab.

I'm not complaining per se, as I think Firefox is the best browser out there hands-down for doing the sort of extensive research that the original poster mentioned, but the downside is that it is every bit as big a resource hog as IE.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[Hatta]

Dude, get a life. Every time there's a firefox article you're in here grinding your axe. Firefox is the best browser around, and none of these petty digs is going to change that fact. Whatever grudge you have against the firefox devs, you need to grow up and move on. Either that or write a better broswer.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[CTho9305]

I love Firefox, but this is a ridiculous comment. Firefox will regularly consume 200-400mb on my machine even when I'm viewing pages that have at most 1 or 2 small 20-30k images.
I'm not denying that there are leaks - I personally experience them and after a week my browser is often up in the 200-400MB range too. I'm saying that people file bugs about the browser takeing 300MB when it's not leaks, and comment about legitimate memory usage in bugs that are really about leaks, making it harder to figure out when real leaks are happening due to the "bugspam" we have to wade through to find useful info.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[1110110001]

I'd really like to fix the missing ctrl+tab on Mac myself. But I can't put my simple fix in CVS.

Instead I have to fix it everytime a update replaces the tabbrowser stuff. And wrote a step by step guide here and to the task to it in bugzilla. And got ignored and also got ignored after writing a mail about it to the person that changed that sutff.

So I spent my free time and get even less. And you're telling me I shouldn't complain?

b4n

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox is using, on my computer, right now, 107mb.

No extensions are installed, only one tab is open, and the only site I've visited since starting Firefox five minutes ago is Slashdot.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[CTho9305]

What are you talking about? Does ctrl+tab not do anything on mac? Did you file a bug? Firefox or SeaMonkey? If Firefox developers said no, I can't help you. If you're talking about SeaMonkey, I can ask if there's a reason for whatever behavior (or lack thereof) is bothering you.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[1110110001]

No ctrl+tab does nothing since Firefox 1.5. There is a regex that checks for Mac in the useragent to turn that of. There is no alternative that can be pressed with one hand on a notebook keyboard. And why? Because it's not "Mac-like". No power to the user.

b4n

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[CTho9305]

SeaMonkey is much more configurable. Give it a try.

Re:Firefox has very serious problems.

[1110110001]

Did that. Got the last nightly (20051223).

Ctrl+tab doesn't work with seamonkey either. It's the same line in tabbrowser.xml: this.mTabBox.handleCtrlTab = !/Mac/.test(navigator.platform);

Only Cmd+Opt+[left|right] works. And there's no option key near the arrow keys on an Apple notebook.

I guess it should be enough to add bool to about:config so I can enable it if I need or want it without hacking an xml in a jar in a bundle. Or it doesn't matter if all keys can be changed, which is planed anyway IIRC.

b4n

Question

[ats-tech]

This is not a troll, but do people really buy books about web browsers?

I LOVE YOU -nt-

[Anonymous Coward]

 

Another 8/10 review!

[CynicX32]

I'm beginning to think it's a /. conspiracy!

Target Audience: Your Parents & Relatives

[web-res]

The thing to keep in mind that the target audience for this book is not going to be a a power-user who reads Slashdot.org twice-daily and hooks up a webcam to watch the office coffee maker from their cubicle.

This is the sort of book that you put in your parents, relatives, or friends stocking to introduce them to Firefox and make it super-easy for them to get started.

- The Publisher.
http://sitepoint.com/books/firefox1/ (4 Free Sample Chapters Available).

P.S. The book includes a CDROM with Firefox, Thunderbird, and all the extensions mentioned in the title.

Re:Target Audience: Your Parents & Relatives

[op12]

This is the sort of book that you put in your parents, relatives, or friends stocking to introduce them to Firefox and make it super-easy for them to get started.

Or, you could just give them a link to one of the many sites that simply lists the benefits of Firefox, and then help them install it. That would be super-easy and they wouldn't have to read a book. It just seems like this information is already easily accessible to those that really need it through tons of websites, and those that aren't able to find it are the people who want it as simple as possible.

Re:Target Audience: Your Parents & Relatives

[topham]

Twice daily?

I hit refresh a heck of a lot more than that...

now where's that book on 12-step programs.

Re:Target Audience: Your Parents & Relatives

[pookemon]

This is the sort of book that you put in your parents, relatives, or friends stocking to introduce them to Firefox and make it super-easy for them to get started.

The less non "out of the box" software on my parents, relatives and friends PC's, the more time I have for reading /.

If I encouraged the use of ultra configurable software, by non-IT people (ie. friends, family and my parents), I'd be spending all my time fixing the stuff ups. Which is fine, I don't mind helping them with their IT problems - but some of us have to work for a living too.

how to make a ricer Firefox

[Tumbleweed]

add {
  extension:ridiculous body kit
  extension:Big-Ass Wing
  extension:18" rims w/spinners
  extension:ground effect lighting
  extension:thumpin' stereo
  extension:in-dash DVD player
  extension:VTEC sticker
  extension:fake boost gauges
  extension:fire extinguisher (fake, to hold your Ecstasy/weed)
  extension:remote starter
  extension:suicide doors (or scissor doors)
  extension:wiper fluid nozzle lights
  extension:extra chrome
  extension:calvin peeing on something sticker
  extension:some type of rear window sticker proclaiming you to be a bling-bling homey
  extension:some type of sticker with kanji on it (that you can't read)
  extension:Momo or Recaro seats with multi-point seatbelts (which you don't wear)
  extension:under-dash LED or neon lights that plug into the cigarette lighter (for that touch of class)
}
et voila, a ricer Firefox!

I think they call it 'Flock.'

Re:how to make a ricer Firefox

[coolgeek]

You forgot the obligatory "Type R" badge. =)

Re:how to make a ricer Firefox

[drinkypoo]

No, you only put on Type R if you have a toyota - since it belongs on a Honda. What really gets me is the endless legions of Rustang-driving morons with Nissan Skyline "GT-R" badging on their POS ford... but then I'm a Nissan fan. I fully expect to see a chevy citation with a mercedes AMG badge any day now...

