Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Mozilla Needs To Go Into Survival Mode

Posted by Soulskill on from the bears-are-dangerous dept.

Crazzaper writes "I have been using Firefox for many years, and the war of the browsers has been around for longer than that. It just so happens that now we have a lot of options out there: IE, FF, Chrome, Opera, Safari, and others. People are always talking about how one browser is going to take down another, but maybe that's not the issue at all. It seems very possible that one browser, like Firefox, can be taken down by multiple browsers at once, whether or not there was any intention to compete specifically with Firefox. I hadn't seen it this way, but I do now."

27 of 464 comments (clear)

  1. Firefox lite. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What they need to do is remember why the project started and get back to that.

    Themes in 3.6? WTF were they thinking?

    Chrome and Safari both have excellent built in Web dev/javascript tools, I don't even miss Web Developer Toolbar.

    1. Re:Firefox lite. by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They started the project to develop a browser that was driven by user requirements (as opposed to the Mozilla suite, which was a behemoth driven by whatever developers were working on, all of the developers with check-in privileges).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Firefox lite. by uberjack · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I love Firefox because of its plugins (Firebug alone is the bee's knees), but it's an absolute memory hog. On both my Windows and Linux machines, I have to restart the application every few days - it's not shy about eating up 4-5 GB of RAM easily. In many cases (and if I leave the system running long enough, as I often do) it consumes all of the available memory until the system slows to a crawl. It especially annoys me that it's been this way for the last 2-3 years, and still nothing is being done.

    3. Re:Firefox lite. by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      which is why we still use firefox, as the chrome version = security risk.

      Meanwhile, firefox's "survival requirement" is nonexistent. They're doing just fine. They need to work on bloat and keep improving firefox, but they're not about to run out of relevance.

      The money loss from the google deal ending may or may not be a big deal. It depends on if they keep up the deal again. They most certainly might do so, as google might see it as a smart investment to guarantee competition, basically.

    4. Re:Firefox lite. by z4ns4stu · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Really, it makes sense with the way it is used as Google wins twice:
      1. The add gets downloaded, so the hit counts for revenue generation
      2. The add isn't displayed, so the user gets the experience they wanted

      Remember, Google is an advertising company at its heart.

      --
      The whole moon and the entire sky are reflected in one dewdrop on the grass. - Dogen
    5. Re:Firefox lite. by EvilBudMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually I presently have all four browsers no five counting Opera. (Opera, Chrome, Safari, IE8, Firefox)

      I still use FireFox most of the time. Not sure why? Oh, yeah it solved many spyware problems before IE had tabs and such at work. It IS getting bloated though now and I still have to have IE for some financial stuff that only works with IE for some stupid reason.

      I don't use No Script. I also have to go to MSN sometimes. That's just how it is. FireFox is better for viewing Microsoft sites. We'll not really but for most of what I need it is.

    6. Re:Firefox lite. by cygnusx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've noticed more "loading then removing" of content with Chrome/AdThwart than I remember from Firefox/AdblockPlus

      That's because Chrome's extension API doesn't allow extensions to stop loading resources, it only allows resources to be removed after they are loaded.

    7. Re:Firefox lite. by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      plenty of people know how to install firefox and adblock but don't know how to make a custom hosts file. I know how, but there's a reason we rely on adblock, and it's called pure laziness.

    8. Re:Firefox lite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A custom hosts file works well when at home. But when you are using a proxy server (at work) a hosts file doesn't block anything. You need adblock for that.

    9. Re:Firefox lite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Like cygnusx said above, Chrome loads the DOM tree before the extension can manipulate it. No adblock extension can perform any better with the current model. That said, the loading of the ads and then removing them actually helps the functionality of some web pages.

    10. Re:Firefox lite. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is also the issue of downloading huge amounts of ad data -- which all go against your 5gb (matters here) or 250gb (not so big here) per month limit.
      The advertisers are using *MY* download quota without paying me for it.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    11. Re:Firefox lite. by aix+tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But it has to do with them thar "Com-Puh-Tars"

      There must be some funny effect with them. People who are perfectly able to do something when you tell them (quite complicated) "Do $STUFF" completely lock up mentally when you tell them "Do $STUFF on the computer"

      Funny enough, the patent office seems to share this. Patents to "Do $STUFF in $WAY" that are completely obvious, and would be rejected immediately by any sane person get granted when they add two words. "Do $STUFF in $WAY on computer"

    12. Re:Firefox lite. by ultranova · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The advertisers are using *MY* download quota without paying me for it.

      Isn't the whole point of capitalism externalizing the costs and internalizing the profits? Why do you hate freedom so much, you commie?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    13. Re:Firefox lite. by kaiidth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Looks like it. Even Stephen Timms, noted dumbass and so-called Minister for Digital Britain, doesn't know what it is.

      According to him, IP address stands for Intellectual Property address.

    14. Re:Firefox lite. by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>>>>And if you're concerned about bloat, maybe try Mozilla's seaMonkey?
      >>
      >>Maybe my sarcasm detector is just failing, but you do realize that Firefox originated as a branch off of Seamonkey because it was thought that Seamonkey had become too bloated?

      Yes.

      Funny how the wheel turns, does it not? On my machine seaMonkey uses less memory. It's also why it's the default install on Puppy Linux, which was designed to run on machines with just 32-64 megabytes of RAM.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    15. Re:Firefox lite. by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just installed Opera & Chrome to do a little "taste test". I opened all three browsers & pointed them to Slashdot. One tab open for each one. According to Process Explorer, here is the memory footprint for each program.

      Firefox = 214,832 K
      Chrome = 111,820 K & 105,376 K
      Opera = 218,212 K

      I'm not seeing a big difference here.

