Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
At least, that's the way I look at it.
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?
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
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.
Windows x64 edition versions here.
Linux Wireless Hardware in the UK
Windows moderators bring on the OT mods all you want, the *nix-running mods will appreciate this shit.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"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."
:) 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.
That portion of the review was tailor made for you.
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.
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.
My server
"... 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.
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.
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.
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.
My server
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.