Re:how to make a ricer Firefox

[rotagivan]

To save face for the rest of us that know, I must point out that plain suicide doors are not ricey and have been around a long time. Copying the lambo, scissor doors, and most all others are the ricey ones. The rest is dead on!
~long time mini-trucker

Re:how to make a ricer Firefox

[rhacquer]

ROFL @ ricer Firefox!!!

Re:how to make a ricer Firefox

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

U stole by Idea!!!
Mugen sticker!!! yeah that's it!!!

Re:how to make a ricer Firefox

[Tumbleweed]

Oh, I know suicide doors _alone_ don't make for a ricer; it's the combination of features that do that.

If I ever manage to create the car I really want -- a completely restored and heavily-modified (modernized) '66 Mustang Fastback -- I'm totally using suicide doors. And back window louvres. Hells yeah.

And a bare foot-shaped gas pedal! :)

Re:how to make a ricer Firefox

[rotagivan]

You get the '66 Mustang and I'll get a '65 lincoln continental with the factory suicide doors rolling matrix style!

Re:how to make a ricer Firefox

[pete6677]

Most importantly, all extensions must be strictly to make it look "cooler", if you want to call it that, and do absolutely nothing to increase actual performance.

Re:how to make a ricer Firefox

[rapidweather]

I think they call it 'Flock.'
Here they go, picking on Flock...
I use Flock, it's ok. They have not released another mildstone build since 0.4.10, and I did try one of the "hourly" builds, and gave up on it. I am suprised that 0.4.10 works as well as it does. Both Flock and Firefox take more time to boot up than Opera on older boxes, so I often use Opera when I am in a hurry. I would like to see another release of Flock, and see what they can come up with. The blog setup is great, although one can use Opera or Firefox to maintain a blog just as well, or maybe better in some cases. I have all four browsers in my knoppix remaster (Firefox,Opera,Flock,Konqueror) and it's fun to move from computer to computer with the livecd and try them out. On a machine with broadband, I can quickly set up an hourly Flock build in ramdisk, and see what it can do.
All I have to do is delete the /home/knoppix/.mozilla/flock folder to get a clean Flock setup. That's the advantage of a livecd, no harm done. On a 256 MB box, I have only 6% ramdisk useage according to "df", so there is plenty of room to run Flock there.

Get the irony?

[KrisCowboy]

A book about one of the most popular open-source projects. Damn shame one has to buy it instead of browsing it online.

Re:Get the irony?

[web-res]

The first four chapters are free to read online: http://www.sitepoint.com/article/firefox-secrets

Enjoy!

It's a friggin browser

[MM-tng]

I don't see the point. Toolbar, webadres , thats it. Some people are just to verbose for me.

Twice?

[xsspd2004]

I think I need help.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[BewireNomali]

Interestingly enough, while Firefox does feast greedily on system resources, it is otherwise far superior to IE in every way.

interactive CD?

[TubeSteak]

Does it at least come with an interactive CD?

RSS feed problems in customized google home page?

[British]

I have quite a few rss'ed website feeds on my customized google home page. But often they are several entries behind the real website's offerings(fark.com happens a lot). Any way to fix this firefox side?

what a dumb ass idea.

[abstrak_tokatl]

how stupid do you have to be to not understand how to use firefox? to not understand what an extension is? is this book intended for people who have never used a browser before?

Re:what a dumb ass idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox is not just a browser... Since you are talking about it here - I would like to mention that many successful online marketers use that browser to create web sites. It has a build in composer like netscape 7 and is so good that can creates professional looking web sites. So, you might take a serious look at it... (Free too:) Karl Smith Ps: I am still new here and hope to find some good info amongst these threads. http://www.make-money-online.com/

Re:what a dumb ass idea.

[davekmmac]

Actually, organizing knowledge and understanding in any form is a good thing. I converse with many newbie users, my low-tech friends, my parents, my parents' friends. Many such users don't have the time nor desire to feel their way into understanding a piece of software though experimentation. They just want to know how to use it, in a step-by-step fashion. That is the purpose and use of this and similar books. Yes, even for software as "simple" as a web browser.

The hidden purpose and use of this book is to give the author some income. You'd like getting paid for something you find enjoyable too, right?

Re:what a dumb ass idea.

[kimvette]

re: {Firefox is not just a browser... Since you are talking about it here - I would like to mention that many successful online marketers use that browser to create web sites.}

BS.

You're thinking of Mozilla, Seamonkey (the new Mozilla), and Netscape.

re: {http://www.make-money-online.com/}
Kindly keep your "big money fast" spam off ./ please.

Re:An 1.5 x64 version!

[NetNifty]

Windows x64 edition versions here.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[msormune]

Except when it comes to system integration. Yeah, I know most people will think the way IE integrates with Windows is a bad thing because of all the possible security risks, but at least it integrates with stuff like certificate handling and bookmarks.

Re:n'th attempt at trying Firefox, back to ie agai

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, poor plugins are not the problem of Firefox.

I would have treated your post with credibility had you not made your biased comment about OSS. Strangely enough, your accusation refers to Microsoft products as much as it does OSS ... half implemented software with a million features. Microsoft's not even OSS - hence, you're out of the frying pan and into the fire by going back to IE.

Re:RSS feed problems in customized google home pag

[nb caffeine]

I think its a problem with the site not updating the RSS feed when the actual site does. Slashdot does this too :)

Re:Firefox has very serious problems (For some)

[WeblionX]

Strangely enough, I had 1.0.7 eat up all my memory and swap space under Linux recently, and yet when I've done the same browsing, if not more, with 1.5.0 on Windows, I've had no problems. Also, I had Firefox crash a lot more on 1.0.x in Windows than 1.5 does. My guess is I'm not enough of a power user, but I have not had any problems. I just hope I don't jinx myself.

