Slashdot Mirror


Q&A with Firefox's Blake Ross

dotlin writes to tell us the Seattle PI is running a lengthy and interesting interview with Firefox's Blake Ross. In the interview Ross addresses many of the issues surrounding the future of Firefox including their attempt to streamline Firefox in 2.0, the feature comparison between Firefox and IE, different ways of measuring browser market share, and many more.

19 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Interesting... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your request for a flame war has been rejected for the following reason(s):
    [ ]Incorrect assumptions about what people care about.
    [ ]Uncreative formulation.
    [x]Too obvious an attempt to start a flame.

  2. Re:old news by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Considering how slashdot is designed to cross post, I don't see how this can be avoided.
    After all submissions are made based upon what users of websites find, so its inevitable that some of those sites are on your bookmarks list.

    As it happens I read 2/3 of the sites you listed, but hadn't read this interview so slash is doing its job.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  3. Pesky users by PinkyDead · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Fortunately we've become kind of accustomed to complaints from the blogosphere and from geeks, which is generally where this line of pressure comes from. We're pretty good at picking out the points that are important to us and really just letting the others go.


    Having wombled around the Firefox support site for awhile looking for answers to memory issues, I came to the conclusion that there was a certain level of disinterest in problems that were less than exicting to fix; more so, than other OSS projects. (I fully accept the subjectiveness)

    This snippet sort of ties in with this feeling.

    Sure, OSS developers can do what they like - I'm not paying them so I don't have much right to complain, fair enough.

    But if you want to compete against MS, who are too customer focused then maybe a balance needs to be found which doesn't involve letting so many go.
    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    1. Re:Pesky users by bluebox_rob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well the paragraph before the one you quoted seems to say the exact opposite, i.e. less emphasis on whizz-bang new features and more tuning under the bonnet:

      It looks like the 1.0 release because most of the work that has been going on has been to make it more stable, how do we fix the memory problems that people are complaining about, how do we make everyday tasks easier

      I'd say they're heading in the right direction...

    2. Re:Pesky users by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's because the memory issues don't actually exist with Firefox. First there's 2 kinds of memory issues. 1 is the problem with the feature that has it store the pages in memory so that the history feature works better. This isn't a bug, and isn't a memory leak. The second is users complaining that Firefox takes up 700+ MB of RAM. I don't know what kind of funky extension these people are running, but I've never seen that happen. I've had firefox running for days at a time without seeing anywhere over 100 MB. I rarely ever see it go over 75 MB. Then again, I haven't kept it open for months at a time. Maybe if I did, then I may see problems. Then again, its a web browser. You can turn it off once in a while. Get one of those session saving extensions if you don't want to lose all the tabs you have open. They have more important things to fix, like trying to make sure it's CSS/Other standards compatible, and ensuring that there are no security holes.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Pesky users by FireFury03 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't a bug, and isn't a memory leak.

      Well, it might not be a memory leak, but I'd argue that it is a bug. If I leave my FireFox pointing at a auto-refreshing page for a couple of days it *will* OOM my machine. Whether or not that's a memory leak, I'd argue that causing the OOM killer to come out and start blowing away applications is a bug. Now I understand that this memory is supposidly used to cache content to speed up the browsing experience but I'd counter that argument by pointing out that if FireFox is so deep into swap space that it causes my machine to go on holiday for 5 minutes every time I do something because it's thrashing the swap then this isn't speeding up anything.

      I've had firefox running for days at a time without seeing anywhere over 100 MB. I rarely ever see it go over 75 MB. Then again, I haven't kept it open for months at a time. Maybe if I did, then I may see problems.

      I never close my FireFox unless I absolutely have to. Currently it's using about 281MB:
          PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
        1934 steve 15 0 281m 94m 8624 S 0.0 12.5 191:18.84 firefox-bin
      (Yes, I know this includes mmap()ed resources, but I doubt FireFox is mmap()ing much huge stuff).

      Then again, its a web browser. You can turn it off once in a while.

      That's not really an excuse though is it... Hey, no need to fix memory leaks in Windows, it's only an OS, you can reboot it every so often... :) Shutting stuff down in order to work around a bug is a horrible and very annoying kludge.

