Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 7.0 Beta Released
An anonymous reader sends word that the first Firefox 7.0 beta has been released. One of the big areas of focus for this version will be performance enhancements. One optimization "Reduces memory use and improves performance areas including responsiveness, startup and page load time, even in complex websites and Web apps." Another addresses one of Firefox users' long-standing gripes: "The JavaScript garbage collector works more frequently to free up memory and improve performance when you have many tabs open or keep Firefox running for a long time."
Next in few mins...Firefox 8 Alpha released and Firefox 9 Preview released... Do we need to clog up the front page with these articles? Gone are the days of version numbers making any sense in FF. We don't report Chrome versions do we?
This space for rent.
As a web designer, they're turning my hair white with all these versions. Not so much that we need worry about things becoming incompatible, etc. but it's spreading out the userbase, which is just inherently more difficult to ensure cross-version identicality.
It's always confirmation bias!
Not in the summary is an opt in feature that will report your memory use (presumably along with what pages you are on and extentions you are using) back to Mozilla so they can finally put the "but FF using 2 GB of RAM on my machine" bugs to rest, either by fixing them or by dispelling the myth depending on which is the case.
"The JavaScript garbage collector works more frequently to free up memory and improve performance when you have many tabs open or keep Firefox running for a long time."
Shouldnt the leaks be fixed, rather than having a garbage collector cleaning them up?
Isnt it like putting a bigger engine on a car with square wheels instead of making the wheels round?
Or even better, a rolling release.
We might as well link the third article on Slashdot to an RSS feed or Mozilla releases. Its starting to get an article every 5 days or so.
Momento Mori
They are already working to remove the version numbering, whether it's for better or for worse.
The more you know, the more you have to say and the more you should listen.
Firefox 7.0 has already reached end-of-life at the time of this posting...
It's more that the beta for 7 comes out pretty much the instant 6 is released. One of the more interesting aspects of the Mozilla development process is that they essentially have a pipeline of four "releases" going on at once: Current (stable stuff, now 6), Beta (code being stabilized, now 7), Aurora (testing and major bugfixes, now 8) and Nightly (new feature work, now 9). When it comes time to do a new release, Current gets booted out, Beta and Aurora get promoted, and Nightly coughs up a build that becomes the new Aurora. It would actually be a pretty good system, except for the part where they forgot about maintenance releases and long-term support.
It used to be a tiny little box that would slide up in the corner of the screen. It would stay there for exactly as long as it took for your brain to register the presence of the link, and then slide away. Unless you were a ninja and/or sniper you had no hope of hitting the link.
Now a big, huge window flops up onto the middle of the screen WHILE I'M WATCHING A GODDAMN VIDEO. Half an acre of gray emptiness with two buttons and a line of text about the new version.
I hope with future versions that the entire screen will be blacked-out, mariachi music will begin to play in the background along with the sound of 5 or 6 crying babies, and a 5 minute marketing video plays while the new version downloads and installs. Oh! And I hope they start forcing the icon onto the desktop with each update, Adobe style; that would rock.
What was called FireFox 4.0 should have been called FireFox 3.7, and we should still be in 3.7.x phase. These version number games make me have the very real inclination to punch the people responsible in the face repeatedly. They are doing no less than turning FireFox, which once had reverence, into an object of ridicule.
If the releases are that close together, just keep it in development until they get in all the bugs and features in. No one likes to upgrade every month.
Speaking only for myself, I only like to upgrade when there (a) are compelling reasons, and (b) it's feasible.
I use a plugin which is security related and thus signed, and there will never be a new version available at the day of the launch. If there isn't a new version before the next release, it means that in order to upgrade, I will have to hunt down the new version in archives, and install it that way.
With other companies having release cycles of 6 months or a year, there's no way they can keep up with Firefox. So Asa D. has pretty much forced many of us to look elsewhere.
Yes, I see the upgrade popup for Firefox, but I have to ignore it because upgrading will break my plugins. It's only a source of irritation.
The supported distro I am on is at version 3.6.18, and there is no newer version. So why do I get the irritating pop-up at all?