Obligatory something or other

[Lije Baley]

Fire-what?

What-Fox?

What-what?

brilliant *nix firefox tip

[Douglas Simmons]

Linux and UNIX users: You know how Firefox annoyingly responds to middle-wheel-clicks on tabs by opening whatever URL is in the buffer as opposed to closing the tab as it does on Windows platforms? Well I just learned in freenode's #debian that to correct this, fire up about:config (as you would a URL), scroll down to middlemouse.contentLoadURL and set it to false, and bada bing, it's fixed!

Windows moderators bring on the OT mods all you want, the *nix-running mods will appreciate this shit.

Re:brilliant *nix firefox tip

[my_haz]

That is the most useful thing i have ever read.

Mod Parent UP.

Re:brilliant *nix firefox tip

[meowsqueak]

Fixed? It's not broken. I *rely* on this feature. It's incredibly useful.

Re:brilliant *nix firefox tip

[CableModemSniper]

I really wish it would do both instead of an either/or. If don't have anything selected and I middle click on a link, I probably want to open it in a new tab. OTOH high-light and middle-click rules for the situations that people were to lazy to sprinkle their document with hrefs.

Re:brilliant *nix firefox tip

[meowsqueak]

That's how it currently works for me, though. I'm not sure what you're saying. If I middle-click on a link (with or without clipboard content) it opens that URL in another tab. If I click elsewhere it opens the contents of the clipboard in that current tab. Isn't that doing both?

Re:brilliant *nix firefox tip

[CableModemSniper]

Yes, that is doing both. Thanks, never managed to work for me before.

Who is going to buy the book?

[FishandChips]

It's a good review, but the book seems a little misconceived. How many people are really going to spend $25-30 on a book about how to use a web-browser? The market must be very small. I could understand if the book was about how to program a browser and get in real deep but the book doesn't sound as if it might appeal to such readers. Using a web-browser is not that hard, and if it is hard then the chances are good that the browser has been poorly designed (certainly not the case with Firefox). That said, maybe the best Firefox tip is to switch over to Opera, at least until the Firefox team get the memory usage under control. It's a real drag on more modestly specced PCs.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[pomo monster]

Yeah, you go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[Blakey Rat]

And a nickel would get you a three course dinner!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Firefox has no really serious problems.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only serious problem I've ever had involved cache corruption, in one instance firefox wouldn't start until I manually deleted my cache. Other than that and occasional crash due to mem leaks after ff has been running for days, no problems. I run firefox on several boxes (including BSD, linux and windows), always have js disabled and run without java or flash.

That said, I would like to see the memory leaks plugged.

Translated

[tepples]

Geekoid meant: "If only it supported current Firefox..."

Re:Translated

[flosofl]

Ah...

Got it. I was going back and forth between "It only is supported on the current Firefox" and "If it only supported the current Firefox"

Now that I look at it, it looks like touch typing gone wrong :)

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[MasterPi]

Well you're right on one account, I wouldn't let Windows handle my certificates if I didn't absolutely have to. And its not that IE integrates with windows bookmarks, IE is Windows bookmarks.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[larry bagina]

You forgot about crashing. Firefox 1.5 crashes more often than Billy Joel in a demolition derby.

Improved productivity

[mu22le]

the best way for me to improve productivity wold be me closing firefox and getting some work done!!!

I have dreamed about an extension that would only let me check the websites I really need to work... like asking me to solve complex operations before letting me open a site not on The List.

I must be crazy.

Firefox - SECRETS!

[ezeecheez]

-Firefox could have stopped the Kennedy assassination, had it not slept late that day

-Firefox has a secret button that converts all your web requests to look like you're using your company's timekeeping system

-Firefox killed a hobo with a brick

Re:Firefox - SECRETS!

[jd]

Actually, Firefox didn't sleep in late that day. That's a cover story. It was embedded on the grassy knoll, in disguise.

How about copy/paste crapping out?

[swb]

How about copy/paste crapping out?

I see this happening after having an instance or two open for a couple of days with 6-12 tabs.

I notice it mostly when using Google Maps; I'll try to copy/paste an address from another tab into maps and vice versa and it seems it has stopped working. Pasting into other apps or going from other apps and pasting into Firefox doesn't work. It affects all tabs and nothing helps but quitting all instances of Firefox and restarting it.

Re:How about copy/paste crapping out?

[belg4mit]

Seen it too. I've sometimes managed to recover. I can't recall how though... it may have been by opening a page in a new window or something. I do know when it's come
back all tabs work. Instead of C-n you can also try relaunching the executable while
yuor current session is running (it seems to do a bit more work in cleaning/instantiating than C-n).

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[oneeyedelf1]

Maybe your firefox 1.5 crashes all the time, Mine however doesnt. My version stuff gives me this "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20051220 Firefox/1.5". I find alot of the time when people's firefox is crashing all the time that they have 1 to many extensions, or a buggy extension. Good luck tracing down the problem.

You to can be a hacker!

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the dumbest yahoo can now pretend to be party to secret Open Source Software hacks and tweaks.
Let's appeal to the stupidity of the masses. You to, (That means your 85 year old grandmother.) can open a text file and edit it, thus granting you the title of supremist hacker extraordinaire.

Firefox Secrets?!?

[femto]

I'd rather just read the source code! ;-)

Oh noes, CPU use spikes to 100%!

[roystgnr]

I demand that all my programs leave 50% of the CPU idle and take twice as long!

Yes, the Infoworld article actually uses the phrase "spikes to 100%" - apparently a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Of course, there's a difference between taking 100% CPU while loading a page and taking 100% indefinitely, and I used to see my firefox process doing the latter too. The way to fix it is to install FlashBlock, and not to click on the banner ads that busy loop on your CPU just to put a punchable monkey on the screen.

