Slashdot Mirror
Nine Reasons To Skip Firefox 2.0
grandgator writes, "Hyped by a good deal of fanfare, outfitted with some new features, and now available for download, Firefox 2.0 has already passed 2 million downloads in less than 24 hours. However, a growing number of users are reporting bugs, widening memory leaks, unexpected instability, poor compatibility, and an overall experience that is inferior to that offered by prior versions of the browser. Expanding on these ideas, this list compiles nine reasons why it might be a good idea to stick with 1.5 until the debut of 3.0, skipping the "poorly badged" 2.0 release completely." OK, maybe it's 10 reasons. An anonymous reader writes, "SecurityFocus reports an unpatched highly critical vulnerability in Firefox 2.0. This defect has been known since June 2006 but no patch has yet been made available. The developers claimed to have fixed the problem in 1.5.0.5 according to Secunia, but the problem still exists in 2.0 according to SecurityFocus (and I have witnessed the crash personally). If security is the main reason users should switch to Firefox, how do we explain known vulnerabilities remaining unpatched across major releases?"
Update: 10/30 12:57 GMT by KD : Jesse Ruderman wrote in with this correction. "The article claims that Firefox 2 shipped with a known security hole This is incorrect; the hole is fixed in both Firefox 1.5.0.7 and Firefox 2. The source of the confusion is that the original version of this report demonstrated two crash bugs, one of which was a security hole and the other of which was just a too-much-recursion crash. The security hole has been fixed but we're still trying to figure out the best way to fix the too-much-recursion crash. The report has been updated to clear up the confusion."
Update: 10/30 12:57 GMT by KD : Jesse Ruderman wrote in with this correction. "The article claims that Firefox 2 shipped with a known security hole This is incorrect; the hole is fixed in both Firefox 1.5.0.7 and Firefox 2. The source of the confusion is that the original version of this report demonstrated two crash bugs, one of which was a security hole and the other of which was just a too-much-recursion crash. The security hole has been fixed but we're still trying to figure out the best way to fix the too-much-recursion crash. The report has been updated to clear up the confusion."
1) The new theme is too bulky, inconsistent on different platforms, and inferior to the highly refined and very user friendly theme of 1.5 (this is despite late efforts by Mozilla to spruce up the icon set and improve consistency)
2) Antiphishing technology is both weak (blacklist based) and a potential privacy problem. The privacy issues are raised because Firefox 2.0 Antiphishing Features employ an engine previously released by Google, which has been shown to potentially cause privacy risks.
3) The new Options dialog box is confusing, poorly designed, and illogically hides important features
4) There are many reported compatibility issues with the large existing libraries of extensions, themes, and plugins currently avaialble for earlier versions of Firefox. While this can, to some degree, be expected, the loss of this huge user contributed extension base is a non-trivial problem with Firefox 2.0, and could be a deal breaker for some people all by itself
5) The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox
6) There are reported problems with the CSS engine in Firefox 2.0, affecting various websites, and making certain features unavailable to surfers. Notable among these is a continued problem with certain aspects of Yahoo! mail
7) Reports indicate that episodes of random freezing during use are worse with the 2.0 version, though a cause has not yet been isolated
8) Numerous users have reported that the History bar is buggy, and that in some instances - for unknown reasons - will not display recent items when the history menu is opened as a side panel
9) RSS feed handling has taken a step backwards, and is inferior to that of IE7.
The ability to close and continue sessions later removes a major reason why many people kept their browsers open for long periods of time. Before when you close your browser you had to open your tabs again and get it in the same configuration, now it goes to being the same as before immidiately.
So even if some leaks remain, the problems they cause are reduced.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Firefox to internet:
.0 release to an established release, and to Internet Explorer, is just pretty laughable where I am sitting. I have not experienced a single crash or bug, but then I have not exactly been trying to break it. Overall, I am quite impressed and look forward to seeing where this release takes the community.
If you are for any reason dissatisfied with your Firefox experience, we will gladly refund your money.
There will, of course, be growing pains. TFA highlights a known security bug, and points out that the memory leak has found its way into Firefox 2. CSS is initially seeing some compatibility hickups. There is always room for improvement. I began using Firefox 2 a few hours after the actual release. I was surprised to see an article complaining.
The other points of the article are matters of preference and wishful thinking.
-"I don't like the theme." ORLY well how is that IE theme support working out for you?
-"The anti phishing is weak!" ---compared to what? The antiphishing in 1.5?
-"Extensions did not automagically compatible-ize themselves!" OOOOHHH, well let me switch to that other browser that inherently supports third-party code. Perhaps we have overlooked the ".0" in the release version number. Third parties will have to adapt to meet the changes as Mozilla works to meet them. This does constitute a reason to potentially delay switching if extensions are absolutely necessary for your casual web usage.