In Windows (in a VM), I am at FF5, and get a pop-up telling me that I should go to version 6. Sorry, I can't, until the plugins I need are signed for FF6. So why do I get a pop-up? Just to irritate me?
I'm using other browsers more and more now, because the direction Mozilla is going in now is best described as the direction of the divine wind. Sorry, I don't plan to be aboard.
From the big Bugzilla thread about version numbers earlier this week:
Effective expiration, lack of bugfixes, and rapidly replaced by newer versions with bugfixes? By any practical definition, there is no stable version. They're all betas from here onwards. The whole notion of a release isn't that it's bug-free, but that it's supported for a reasonably-long period of time.
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
Write to the HTML5 spec, validate, and don't worry about the other stuff. HTML was never designed to be "pixel perfect". That's a limitation that has been in the first page of the spec manual since forever.
So what if it's free. How does that make it above criticism? That's got to be one of the lamest excuses for trying to stifle criticism of something. If you're just going to whine and complain when your users complain about stuff, then why even release something for users anyway? Why not just keep it as some internal tool so the devs can circle jerk in peace? That seems to be what Mozilla wants now.
My FireFox has updated itself to 6.0 now and my humble plugin-requirements still work. I use NoScript, AdBlock+, BetterPrivacy and DownloadHelper. So you will at least be able to surf the web with reasonable security. As soon as the plugins starts breaking, I'm going straight for Chrome. I don't know much about Chrome these days, I last used it 3 years ago. How is the stance with plugins on Chrome now ? If there are still no plugins, do you at least have the equivalent functions of the plugins i mentioned above?
Can I light a sig ?
I keep a version of aversion in subversion.
Next up: Mozilla becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of the Fox News empire after Google and other funding sources dry up.
You could use the super-secret Mozilla Add-on SDK
QUOTE: help ensure your add-on continues to work as new versions of Firefox are released.
Nobody seems to be mentioning this solution. Not even Mozilla.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Okay, so Major versions mean "new feature that may be buggy, so avoid .0 releases", Minor versions mean "okay, no new features, let's just concentrate on enhancing performance and security of the features we do have". And FF7's major claim to fame will be performance enhancements and a widget to tell MOZILLA about webpage memory usage. So not only is Firefox 7 breaking the traditional model, it's reporting things to Mozilla that it won't even report to the user. Screw this, if I want phone-home enabled browsers, I'll go with the ones I already KNOW phone home, IE and Chrome.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Write to the HTML5 spec
I agree with you as for web pages. But write Firefox add-ons to what spec?
HTML was never designed to be "pixel perfect".
It also wasn't designed to look completely unusable when a user's web browser supports only half of the CSS selectors and properties that your page uses, was it?
Something tells me they started feeling penis envy when FF was only 3.x.x and "theirs goes to 11". Add to that a fear that Avg Joe might think that FF technology is inferior due to the lower number.
Will they be content to lay off this number madness when they reach parity with IE? Or will we be seeing version 24 in 2012, and Firefox 100 in 2015? At the current pace of releases, that may be a conservative number.
Really, why should I care about FF any more? They're killing us and themselves with all of these major version releases. As many others have pointed out, it's painful when dealing with web development, plugin usage, or even just to know what version is "latest". And that doesn't count all the pain with the major bugs that just languish while the UI is endlessly tweaked for no good reason (exactly why was the status bar removed?).
I'm sorry FF, but I'm sticking to the 3.6 series. As soon as that doesn't work anymore because of 1 OS upgrade too many, I'll stop using FF. If you can get things fixed and find sanity again before then, I'll stay. Otherwise, it's been a good 8 years we've had together.
Stifle criticism?
Did you not read the bugzilla thread where Asa Dotzler was getting butthurt and trying to stifle debate because people *gasp* dared to question his supposed "bug"?
Once again, if you don't want anyone criticizing something. DON'T FUCKING RELEASE IT TO THE PUBLIC. Mozilla seems to want to turn Firefox into a circle jerk fest. That's fine, just keep it to yourselves and circle jerk away.
What do you use instead? That's been my big problem - the plugin libraries of other browsers are no where near as extensive and a lot of the functionality I use daily just isn't there.