Re:Also available on Amazon

[swordgeek]

This is an attitude that's bugged me to no end.

Cheaper is cheaper. Why is it that so many people consider cheaper to be the ONLY criterion for shopping? Customer service? Ethics of the company? Convenience? Nope, if it's not cheaper, we're not buying it.

Given Amazon's long history of questionable behaviour, I think it's GOOD that /. doesn't actively promote it. If you really want to save your eleven cents and make sure your money goes to stupid patents, then I'm sure you can find Amazon on your own.

The expert knowledge I want...

[jd]

• How to get Firefox to work nicely with the beta version of Yahoo mail. The javascript is TOTALLY broken. Actually, it's not the only site with broken javascript, but it is one of the worse examples and it is popular enough to be important.
  
• How to get Firefox to work with sites that deliberately target IE and intentionally break Firefox.
  
• How to import all of the cool easter eggs from earlier versions of Netscape's browser.
  

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[eneville]

Parent post needs modding up.

"... occasional crash due to mem leaks..."

[Futurepower(R)]

"... occasional crash due to mem leaks after ff has been running for days..."

That's the problem that occurs for people who do a lot of research using Firefox.

Re:"... occasional crash due to mem leaks..."

[CTho9305]

Care to enlighten me as to how memory leaks cause crashes?

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox has yet to crash on me. I wouldn't be caught dead using IE. The last time I used it (a long time ago; I don't have any windows machines anymore) to view an activex site I got a virus after 5 minutes. My highschool installed firefox on its computers this year after some convincing by tech staff/teachers and some intelligent students(EG: me).

Just say no to IE.

-Q

Secrets you WON'T find in the book

[breckinshire]

Firefox once killed a guy, just for looking at him.

Re:Secrets you WON'T find in the book

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox once shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

I thought all you'd need would be...

[ScaryFroMan]

Page 1: "About:Config" Page 2: The end. (c) 2005

100% CPU use when Firefox idle.

[Futurepower(R)]

The article is a bit confused, that's true. Actually, the CPU use becomes essentially 100% even though Firefox is completely idle, slowing all programs and the operating system to a crawl.

Who needs a book?

[nurb432]

Geesh.. You have the source, just go read that and figure it all out on your own. Its the holidays, I'm sure you have some extra time on your hands.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[ToasterofDOOM]

Ever used it extensively? Safari is far less resource hungry, marginally faster, is the first browser to pass the Acid2 test, and integrates better with the mac. In my opinion is is not only not average, but outstanding.

Redundancy

[Anonymous Coward]

I once had to take a class in college (not long ago)...

Introduction to the Internet. ...I took it online.

Re:Also available on Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

And no I don't get any referal points for that.

Oh, really?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0975240242/qid=11 35368933/sr=11-1/ref=sr_11_1

/104-6165473-7972711?n=283155

I don't care if you're getting a referral, but when you lie about it, it pisses me off.

This link is clean: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0975240242/qid=11 35368933/104-6165473-7972711?n=283155

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... those good ol' days. I hear ya, man. It sucks that Slashdot has caught a more mainstream following. I wish it was still mired in obscurity with the only readers being elite techies. Damn... those good ol' days... gone forever. So tragic.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[hairyfeet]

If you are having trouble with Firefox you should try the new Seamonkey.1.0B is a LOT faster and IMO a lot less of a RAM piggy.I have 9 extensions,A half dozen pages open and it's barely using 35 megs.I've been running it for 12 hours+ a day since it came out and NO crashes,No hangups,And ALL my extensions worked right out of the box.

Now if they'd just replace that fugly default skin with something nice like this-http://www.tom-cat.com/mozilla/seamonkey.html it would be perfect.Long live Seamonkey!

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[eneville]

"parent needs modding up" was supposed to mean that the post I was replying to should have added points as it's quit on-topic and informative.. not 'firefox needs modding'!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[aichpvee]

In the good old days Firefox wasn't crippled by the gtk file dialogs and the insane gnome ui "design".

Firefox has a SHOWSTOPPER bug.

[Futurepower(R)]

There's an issue here. Firefox has a SHOWSTOPPER bug that heavily affects its most intense users. You obviously didn't read the articles in Information Week to which I linked.

Please don't comment on Slashdot stories in which you (obviously) have no interest.

Re:Firefox has a SHOWSTOPPER bug.

[CableModemSniper]

So pick a new browser. Preferably one you have to pay for so you have the right (rather than the privilege) to bitch and moan about it. And don't tell other people what their interests are. Especially since you are complaining about a browser in a book review article.

Making "New" fork the current page

[Myria]

In Firefox, the "New Window" command (control-N) makes a new window at your default page. Is there any way to make it so that "New Window" makes another window at the current page, effectively forking the current window? This is how Internet Exploder works.

Melissa

Re:Making "New" fork the current page

[christefano]

I don't like this feature in IE personally, but you may find that the New Tab Homepage or Duplicate Tab extensions work for you.

  ~ Christefano

Firefox stability

[Peaker]

Is it me, or is Firefox on non-Windows (at least on Ubuntu/breezy, and other Debian-ish versions) extremely unstable?

On Windows, Firefox is great!

But after an hour of 3 crashes every 5 minutes, when using it on Kubuntu, I can't help but switch to Konqueror, even with the lesser support for various sites (though Konqueror does have better performance, at least seemingly).

Re:Firefox stability

[Jesus_666]

It's almost stable on my AMD64 Gentoo box. The precompiled 1.0.7 was pretty solid (I used the precompiled one due to Flash issues with self-compiled Fx on AMD64), but 1.5.0 is horribly unstable. I can't switch virtual desktops without Fx and Thunderbird both silently terminating. Unfortunately I won't go back to 1.0.7 as 1.5 has some pretty useful improvements. So currently I'm living without multiple desktops... Well, I only used the second desktop to park XMMS anyway, but still I'd like Fx to be a bit more stable.