-"I don't understand the options screen!" BWAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAAAA!!!! This can't be serious.
-"I don't like the RSS thingy! IE does it better!" Where was it again that RSS originated? Was that Redmond? While IE's RSS Just Works (TM) there are clearly many custom options for this feature with Firefox, and unimaginable numbers of extensions are to follow.
So why delay switching to 2.0? Because 1.5 is just fine. Not because 2.0 is broken. Comparing a
FairTax baby!
For me, when it comes to extensions, one (incompatibility) is too many. Each of the ~14 I have serves a purpose - and I'd rather not go without the functionality provided. (With extensions like ad-block being one of the main reasons I switched to FF in the first place, and why I doubt I'll move back over to IE7).
I am the maverick of Slashdot
> I do not want my browser to remember that I had ten pages open and then reopen them when it starts. I'd be running Opera if I wanted that.
Then use the simple switch they provide to make it not do that.
You didn't look very hard - the very first dropdown on the first panel of the options dialogue has the option you're looking for.
Advanced users are users too!
I find Firefox a huge resource hog on my P4, taking away ever increasing amounts of memory in what are probably leaks.
I use Mozilla and am very happy with it.
It seems like quite a few people are out defending Firefox, but that's actually a disservice for Firefox.
What it really comes down to is to make Firefox into a browser that can convince the other 80+% of the users to switch. Saying "oh but, Firefox did it first!" or "you can just change x setting to make it better if you like" is irrelevant because when it comes down to it, it's whether the average users think it's better than the other browser. Making excuses for issues that even be perceived as problems doesn't help Firefox.
I like Firefox and upgraded to 2.0 on Tuesday, but it's not really the opinion of the Firefox crowd that really matters, it's the users still using Internet Explorer, the crowd that Firefox is really going after.
Sounds to me like Mozilla really need to get their act together, especially given the revenue they are supposed to be generating through Google, there isn't really an excuse for this.
This might help if you have crashes:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Firefox_crashes
Opera fanboy alert: Opera doesn't have ad supported mode anymore. Yes, that's right. It's free (cost), even though not free (speech)
Go to about:config.
Filter on "tabs"
Find the entry for "browser.tabs.closeButtons". It'll probably be set at "1". Setting it to "2" makes the close button only visible on the active tab. Setting it to "3" makes the close button the right appear again (1.5 behavior).
Hope this helps.
It's not actually a security issue.
A few months ago, someone reported a security hole using a testcase that caused two types of crashes, one exploitable and the other not. The security hole was fixed reasonably quickly, but the other crash is a hard-to-fix collection of too-much-recursion crashes, so it hasn't been fixed yet. The security hole is bug 348514 and the too-much-recursion crash is 323394.
I can understand a few people getting confused due to an old security-hole testcase still causing a crash, but having it come up in mainstream news articles and Slashdot articles as "Firefox 2 might have shipped with a known security hole" day after day is getting annoying.
The shareholder is always right.
I have been using Firefox 2.0 on Windows and Linux for a while now (RC1)
1. It is faster than 1.5
2. It is more stable than 1.5
3. It is smaller than 1.5
4. It does more 'out the box' - requires less extensions
5. It looks better than 1.5
7. I love the spell checking
8. It is more secure than 1.5
9.If it uses more memory, it is because it remembers
the previous pages and the back button works instantly.
The reasons not to quoted in the 'story' are moronic
Cheers
Sygin
Don't make your problems my problems!
I am a Firefox developer, so I can comment with some authority on these points.
First, as to the "critical security hole", as we've already stated in numerous other places, the actual exploitable hole was patched long ago. A non-exploitable crash does remain and will eventually be fixed. Anyone who reports this as a security hole has not done their due diligence.
Second, the summary posted here is a bit surprising. The feedback we've seen so far is quite the opposite of this summary: most users are, in fact, reporting better performance, lower memory usage (we fixed some of the most egregious leaks), and an easier-to-use browser. Additionally, we fixed far more bugs, especially old, longstanding bugs, in this release than in any previous Firefox release. So even if none of the new features flotas your boat, this release *should* be a polished step forward, once you start poking around a bit.
Third, as to the nine points this article raises:
# The new theme sucks
As this is a matter of personal preference, I can only encourage those who dislike the new theme to download one of the many alternative themes available. There are updated versions of the 1.5 Winstripe/Pinstripe themes, as well as many others, whatever suits your fancy. I will note that the majority of editors reviewing Firefox 2 have felt that the new theme is a step forward; so clearly not everyone believes this is a negative point.