    4. Re:Pesky users by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sure, if you leave your program on for days it will be using a lot of memory and you'll eventually have to shut it down and restart, but why leave it on for a couple of days?

      Who knows? Who cares? A user can leave non-buggy apps running for weeks without them misbahaving, whether or not I know the user's reason for doing that. Users are unhappy that Firefox doesn't behave like a non-buggy app.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  4. Know thy enemy. by Volanin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Quoting from the article:

    The truth is that [Internet Explorer 7] actually looks pretty good. People don't expect me to say that, they expect me to say that it's terrible [...] I think that it's a solid product, but I think that by the time it comes out, we're going to be another world ahead of them again, so I think it's kind of a step or two behind us.


    And quoting The Art of War from Sun Tsu:

    So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.


    I, for one, have pleasure being in the Firefox side of this "war".
    And it's relieving to know that Blake seems to have a very clear sight while leading this.
    --
    If I clone myself, can I call it a thread?
    If a girl winks to us, can I call it a race condition?
  5. Re:On topic by shird · · Score: 4, Funny

    you must be new here

    --
    I.O.U One Sig.
  6. at least by RockModeNick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm personally more than greatful for firefox, because back in the day, netscape sucked so bad I actually really LIKED IE.

  7. Memory leaks? by Stachybotris · · Score: 3, Informative

    From everything that I've heard mentioned both here and on other sites, the biggest memory hog in Firefox is the Forecastfox extension. Once I uninstalled that, Firefox's footprint dropped down to the 30 megs or so that it's at now from the 70-ish that it was at. Granted, I haven't used said extension in quite a while, so it's possible that this problem has been fixed as well.

    1. Re:Memory leaks? by bunratty · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are lots of extensions with memory leaks and other serious problems. Be sure you're not using an extension on that list if you're having problems.

      Plugins, especially Flash, have also been known to cause problems such as high memory use and 100% CPU use after waking up from hiberation. Be sure to get the latest Macromedia, Java, and Acrobat plugins.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  8. Seamonkey vs. Firefox/Thunderbird by knarf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The day Netscape released the source to Navigator I compiled it and gazed in wonder at this 'real' browser I compiled on my Linux box. I followed the development of the Mozilla project from the failed start based on the old Navigator code via the slow-starting gecko-based suite all the way to the Mozilla suite. Then, suddenly, Firefox (under one if its many names) and Thunderbird appeared. They looked more modern than the Mozilla suite and individually had slightly better performance. I started using the threesome (Firefox, Thunderbird and the suite) next to eachother. For day-to-day browsing I used Firefox, for more involving things the Mozilla suite has always been more appropriate. I have also followed the development of Firefox (and to a lesser extent Thunderbird) closely, building local versions, testing nightlies, etc.

    But... my experiences with the latest iterations of Firefox (both the 1.5 series as well as the 2 and 3 development series) have left much to desire. The biggest complaint is the incredible amount of memory the browser consumes - even without any extensions (errr.. Add Ons... Change the name only because Microsoft copies the feature under a different name...?) and with a clean profile. If a browser manages to bring a 2 Ghz system with 768 MB to its knees in a mere half hour of browsing there is something wrong. Unfortunately this often-heard complaint does not seem to get the attention it deserves. Firefox' development strategy being what it is there is not that much opportunity - other than by filing bugs - to influence priorities and design criteria.

    So... lately I have switched more and more from using Firefox/Thunderbird to using the Seamonkey suite - the successor to the Mozilla suite. It still feels a bit more dated than Firefox and Thunderbird but it does offer much more in features while having a much smaller memory footprint. Add the Seafox theme and it looks quite a bit like Firefox/Thunderbird.

    The way things look now I think Seamonkey will be my browser and mail app of preference. Should Firefox and Thunderbird ever run on top of XULrunner I might switch back but for now I have better things to do with my memory...

    --
    --frank[at]unternet.org
    1. Re:Seamonkey vs. Firefox/Thunderbird by CTho9305 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      See, reports like this are why developers get jaded. Hundreds of people say, "use the browser for 30 minutes". Developers use the browser for days and don't experience the problem. Now what? The user is generally either unable or unwilling to get into the nitty gritty of real leak hunting, so nothing can be done. The developer gets frustrated, wondering where this problem is that he can't find.