On the Mac Fx 1.5 is amazing. It's a bit faster than 1.0.7 and eats up less memory. It's also quite stable. The only thing that reliably freezes it is the FoxyTunes extension - starting Fx, then closing and reopening iTunes and then clicking to FoxyTunes reliably freezes Fx. Perhaps I should contact the author...

Re:Firefox stability

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL @ you linux dweebs and your pointless waste of time. Can't you see that everyone is dropping your lame-ass knock-off of the lame-ass unix like a bag of shit. Just install a decent OS and go spend your time doing useful, productive, and fulfilling things. Imagine if you took all of the time you spent in a stupor trying to drag linux into this millennium and applied it to something like volunteering at you local homeless shelter, or donating to charities. It sadens me to think that so much nerd effort is wasted on useless dead technologies like linux.

Re:Firefox stability

[techno-vampire]

I've been using it for several years now on RedHat 9 and Gnome, and haven't had a crash yet. Might be distro specific, or window manager specific.

Books for web browser for 8/10?

[JaLooNz]

Do you ever think that a book for a web browser deserves a rating of 8/10?

Does it even measure the importance of the book anymore? Maybe I am not suitable to be in the ratings board, since I think this book deserves a for extreme dummies grade.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[toddestan]

Safari is basically a stock Firefox without extensions. Sure, it does everything that most people need, and has a few interesting features like privacy mode - but overall its sits between crappy and basic browsers on one end (IE, Camino), and more feature filled/customizable ones on the other (Firefox, Opera). In other words, average.

And I don't see how you mean it integrates better with OS X. It acts much like a stand alone application to me, just like Firefox does (unlike IE on Windows/Konquerer in KDE which are tightly integrated). Or do you mean it has brushed metal?

Here's a secret: Deer Park

[thatguywhoiam]

If you are on a Mac G5 machine, go get yourself a copy of Deer Park, which is optimized for that proc.

Its reeeeely fast.

Re:Here's a secret: Deer Park

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutly.
Deer Park sings on my dual 1.8 G5.

I had some problems with it hanging when I first upgraded to 1.5.
It turned out to be a problem with fasterfox.
The recent updated fixed the problem ( for me ).

Mozilla browser (SeaMonkey) has the SAME problem.

[Futurepower(R)]

Mozilla browser (SeaMonkey) has the SAME problem with CPU and memory hogging.

You said, "I'm not saying there aren't problems that need to be acknowledged..."

First, I am very thankful for Firefox. I am very thankful that we have open source developers.

However, maybe there is a need for change. Maybe the Mozilla Foundation needs better leadership and someone to raise money so that important issues that aren't favored by volunteers can be addressed.

Second, look what you've done. It seemed in the beginning of your comment that you were giving an informed answer. However, in fact your answer is completely uninformed about the issue to which you were responding. You didn't read the articles in Information Week, and you apparently have no theory about why there are such SERIOUS problems in Mozilla browser and Firefox.

Some bugs are very difficult to characterize. Those require a developer to be a true scientist. However, Firefox developers apparently look for bugs that are easy to fix. Bugs such as this one, which is now more than 2 1/2 years old, are ignored.

You said, "... too many people file bugs and then can't give us the answers we need."

No developer has asked me for more information, but they have marked the CPU and memory hogging bug reports as invalid.

You said, "If you use awful grammar and difficult-to-read style, well, why do you expect us to put hours into fixing a bug when you don't bother to spend 5 minutes properly reporting it?"

Every month I make part of my living as a writer, and have done so for more than 18 years. I did a very clear test using both Windows XP and Linux, and found the same problem.

You said, "... many users use extensions, which basically invalidate their bug reports since we can't possibly debug under the effects of the many changes extensions make, ESPECIALLY if we don't know what extensions and versions of extensions you're using."

As many other people have asked, why is it possible that an extension can crash all open windows and tabs in Mozilla or Firefox browsers? Shouldn't the browser reject use of the extension, rather than just crashing?

You said, "It takes the user 5 minutes to try a nightly. I think asking the user to get a nightly build is reasonable."

Again you have shown that you didn't bother to inform yourself about the issue being discussed. My best guess is that NO developer has bothered to read the bug reports I've filed. Once developers realize that it won't be easy to characterize or fix, they give some excuse, and mark the bug invalid. That's been my experience.

It sometimes takes DAYS to re-create the bug. The bug happens during normal use. Many people leave Firefox open during the time they are researching a subject, so they can come back to their research as they left it. Then, when Firefox crashes, or begins taking all the CPU power or begins using so much memory that the hard drive thrashes, they lose all of their work!

You said, "Many bugs that are filed aren't important to 99.99% of the userbase."

That's a new excuse! I've added it as number nine in my list. That excuse does NOT apply here. The CPU and memory hogging bug is being discussed publicly in long articles you apparently didn't read.

Nothing you said will make this subject go away! The problem has received lots of attention from the public, and the attention is building.

If you have no serious interest in a subject, please don't post comments. Please don't use Slashdot as a way of acting out anger. Please don't pretend to have an interest in a subject so that you can have a platform for expressing annoyance.

Re:Mozilla browser (SeaMonkey) has the SAME proble

[hobo sapiens]

This is an outrage! I say you demand your money back.

Firefox has problems. So does IE. So does Opera.

As a professional web developer, I care very much about browsers. I also deal with demanding users such as yourself who nitpick and who are on some kind of power trip or something. Think about it: is someone who is coding an application for you on their free time going to spend even ten minutes reading a badly reported problem? I sure wouldn't, not when there are ten other things I can fix that are just as important to someone else. You do the most good you can do in the shortest amount of time and move on.

