Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Download Day To Start At 1 p.m. EST
boustrophedon writes "Starting at midnight in their local timezones, downloaders have been asking when Firefox 3 will be ready for Firefox Download Day, June 17, 2008. Mary announced on the Spread Firefox Forum that downloads will commence at 10 AM PST." That means 1 p.m. East Coast time, and, in Justin Mason's view, some pretty annoying times of day for many parts of the world.
Reader CorinneI supplies a link to PC Magazine's (very positive) overview of the new version's features, which praises the "speedy performance, thrifty memory usage, and, in particular, the address bar that now predicts where you want to go when you start typing (what Mozilla insiders refer to as the Awesome Bar)." FF3, even in Beta and RC form, and even with the extension incompatibilities I've run into, has quickly replaced FF2 as my preferred browser — for me, the improved drop-down autocomplete behavior alone is enough to justify the switch.
Why's he moaning about what time it starts at when people have a whole twenty-four hours to find a suitable time to download the thing? It's not like we all have to sprint to our computers and start it on the minute.
I thought we were in Daylight Saving Time until November?
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
I don't understand this obsession of ram usage, and this is from someone with a laptop with 512MB's, and primary computer of 844MB (as reported by the OS, but 1GB in the official specs). But, I want my RAM to be used (if it's going to make performance better). That's why I have it. So sure, if you have memory problems I can see the concern. But I'm comfortably running VMWare and firefox (using 172MB atm) and I probably have less RAM than you.
I guess, what's ultimate is a program that can scale its memory usage depending on availability. But I don't have any problems, so I won't complain.
Otherwise all this hype will not convince corps to switch.
Why MSI?
-it's a corp standard.(STD switches, behavior)
-It's customizable without changing the original package
-It is designed from the ground up to run unattended or silent regardless if it's an upgrade or a new install.
And Frontmotion (www.frontmotion.com/) != Mozilla
It's a trust issue. Corps want "warm and fuzzies" and not what they will view as a hack.
If Mozilla doesn't want to make an MSI package but still wants to entice the Corps to switch, host Frontmotion's MSI from the Mozilla site.
Having GPO support or preinstalled Addons are gravy at this point.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
1. Why did this not start on GMT so it was the 17th for the whole world at the normal time. 2. Why was it so hard to find a Mozillia definition of the 17th ;-)
Smart guys and gals could have made this simpler.
That's a PEBCAK error, not a fault with Firefox.
Images, html, css, content, media.. all of that takes up space. Firefox has to hold it in memory so it can display it quickly when you click on the tab.
How much would you be complaining if you had to wait 5 seconds every time you switched tabs so it could swap in from disk?
Why do slashdot use obscure timezones like PST EST XST when there is a standard UTC?
Its closed source no-one knows what could be in there!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
To be fair that's as much Adobe's fault for loading Acrobat with twenty times more extraneous BS than is needed to render a PDF. Mozilla should handle it more gracefully, maybe, but if you've ever tried opening Acrobat by itself, you know it takes bloody ages. And then nags you to update or register or update your registration or register your updates.
You might want to consider using a PDF reader that sucks less. Foxit is pretty decent for Windows.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
The awful bar sucks, and the way to get it to be a halfway useful UI is almost impossible for a normal use to do. I think this will pose a bit of a public relations nightmare for the project. :-/
Here are the list of problems I've found:
1) It searches your bookmarks. If I wanted to go to a bookmark, I'd have clicked on one. That's what they're for.
2) It searches the middle of words. When you type in "s" for slashdot it's going to bring up every page with an s in any word in the title, and an s in any location in the url.
3) It breaks muscle memory. The results seem to occur in random order. and to get it to be consistant you need to type nearly the whole url. The learning behaviour means that results will continually swap around.
4) The font is too large, and only 12 entries are listed. This makes it nearly useless. The old default was 25 entries.
5) It doesn't seem to take into account website home pages. Compared to FF2, this algorithm puts a whole heap of crappy leaf pages before the root of a site. The reason for this is probably that the leaf pages usually have more interesting titles.
6) The rational for the searching of titles is it allows you to find a page you've forgotten the url of. This is nice. However... I enter new url's in the address bar every five minutes to go to sites I know about. I forget a site I saw perhaps once a month. So the extra searching is the wrong behaviour nearly 100% of the time.
These problems can all be fixed. Probably the simplest way to drastically improve the results is to by default turn off the title and middle-of-word searching. Turn it on only if there is a space in the address bar. By using multiple keywords, the user is asking for a more advanced search.
With a few tweaks to algorithm, it should be able to return consistent results so that muscle memory works again. Using a FF2-like algorithm for the first few results, and FF3 for the rest will probably fix this.
Finally, there is an enormous thread about this horrible feature on the firefox forum. It is full of developers with their head in the sand saying that users will like it eventually. No we don`t. The user is right. Not the developer. The complaining has typically been nonconstructive. However, users don't really know exactly how to get what they want. The job of a developer is to distill their responses into real fixes. However, if the users are ignored the developers will quickly find how easy it is to fork an OSS project.
Having Yahoo email, hotmail, and Pandora open, as well as one other tab for various browsing, would regularly net my memory usage to 270 - 400 MB of RAM. With FF3 RC, my memory usage with the same pages is 130 - 160 MB. That's a WORLD of difference. It's significantly faster, too.
I don't understand this obsession of ram usage, and this is from someone with a laptop with 512MB's, and primary computer of 844MB (as reported by the OS, but 1GB in the official specs). But, I want my RAM to be used (if it's going to make performance better). That's why I have it.