# Antiphishing technology is both weak (blacklist based) and a potential privacy problem. The privacy issues are raised because Firefox 2.0 Antiphishing Features employ an engine previously released by Google, which has been shown to potentially cause privacy risks.
This argument is unclear. One of the antiphishing modes uses a blacklist and the other submits URLs to Google. So it at worst is not both weak and privacy-violating at the same time. Going further, however, I would ask for a less vague argument about privacy. Switching on full antiphishing protection displays a warning notice to the user specifying exactly what sorts of data is sent where, and for what purpose. I hardly consider it a violation of privacy to allow people to explicitly choose to send their data somewhere else. (Of course, given that Google doesn't actually do anything with this data other than feed it into their anti-phishing database, I don't consider it a violation of privacy regardless, but we have options precisely because not all users will feel this way.)
# The new Options dialog box is confusing, poorly designed, and illogically hides important features
Especially given the positive feedback we've gotten on the redesigned pref window, I'd suggest explicitly naming problems here rather than making such a vague and general argument. The new options box is IMO a vast improvement on the old one: it reduces the number of tabs containing embedded tabs to one (the Advanced tab), it rewords many options for grammar and clarity (especially where the old wordings had generated bug reports), and it slightly modifies the default set of options to better fit actual usage. Name the "important features" being hidden and I suspect the list will consist of features that are very important to a tiny fraction of our userbase.
# There are many reported compatibility issues with the large existing libraries of extensions, themes, and plugins currently avaialble for earlier versions o Firefox.
Actually, since the Gecko engine remained at version 1.8, with almost every XPCOM interface backwards compatible with Firefox 1.5, this release has by far the _fewest_ number of incompatibilities of any release in Firefox history. Most extensions are compatible once their version numbers are set properly, and only a small fraction actually broke. Additionally, we contacted the authors of the most popular extensions in advance of the release to explicitly ask them to test their extensions, and filed bugs to track the upgrading of popular extensions. While we can always do more here, I think this has been th
Well, it seems like every version of Firefox still has issues with espn.com.
Its definitely the most reliable site to crash and/or generate 100% cpu time on any recent version (1.5.x and 2.0).
Just go browse to one of the scoreboard pages a few times. It really likes to do this on Mac.
Maybe it's because you aren't surfing. If you actually use firefox, instead of simply letting it remain minimized at about:blank for a month, it will quickly use ridiculous amounts of memory. Here it's at 305MB and counting... Oops, just checked, it's now 306MB. And I haven't really done anything apart from writing this in the meantime.
If people have problems, they are more likely to speak it up, than those who don't have problems. Just to make things a little more equal, I for one have had no problems with Firefox 2.0.
I can confirm that. Runs just as nice as Firefox 1.5 on three very different machines and has more well-rounded features, so no complaints here.
Someone is wrong on the Internet!
Well, there are more options than Internet Explorer or Firefox. Opera for instance. I myself hate the fact that if you specify firefox to always open links in a new tab, and not a new instance, it still now and then opens up a new browserwindow. :) :)
Amaya is a browser made by the w3consortium. I haven't tried it yet, but a browser made by them, well I'd expect it to adhere all the standards
You've also still got Netscape but that browser hasn't been a serious competitor for a while now'but it's still available if someone'd like to try
I'm afraid I'm still an opera fanboy. Like the looks, like the usage, like that it's crossplatform, like that it had tabbed browsing back in 1999.
If I had the time I would've tried amaya and would have written something more like a review, but I'm afraid I'm quite short on time at the moment.
Manuals are your last resort only
(taken from here)
1. Not true. The theme is perhaps not consistent, but this does not matter to the casual user who downloads Firefox for use on 1 platform.
2. Not true. Antiphishing technology privacy issues are clearly noted when the user ENABLES the (by default DISABLED) feature. This makes it completely by users' choice, and defeats this issue completely.
3. Little bit true. There are certain options hidden which should be visible. But it's a choice made towards new users, not towards old users that still remember releases such as Firefox 0.9. So it's actually a good thing. And user interfaces tend to address the most common denominator anyway, which is also a proper thing to do.
4. Little bit true, but to be expected ! Extensions access XPCOM-exported functionality. It is by default that many of the XPCOM interfaces are not stable - this is known to developers and this is clearly noted next to the interfaces you want to develop upon. If extensions use unstable interfaces they know that it could break in future releases. Short story: this issue is no issue at all.
5. 50% True. But this is a bug that could just as well be fixed in Firefox 2.0.1. Memory leaks are however not easy to fix, and it is by no means sure that it would be even fixed in 3.0, so pure speculation to make this an issue not to upgrade to 2.0.