You may be frustrated, but you won't get anywhere assuming you submit bug reports with this same tone. I'd venture that many Mozilla developers are professional developers who do Mozdev on their own time, and probably get enough of that crap at work. It's a web browser, not a car or a space shuttle or a nuclear power plant. Deal with it, fix it, or move on to something else. Personally, I have gripes with Firefox, but I deal with them. If something better came out, I don't know about you, but I'd be all over it. But the fact that you typed this in the first place shows that you haven't found anything better. Stop trying to rake people over the coals.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[mikeisme77]

It's more Konqueror than Firefox, since Safari was Apple's deviation from the Konqueror project. That's why Konqueror was the 2nd browser to pass the Acid2 test.

Guess you don't do textbooks

[Sycraft-fu]

That's what he's refering to likely. Many of them come out with a new edition every year, or every other year. Ok, so this is needed for, say, modern history but I am talking about calculus here. When I took freshman calc, I had to buy a new book. There were no used ones available, because it was a new edition. At the end of the year, I tried to sell my book back and was turned down, you see there was a new edition comming out next year.

Ok what the fuck? This is introductory calc, that shit hasn't changed much since Newton first unveiled it to the world, and not at all in the 20th century. NOTHING changed in teh span of one year.

Well I had a look at the new edition as compared to mine. The changes were nothing but superficial. Chapters were shuffled, questions were renumbered, with some new ones intruduced. There might have been some corrections or whatnot, but the parts I looked at the text and diagrams were the exact same.

It's a real racket, and that's on top of the already high prices.

Re:Guess you don't do textbooks

[Anonymous Coward]

When you pay $100 for a textbook, the distribution is something like:

$35 payola to the professor who adopted it for a course
$30 publisher profit
$25 bookstore markup
(including up to $10 "associates" commission if it's Amazon, etc.)
$7 production costs (printing, etc.)
$3 in author royalties

Re:Guess you don't do textbooks

[Anonymous Coward]

That is absolute bullshit. Students are confused enough on this issue without morons like you spreading misinformation. Please stop.

Re:Guess you don't do textbooks

[Skim123]

You said: "Guess you don't do textbooks. That's what he's refering to likely. Many of them come out with a new edition every year, or every other year."

But if you read the guy's post he said: "You're missing the beauty of publishing a book about a web browser. You rake in cash from sales, and 6 months later the thing is obsolete so you can crank out a "2nd Edition" and cash in again."

Hrm. I don't think there are many textboxes about web browsers.

In any event, yes, the textbook publishing world is very different than the computer trade book publishing world, in large part because it's more of an all or nothing sort of thing. That is, with books on, say, Perl, each publisher can put out several books, and the bookstores will happily line their shelves with them. With academic books, one is selected and all students buy that one copy. Not as 'free market' in a sense, as with computer trade books.

Re:Guess you don't do textbooks

[cortana]

Cite please?

Re:Guess you don't do textbooks

[ACPosterChild]

Do a little googling. It's a complete scam to push tax dollars into private firms, and it's impossible to get in on it. There are three big companies (IIRC) that just reprocess their books and each other's ideas. The new editions are ostensibly to incorporate politically correct content and new teaching methodologies, but the methodologies are just another racket to generate new jargon and keep certain circles of speakers in the money.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[pomo monster]

Really? Firefox is incredibly ugly, in my opinion. Popup menu selections don't blink, and they're set in the wrong font to begin with. The preferences dialog looks like a Frankensteinian cross between OS 9 preferences and something out of OS X 10.1. Buttons don't pulsate and sheets pop up in unexpected, illogical places. That's just to start.

Perhaps more significantly, Firefox's HTML rendering is inarguably inferior to WebKit's. Small text is often antialiased strangely, and kerning is strange all over, lending text an uneven, drunken quality. On top of that, there's no integration with the system Keychain or firewall preferences. And that's not even mentioning the truly useful CSS properties missing from Gecko, like display: inline-block and run-in. The best you can say about Firefox is that it might be decent for Windows and Linux, but it barely achieves mediocrity on Mac OS X.

I do agree with you, however, that Camino is excellent.

Limited market...?

[meowsqueak]

I guess it would make a good Firefox reference for those people who do not have Internet access...

Re:Mozilla browser (SeaMonkey) has the SAME proble

[CTho9305]

You're almost certainly trolling, but I'll reply to some points anyway.

Some bugs are very difficult to characterize. Those require a developer to be a true scientist. However, Firefox developers apparently look for bugs that are easy to fix. Bugs such as this one, which is now more than 2 1/2 years old, are ignored.
I think everybody believes it's many bugs that add up to cause the problems users see, not just one single bug. That makes it much harder to track down the individual issues.

It's insulting and ignorant to claim that developers ignore the hard bugs.

No developer has asked me for more information, but they have marked the CPU and memory hogging bug reports as invalid.
There's probably a reason (if only that your bug report is the same as hundreds of others and equally useless). Care to post bug #s?

Every month I make part of my living as a writer, and have done so for more than 18 years. I did a very clear test using both Windows XP and Linux, and found the same problem.
People sometimes write novels for bug reports, with great detail about the useless tests they conducted and irrelevant statistics they measured during the test. That doesn't make them good or valid.

You said, "Many bugs that are filed aren't important to 99.99% of the userbase."

That's a new excuse! I've added it as number nine in my list. That excuse does NOT apply here. The CPU and memory hogging bug is being discussed publicly in long articles you apparently didn't read.
You didn't specify what bugs you were talking about. I don't think people would say huge leaks are unimportant, but many people file pointless bugs or bugs on things that could just as well be considered features. I was responding in a generic way to your generic "excuse".

You didn't read the articles in Information Week, and you apparently have no theory about why there are such SERIOUS problems in Mozilla browser and Firefox.
I read the articles (they didn't say anything interesting). I read multiple forums where people talk about Firefox leaks. I know what issues people complain about. But users just go on and on about the same symptoms, never providing specific testcases that reproduce issues. Multiple people often decide that they're experiencing the same bug when they clearly are not. They perceive changes between releases that don't exist (e.g. claiming certain changes occurred between 1.0.6 and 1.0.7 that, if you look at the code, could not have). Addressing complaints on issues like these tends to be a hopeless task.