The product I make displays documents of tens of thousands of pages with color content at 600 DPI, flips pages practically instantly, and uses less than 20 megabytes of RAM while doing so.
Crappy code is no excuse.
I for one will not be downloading Firefox 3 until this record attempt is over. I think it's just plain silly.
Personally I'm going to wait for a few days just to ensure that no reported problems surface.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The people who go "How do you know? Have you seen the source code?" almost invariably don't audit the code at all.
They don't have to. Only a small percentage actually have to audit the code, and that benefits everyone. The code still has to be open to allow this though.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Break a record = press = people hearing about it = more people using the browser
Awesome ... 9 minutes after they open the gates and the site is already offline ... I guess its good they make web browsers and not web servers.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
That's odd. The performance I'm seeing is far better than any other browser I've used, and it hasn't crashed in a couple of weeks of heavy use. The memory footprint is improved and the UI response is much faster. This is including a dozen or so extensions. I'm a little bit confused by what you mean when you say IE8 outperforms FF3. Is it memory usage? (IE under-reports because it rides the coattails of explorer.exe.) Is it loading speed? (IE is faster because it rides the coattails of explorer.exe.) Is it rendering speed? I haven't seen anything to suggest that IE8 is any faster than other IEs, and it still has some nicely broken CSS issues.
Any downloads AFTER the time will result in
"There were problems checking for, downloading or installing this update. Firefox could not be updatd because: AUS: No data was received (Please try again)"
Same for mozilla.org, spreadfirefox.com. Yes, I know I can wait. I've already waited for the damn thing to start.
I hope this stunt gets them to concentrate on the product rather than the publicity. The success of Firefox was not because of advertising, it was a good product spread by WOM and email.
Some people do not like the new URL bar because it gives too much (unwanted) results because it also looks in your bookmarks and the browser history.
I'd just like to point out that it adaptively learns how to sort the results, so you shouldn't discard it on first use. Give it some time to come up with the most relevant URLs (for you) on top.
Their web servers are toasted. When you try to do something like set a download record, perhaps you should ensure your IT infrastructure can handle it as well as your PR infrastructure can.
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
This is including a dozen or so extensions. I'm a little bit confused by what you mean when you say IE8 outperforms FF3. Is it memory usage? (IE under-reports because it rides the coattails of explorer.exe.) Is it loading speed? (IE is faster because it rides the coattails of explorer.exe.) Is it rendering speed? I haven't seen anything to suggest that IE8 is any faster than other IEs, and it still has some nicely broken CSS issues
Interesting you ask, as I just read an article that came away with an initial impression not unlike our own testing.
http://www.crn.com/software/208403208?cid=microsoftFeed
As for IE8 performance... I mean (Load Time, Page Load Times. high content performance on the page, RAM usage, responsiviness, etc.) The difference between IE7 and IE8 is significant, and IE7 wasn't so bad... (IE8 has rewritten everything from script handling, to page composition, etc.) If it wasn't from MS, it would be a browser people would be proud of in terms of performance gains.
You once again falsely state that IE rides on the coat tails of explorer.exe, this myth needs to die, as this has not been the case since IE6, especially on Vista, where explorer.exe and iexplorer.exe share NOTHING, so it doesn't get a footprint break as many assume because of IE4 Win98's shared process model where Explorer.exe and IE literally shared processes.
In fact even IE6 only marginally shared DLLs with Explorer.exe on XP, and still kept them in their own memory space, consuming just as much RAM as if explorer.exe was involved. (Test yourself, kill explorer.exe, iexplorer.exe doesn't die, and RAM for IE don't change and hasn't since Win98.) (NT doesn't even technically allow for what Win98/IE4/IE5 was doing.)
IE7/IE8 run are not tied to anything, and get no 'shared' benefits. Even in Vista, HTML rendering in folders is not an option, nor Active Desktop (the original desktop WIdgets from Win98). The HTML rendering frameworkis a 'callable' part of Windows, but if these threads/process call it, they get the RAM load, etc, and this not shared, just as if another application used the Mozilla engine, it would still have to load it in its own application space.
So people still claiming that 'IE has advantages' because of 'shared' resources/RAM with Explorer.exe/OS are just spreading a very old myth that needs to finally die, starting here.
Check out the link above, even though it doesn't seem to be a comprehensive test, it hits were are initial reactions are too.
Calm the hell down. Is a browser. Nobody is getting killed over the wrong link.
Have you seen the source of the open source programs that you swear by?
New features are great. That's one of the nice things about OSS. New features make their way into OSS projects faster IMHO. However forcing the use of a new and very controversial feature is not cool. It would be one thing if they added the feature and even turned it on by default if they wanted to give people a chance to use it. It's another thing to intentionally break support for the old way of doing it. That's rather vindictive in my opinion. We rail on other companies for doing similar things. Mozilla should not be excluded from our wrath simply because they're an OSS company.
I totally understand your use case, and why this change makes that task considerably more difficult. However, I'm pushing for this change based on the notion that all of the various people who have told me that Firefox is their favorite search engine don't scan a list of URLs, nor do they make a navigation decision based on the URL itself.
Essentially what we are debating here is a fundamental change in what the location bar is for, from purely a widget for directly entering URLs, to being a local search engine for content you have seen on the Web (which happens to also display URLs). The developers' position is that Firefox should be morphed into a search engine. I thought the point of Firefox was to remove bloat and applications that don't belong in browsers. Otherwise, we'd still be using vanilla Mozilla. It almost seems like this dev thinks every browser should be its own spider and archive.org.
In this day and age, when you're up against the marketing millions of Microsoft, you have to play the game. You're absolutely right that the product comes first but they have to make a splash - their rivals do.