6. True. But this also represents a transitional problem that will most likely be fixed (or worked around) in the 2.0-branch
7. Unverifyable. The author refers to some blog that mentions presumably a Firefox 2.0 RC3-version. But there are no details on the setup of the person's Firefox, nor on the extensions he had installed (see 4). This makes this issue unverifyable and strikes it off this list.
8. True. Again not something major that couldn't be fixed in the 2.0 branch - have patience.
9. Untrue. The article author states that RSS feed handling takes a step backwards - in the linked article there is no mention of this: it says that RSS feed handling has never been so good in Firefox as it is in IE7. This is a feature that Firefox may be lacking, but as it has never been present in earlier releases this is NO REASON not to upgrade. Stricken, your honour.
My judgement from the issues he stated ? He mentions 2 issues that would qualify as a "no-go" for upgrade, the history bar and the CSS issues. But both these issues are minor in that they could be fixed in the 2.0 branch. I clearly show why the other issues are not so true, and sometimes clearly dead-wrong. In my eyes, the author is writing a big fat troll, and slashdot should know better than to post this. Now the damage has been done, this discussion can quickly be silenced, hopefully.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
The well known memory leak issue, which causes the Firefox browser to consume ever increasing amounts of RAM, eventually leading to sluggish performance and crashes, has been carried over into yet another generation. This is despite an enormous amount of public commentary and user requests for resolution prior to release of a new version of Firefox
For how long major applications like Firefox will have memory leaks? can we please stop using C altogether and use a decent garbage-collected language like D (there are other languages around, but D is as close to C as possible)...
"Or is it a misguided attempt to "cache" stuff in memory, which is about the stupidist thing you can do given that today memory is very slow versus processors, so usually it's faster just to recompute what you need when it's needed."
Don't be retarded. Parsing HTML into a DOM, parsing CSS and applying that to the DOM, then actually computing all of the page's layout takes considerably longer than just pulling a pre-computed DOM out of memory. Caching pre-computed values in memory is hardly a rare thing, most software does it in one way or another.
Caca. As I pointed out in my long message on the other major /. Firefox discussion -- Firefox 2.0 still has some of the same memory allocation and management issues that are present in Firefox 1.5! These were reported as bugs and the developers have simply chosen to ignore them.
I *crashed* (core dump and all) Firefox 2.0 3 times in the first 30 minutes of using it. All you have to do is use ulimit set the virtual memory limit so that memory allocations fail relatively early during your browsing experience (rather than after 5 days of browsing when you would lose much more browser state information -- or have to take a long time to restore a complex session).
It is *NOT* production level software when it is that easy to produce a core dump.
I have subsequently investigated the cause of this. Its simple. Firefox uses the new memory allocation primitive in its C++ code which in turn ends up either throwing an exception or abort()ing when a malloc() fails (depending upon how libstdc++ is compiled). The supporting graphics libraries (GTK & GDK) use g_alloc() which when malloc() fails calls g_error() which ends up calling abort().
The upper level Firefox code (nsSigHandlers.cpp) will only do something "nice" (setup to do a stack trace and attach the debugger) if Firefox is compiled in DEBUG mode (which is probably not true for most or all 'production-wanna-be' versions). In these cases the abort() terminates the program and produces core dump if you have your core dump ulimit and permissions setup to allow for that.
While the in-browser session saver may fix some of the excessive memory usage problems they still are NOT handling most memory allocation failures in a robust fashion.
Can someone explain this to me w/o modding me -1:
.9)-- most of the comments were about how firefox is just BETTER. Users were sold on it based on it's merits. Now, maybe because of IE7, FF promoters here apparently aren't satisfied with these arguments and instead resort to these misguided tactics.
Why is it that every comment in this page that compares IE favorably to FF is modded -1?
Why is it that every comment in this page that mentions problems w/ FF like memory leaks, crashes, etc, is either not modded up or is modded down?
Slashdot users pride themselves as a bit more informed that the dumbass NOOBs, so why are we incapable of holding 2 opposing viewpoints at the same time? Isn't that supposed to be the mark of intelligence?
Nobody has ever accused Slashdot of having intelligence, but I think the average user would consider themselves to be a notch or 2 above average.
It just seems like people that have the political agenda of advancing FireFox thinks that the best way to do that is to hide any criticism and treat any suggestions to convert to IE7 as totally unacceptable.
When firefox debuted--and I've been running it since then (since v
What I'm saying is, we used to convince people to switch by giving them MORE INFORMATION. Now, it seems, the accepted tactic is trying to play-up FF strengths and hide FF criticism.
That's sad to me.
Go ahead, mark me -129 offtopic flamebait troll, but anyone reading this page knows that what I'm saying is true.