If you could just create one page that, when reloaded repeatedly demonstrated increasing memory usage, that would be incredibly helpful. A testcase in which you load a page in a tab, close the tab, and repeat to demonstrate increasing memory usage would also probably be useful. But nobody does.

You claim it can take days to reproduce the bug, and it happens through normal use. Well, steps to reproduce such as "surf for a day" for you might be checking forums for new trolls about why Firefox is bad. For someone else, it might be contributing to Wikipedia articles. For another user it might be using LXR to trace through some code. Even if a developer DOES experience the problem, how does he/she track it down? Tools such as valgrind make the browser run 100x slower while being debugged - can you possibly surf for a week like that? Other tools give you too much data to have the slightest hope of wading through it all to find the problems. It's a hard problem. People DO work on it, and memory leaks are constantly being fixed. But there are probably a lot of them, and they all take time.

The article talks about setting a specific memory cache size... if you read the source code, you'd know that Gecko is smart enough to already pick cache sizes based on the amount of RAM you have, AND it picks small values - if I remember correctly, SMALLER than the ones suggested in the article. The author of the article probably saw the tweak mentioned on some forum where nobody bothers to conduct scientific comparisons.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[deaddrunk]

The only thing I like about IE is that it can be controlled via a script, which is very handy when you have to fill in dozens of webforms with very similar data over and over again. I know that that's bad design but when you're an office clerk you have to live with what IT gives you but being ex-IT I know ways to speed stuff up and I'm glad that IE and all the other MS products we seem to be stuck with at least have one redeeming feature.

Re:the whiners

[CyberCrone]

I'm in complete sympathy with all your comments, CTho9305, and know it must be discouraging for the open source community to be bombarded with a bunch of "Why don't you do more and do it better?" criticisms. I dropped in just to remind you that the whiners and complainers are always the loudest, and have nothing better to do with their time than make unconstructive criticisms of other people's work. But for every one of those, there are hoards of people out there who appreciate what the open source community has given us and are patient with the inevitable glitches in such a massively ambitious project. We tend not to write to you about it because we assume you know, simply by the smashing success of Firefox, that people appreciate your work, and unlike the complainers, we are likely to be busy people without much spare time to write commendations. I took the time this morning because you are sounding kinda fed up, so memorize this message, OK? And get a turtle suit with a hard shell to deflect the complaints. CyberCrone

Not a very funny troll...

[Peaker]

Though I would like to ask:

All the time you spend on obscure trolling, could it not be better spent in a homeless shelter?

No words will fix the problem.

[Futurepower(R)]

The Mozilla and Firefox CPU and memory hogging bug needs to be fixed, not ignored. No amount of words, no amount of attitude, will make the problem go away.

An educated guess: Probably developers would find that fixing the CPU and memory hogging bug would solve many, many other small issues, and make working with the code much more fun.

No other program in Windows or Linux has this problem, apparently. The problem is entirely caused by something in the Mozilla programs. The fact that the problem is largely unchanged for more than 2 years indicates that it was in the code base more than 2 years ago. That's a clue.

You said, "Even if a developer DOES experience the problem, how does he/she track it down? Tools such as valgrind make the browser run 100x slower while being debugged - can you possibly surf for a week like that?"

That's easy. When someone experiences the CPU and/or memory hogging problem, have them send their history file. Use the history file to program the browser to load web pages automatically. If I were trying that, I would write a program to arrange the history file so that it could be used as input to a keyboard imitation program written in AutoIt or AutoHotkey (Windows). Run the test program on a test computer. We have many of them here; Mozilla developers probably do too.

You said, "Care to post bug #s?". That's really, really disgusting. After this long discussion, and you calling me a troll, you are demonstrating once again that you didn't read what I posted. I already posted a bug number and extensive discussion! That's the behavior I have seen over and over again with Mozilla and Firefox developers: A total lack of willingness to let someone else lead.

The problem is, it has become obvious, a social problem, not a technical one. If I were a Mozilla developer, I would think that solving this bug was much more exciting than any of the others. Somehow, Mozilla developers spray words at the problem rather than fixing it. Why?

My guess is that the social structure of the Mozilla Foundation is such that no one is able to work on an extremely serious and wide-ranging bug such as the CPU and memory hogging bug.

The Mozilla Foundation needs a real leader. Having a lawyer who understands nothing about technical things is not leadership.

Maybe I could head the Mozilla Foundation, at least temporarily. I have the necessary programming and top management experience. I certainly have clear ideas about things that need to be done, and how to do them. I say this, not because I need work, but because I am demonstrating a solution. My guess is that the Mozilla Foundation needs more fund-raising, and some structure that allows resolving big issues like the CPU and memory hogging bug.

Re:No words will fix the problem.

[Vanye1]

You said, "Care to post bug #s?". That's really, really disgusting. After this long discussion, and you calling me a troll, you are demonstrating once again that you didn't read what I posted. I already posted a bug number and extensive discussion! That's the behavior I have seen over and over again with Mozilla and Firefox developers: A total lack of willingness to let someone else lead.

I haven't seen the bug number in this thread. Maybe he mised it as well? Care to repost the bug number?

Re:No words will fix the problem.

[CTho9305]

An educated guess: Probably developers would find that fixing the CPU and memory hogging bug would solve many, many other small issues, and make working with the code much more fun.
Educated? Yeah, right.

No other program in Windows or Linux has this problem, apparently. The problem is entirely caused by something in the Mozilla programs. The fact that the problem is largely unchanged for more than 2 years indicates that it was in the code base more than 2 years ago. That's a clue.
No, it more likely means that the rate leaks are added is similar to the rate leaks are fixed. I don't think this is good either, but that's not the point.