      Fortunately, David Baron wrote the Leak Monitor extension, that looks for a relatively common type of leak, which you can install, but it doesn't catch everything.

    2. Re:Seamonkey vs. Firefox/Thunderbird by Anc · · Score: 3, Informative
      (errr.. Add Ons... Change the name only because Microsoft copies the feature under a different name...?)
      Where did you get this one from? They didn't rename extensions to add-ons. Add-ons is just a common name for both extensions and themes and it's nothing new (addons.mozilla.org has existed for quite a while, you know).

      But... my experiences with the latest iterations of Firefox (both the 1.5 series as well as the 2 and 3 development series) have left much to desire. The biggest complaint is the incredible amount of memory the browser consumes - even without any extensions [...] and with a clean profile. If a browser manages to bring a 2 Ghz system with 768 MB to its knees in a mere half hour of browsing there is something wrong. Unfortunately this often-heard complaint does not seem to get the attention it deserves.
      Quite the opposite, fixing existing memory leaks has been one of the priorities of the development process recently - take a look a the following tracking bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32091 5. You can be sure that you report will get plenty of attention if you can provide reliable steps to reproduce you problems. However, to my knowledge nobody has been able to do that.
    3. Re:Seamonkey vs. Firefox/Thunderbird by knarf · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Been there, done that:
      Firefox' development strategy being what it is there is not that much opportunity - other than by filing bugs - to influence priorities and design criteria.
      The bug reports are there. They just happen to hang around a long time... Often the memory problems are blamed on:
      • extensions (but as I already said I use a clean profile (without extensions) for testing purposes)
      • 'it is not a bug but a feature to make your browser faster'. It doesn't make it faster if it thrashes the cache...
      • 'I never see the problem on my $_box with $_memory and $_tabs open'. Good for you. Others are less lucky.
      • 'use the leak detector extension'. I do sometimes just to see what it warns about. It obviously does not warn about the browser hogging memory when that is considered to be a feature.
      • 'just use about:config to change the defaults'. If that is necessary the defaults should be changed, Firefox was intended as a browser for everyone - not just the about:configging /etc/sendmail.cf grokking crowd...
      I really hope the memory problems (or features if you prefer) get sorted out as Firefox has quite some momentum behind it. It would be sad to see this momentum lost because of some (mis)feature eating PCs alive...
      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
  9. Control these issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since these issues are apparently fairly well-known about, is there anything that the Mozilla team has done to try to prevent or resolve them? Is there some easy way to kill an extension that may suffer from a memory leak at runtime, without taking down the whole Firefox or Seamonkey session? Likewise, for plugins. What about preventing such issues in the first place? Is there a mechanism in place to limit the amount of memory a particular plugin or extension can consume?

    From the sounds of it, a lot of these problems are not much different than those issues that operating systems typically deal with: allocating resources to competing third-party programs (extensions or plugins, in this case). Perhaps it is time for Firefox to off-load such responsibilities to the operating system it is running above, and instead just provide a standard method of communication between an extension or plugin running as its own, separate, killable process.

    1. Re:Control these issues? by bunratty · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course! They've written the Leak Monitor extension to help extension authors to find leaks in their extensions. As far as I know, there's no way to limit the memory an extension uses without causing additional problems, or to kill an extension that's using too much memory. If you have a detailed suggestion for how extensions or plugins could run in their own processes, perhaps you should explain it.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  10. Re:Matching feature parity? by blakeross · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, most words look silly out of context. I thought this one was clear in the context of a discussion about browser religion. Moments earlier I said "We really are trying to make it less of a religious thing." Moments after I said "They are ripping off Firefox in a sense, but the truth is that when we started Firefox, we ripped off Internet Explorer because we wanted to make sure that people who migrated from IE felt comfortable in the Firefox world...I think in general, the community understands that this is kind of a collaborative process. There are always going to be people on the fringes who are just kind of zealots in either direction."

    Language matters, especially in defusing a religious beliefs. I'm not interested in promoting the idea that Microsoft "ripped off" Firefox.