      This is on a Athlon Phenom II X4 955 w/ 4 GB of DDR3 running WinXP SP3.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    16. Re:Firefox lite. by knarf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you do realize that Firefox originated as a branch off of Seamonkey because it was thought that Seamonkey had become too bloated?

      That might have been true when Firefox branched off but if you add up the resources used by Firefox and Thunderbird you'll find that Seamonkey is lighter. Since it is based on the same version of Gecko (the renderer) it is more or less in the same league speed-wise. Many Firefox-extensions work - or can be made to work - in Seamonkey as well.

      I have used most current browsers in Linux - Firefox, Seamonkey, Opera, Arora, Midori, Epiphany, Chromium, Konqueror and some others - and have concluded that Seamonkey fits my needs best. It is fast enough, works well with 20+ tabs per window and includes a well-integrated email client while keeping resource consumption within acceptable limits for my main systems (8 year old IBM Thinkpad T23's). It has enough features all by itself but even so it is flexible enough to add even more by using extensions (including everyone's favorite Adblock+).

      So you see there is no need for a sarcasm detector. Things change. Firefox has suffered from the second system effect in version 2.x where resource consumption went up while reliability went down. The 3.x branch has undone most of the damage but it still takes more to run both Firefox as well as Thunderbird than it does to run Seamonkey.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
  2. Serious inquiry re: Adblock by mujadaddy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What does Adblock give you that NoScript doesn't? "filter subscriptions"? Why should I have to worry about a blacklist when NoScript allows me to decide if my "web experience" is less than it should be and THEN unblock something?

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  3. Re:Go get your guns? by DieNadel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This was marked as funny, but I actually would like to know what kind of strategies FF should follow.

    What does "survival mode" means in this case? Race in new features?

    --
    Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
  4. Re:No extensions, no FF killer by rm999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You are looking at it from your perspective, but do the masses really care about these things? Firefox's position is actually pretty tenuous - it comes largely from geeks telling their friends to use it, but if the geeks get annoyed at Firefox (something that has already started) there could be a mass exodus. Also, Firefox depends largely on Google for its revenue; while Google has not indicated they will stop supporting firefox, they could end their relationship if Firefox becomes weak enough.

    BTW, Chrome's adblocking is about as good as firefox's at this point.

  5. Re:No extensions, no FF killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm sorry, but unless and until every browser has the "extensions" feature that FF has (Specifically including Adblock Plus and No Script) then NO browser will EVER be a true "Firefox Killer".

    Chrome is OK, but without extensions it's nothing more than a runner-up. The same for Opera and IE#. Safari is nothing more than a side-show.

    You are aware that extensions the way they are implemented in Firefox is a major activex type security issue? And Mozilla is thinking of ditching them?

  6. Not buying it by Mr.+Spontaneous · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, Firefox has some issues. Yes, the Mozilla team needs to fix them. However, I think this article is being overly sensationalistic (surprise, surprise). In a wonderful bout of irony, the same forces that made long-standing IE users jump to FF are keeping them using FF. Some are averse to learning a new UI/control scheme, others needs certain extensions to remain productive. Then there are a few, like me, who don't see the performance/crashing issues that others report. I'm not saying that they don't exist, just that I haven't experienced them.

    Additionally, FF has been approved for use in many businesses, as well as the DoD/DHS to run on their networks. Chrome, AFAIK, hasn't.

    With these forces slowing down non-Firefox adoption, the Mozilla team has bought themselves some crucial time in the quest to right some of their browser's weaknesses. Hopefully they'll be able to meet that challenge, and, from reading the various blogs published to Planet Mozilla, I'm fairly confident that they will.

    --
    Its all fun and games until someone loses an eye... then its just fun.
  7. Not big on Chrome and IE9 won't do it for me, but- by fortapocalypse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Mozilla/FF should focus on making it the best place to develop plugins and making the browser fast and stable. I don't care about anything else really.

  8. I agree with the summary. by QJimbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Me and my colleague were using the spreadsheet app on google docs last night whilst on the phone. I made a remark that we should probably be using chrome instead of firefox due to the faster javascript. He decides to go with it then suddenly says to me "In the time it takes firefox to load, I've installed chrome, launched it and I'm back on google docs."

    Firefox needs to get it's act together to keep up basically.

  9. Re:What they need... by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Firefox is really only a memory pig (and they are actually improving there).

    I currently have about 30 tabs open and it is only sipping at 1 core (on a Core Duo at 1.66 Ghz). Flash tends to chew up a lot of cycles (so I run flashblock...).

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  10. Re:Go get your guns? by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As in "Do whatever it takes to survive." That means:

    * Find out why old users leave
    * Find out why new users don't come
    * Fix those problems
    * Make sure fixing those problems doesn't lead to new problems

    I know I don't run FF anymore -- I switched to Chrome mostly because I was having PC troubles and often jumping from computer to computer or reformatting, and needed the seamless bookmarks sync (which turned out to be a major time saver). My original reason, however, was that when I was using my old computer, I had a 15-20 second wait to get Firefox loaded, which left me handshy of ever closing the damn thing in the first place, and that ramped up the memory usage from leaks or whatever. On that same computer, Chrome loaded in under about 3 seconds, so I could close it without feeling like a damned idiot the next time I needed to open it again for a quick link. Since I've gotten used to it, I'm not terribly interested in trying to go back to using FF merely because I'm happy with the current setup.

    That said, FF did serve me very well for years, and I don't think it's dead, dying, or that it SHOULD die.

  11. Re:theora = suicide by Nerdfest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It sucks that you're right. Theora is the 'right' choice, but it's looking like it's too late.