Use the history file to program the browser to load web pages automatically. If I were trying that, I would write a program to arrange the history file so that it could be used as input to a keyboard imitation program written in AutoIt or AutoHotkey (Windows). Run the test program on a test computer. We have many of them here; Mozilla developers probably do too.
Feel free to contribute a program to do that.

Maybe I could head the Mozilla Foundation, at least temporarily. I have the necessary programming and top management experience. I certainly have clear ideas about things that need to be done, and how to do them. I say this, not because I need work, but because I am demonstrating a solution. My guess is that the Mozilla Foundation needs more fund-raising, and some structure that allows resolving big issues like the CPU and memory hogging bug.
Thanks for the laugh.

Ok, I read the bug you filed. (I had looked earlier, but it didn't look particularly unique to me so I didn't bother to note who filed it).

In the bug you said:
1. Firefox crashes soon after you open it. No details provided, no sites that cause crashes, no nothing of any use. This part of the comment is about as good as bugs that say, "you suck".
2. Every instance should be separate. You were making a suggestion that was not accepted.... =>WONTFIX or INVALID. Your suggestion shows you don't understand why things are the way they are.
3. You make a comment about stack space, without demonstrating that a maximum stack size is in fact the problem. That sounds like a very uninformed remark - I've never heard of any limits due to stack sizes.

4. You lost all windows, each window with 5 tabs while downloading "a" file. You didn't bother to say what file from where, but did mention that you were doing very important work (I'm sure humanity is worse off as a result).
5. You also complain about large memory usage. Are you not aware that you're supposed to address ONE issue per bug? Bugs with multiple problems in them make tracking very difficult and they get closed. Comment 9 points out that you're talking about a lot of separate things, and later comments from people who understand how to help developers also mention the one-problem-per-bug rule.
6. You said memory usage, when large, grows when tabs are closed. To me, that implies you're looking at the wrong column in Task Manager.

I'd like to point out that you made your complaints a long time ago - a lot of code has changed since then. Maybe some of your issues are fixed now. I personally use dozens+ tabs in multiple windows. Some of the SeaMonkey project leads don't use tabs at all and do not experience trouble with lots of windows, while another uses up to hundreds of tabs at once, and doens't experience your problems.

7. You go on to speculate about things you know nothing about (e.g. event handling). Your speculation (which is sometimes obviously way off, and in other cases I don't know enough to tell) is useless to everybody.
8. You mention OS instability following Firefox crashes. That's an indicator you have other problems - bad drivers, bad hardware, etc. If you do have other problems, debugging your Firefox would be a hopeless task. You tried different machines - maybe you also install some other program or driver on those machines and

Re:No words will fix the problem.

[CTho9305]

On the off chance you really would like to help, get on IRC (irc.mozilla.org, read the MOTD for channels), DON'T speculate on things you know nothing about, DON'T think you have more of a clue than the people there, and ask for help tracking down one of the problems you experience. Make sure you're using a nightly build for reasons I've already explained. You might start by giving a specific site or action that reliably crashes you 100% of the time. Be patient too, not all channels are active all the time, and you might even have to come back on a few separate occasions. Keep in mind that some people are in different time zones, and many people may be on vacation.

Re:Also available on Amazon

[floodo1]

well BN has brick and mortar. amazon doesnt.

Bug 222660

[Futurepower(R)]

See this Slashdot comment: Leadership problem?

See bug

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22266 0

which I posted about 2 1/2 years ago.

Take out the space put in by Slashdot and copy the address to a new Window. Bugzilla does not accept visits by people coming from Slashdot.

222660 contains a reference to the same bug in Mozilla:
Linux/Windows Reproducible Crash Tests

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20466 8

Note that these bugs are marked as "Resolved Invalid". Note that EVERY comment from a developer contains some criticism of people reporting the bugs. Note that NO comment from a developer shows any willingness to understand the value of what has been reported.

Apparently Mozilla developers have VERY little patience, and want bug reports that allow them to fix something in an afternoon. The seem to want to ignore bugs that require considerable investigation.

Many, many people report memory use problems in Mozilla and Firefox. The subject is building in interest. Sooner or later the bug needs to be fixed, rather than spend hours and hours discussing why it can't be fixed.

Developers: Please no more emphasizing the shortcomings of what has been reported. Try to see the good. That's a good philosophy in other areas, too.

Re:Bug 222660

[robinjo]

If you want a bug fixed fast, you should make it as easy as possible for the developer to reproduce the problem:

1. Get the latest nightly build and a fresh start with a new mozilla/firefox profile
2. Write exactly step-by-step how to reprocuce the problem

If you do that, the developer can follow your steps. If he can reliably reproduce the bug, you've done a great job and helped identifying the bug. If not, there's not much the developer can do to help you.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[msormune]

Why is that a bad design? If Firefox had the same design, people would say "Firefox has opened up new APIs to help software development on the web platform, praise the open source".

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[Blakey Rat]

Don't forget: In Firefox, the text fields behave strangely. (Text fields are different in OS X from Linux and Windows, that needs to be beaten into every cross-platform developer!) Also: Spell checker! Where's the spell checker in Firefox? Not there.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[pomo monster]

Yeah. Ugh. I'll never understand why people with enough good taste to use Macs then go blithely on ahead and ruin it by installing Firefox.

Re:"Most readers have probably heard about Firefox

[deaddrunk]

Eh? I've just sung its praises in the previous comment. I think you should read what I said again.

We must work together to fix this bug.

[Futurepower(R)]

Robinjo, I agree with what you said, but it does not apply in this case. The only way to fix this very serious bug is to interact with the developers. In 2 1/2 years, we have never come close to that. They've always wanted more than can be given.

I have, many times, described how to reliably reproduce the bug. But the developers want to fix bugs that are much easier than the Firefox/Thunderbird/Mozilla CPU and memory hogging bug.