Plugins used daily:
- Snap Links Plus ---- a few upgrades and this should replace traditional highlighting in a browser
- QuickDrag ---- removes the need to do ctrl+click to open in a new tab
- Adblock Plus ---- simply hiding ads isn't enough for ABP, it must stop them from downloading to preserve the precious 20gb of data transfer/month I have
- Element Hiding Helper ---- for those few pesky ads you can't block from downloading
- Modify Headers ---- this one is gold
- FireFTP
- Canadian English Dictionary
- IE Tab Plus ---- for those pesky active x controls (not used daily but useful)
- Morning Coffee ---- how else would I open all my favourite sites at once? certainly not with the "dialpad" or whatever that monstrosity is called
- Chatzilla
- about a dozen different web development tools from Firebug to Live HTTP headers to MeasureIt... just too many to mension
There's just no option that does all that... at best I might be able to do it across 4-5 different programs if I dropped some of them. Slowly though they are no longer supporting 3.6 and I won't upgrade due to the numerous issues from their release model to their UI and so on... eventually I'll have switch to another browser because neither 3.6 nor 7+ will be worth using.
It was good while it lasted.
I think some hacker redefined Mozilla's $version as an INT.
Money for nothing, pix for free
You could use the super-secret Mozilla Add-on SDK
QUOTE: help ensure your add-on continues to work as new versions of Firefox are released.
Nobody seems to be mentioning this solution. Not even Mozilla.
At least in part because having Firefox auto-update the xpi to mark it compatible for a new version breaks when modules are signed.
So for those, the developer has to release a new package. And if your release cycle is 6 months (fairly common), and Firefox' release cycle is 6 weeks, there is going to be Problems.
Both users and developers aren't going to put up with it, and will leave. Which is exactly what we see happening now - it wasn't rocket science to predict this outcome.
"I agree with you as for web pages. But write Firefox add-ons to what spec?"
The Add-ons SDK. Write to that and your add-ons won't break with updates. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/builder Yeah. It's that easy. Write to the stable APIs of the Web and the stable APIs of Firefox. When you do that, things shouldn't break and when they do, they're very rare and can be pinned on Firefox as legitimate bugs.
Seriously. I NEED Firefox because it has some extensions that Chrome doesn't have, but at this point FF has driven me away for 80% of my browser time.
Thanks to constantly breaking extensions, I've stopped automatic updates, and now plan on checking back with FF every 5th release or so to see if I should bother updating.
This to me is such a fail, as most web devs need to be sure of the versions they are compatible with...
No, the "fail" is in that very chain of thought. Those web devs should not call themselves web devs since they do not understand the fundamental differences between the old media they used to work with and the new media, having to resort to web browser version to achieve what they foolishly are striving for.
At first I was not too keen on version number inflation, but thinking about it I couldn't care less. Actually, I find it good if it rids the world of people targeting web browser versions when they develop for the web. Target standards, not web browsers.
The only problem as I see is the plugins. That could be handled if Mozilla decided to create a stable API for plugin development and have version numbers on that API instead. This could even create a more stable browser with less unpredictability when multiple plugins are used. Another way, although more anarchistic, is to create a crowd sourced database of version compatibility between browsers and plugins, not having installers contain that information, but rather let us (the users) try it out and report.
Now that Mozilla is releasing new versions of Firefox every time the add-on writers get caught up, it is no surprise they're claiming performance improvements!
Are there things that add-ons commonly do with the old (pre-Jetpack) APIs of Firefox that are not possible with the stable APIs of Firefox?
What do you use instead? That's been my big problem - the plugin libraries of other browsers are no where near as extensive and a lot of the functionality I use daily just isn't there.
That is indeed the problem. But there comes a point where one has to cut one's losses and move on, despite being as tied in to Firefox as the average company is to Office.
In my case, I find myself using Midori (Webkit based) more and more, because it's fast, lean and even more standards-compatible than Firefox. Sure, it means dropping most extensions, although it does run plugins (by setting MOZ_PLUGIN_PATH and ). And they don't bump versions every other week.
In Windows, IE is coming back, and even though I don't like MS much, it is now has to be considered a viable alternative to Firefox.
Yeah, Asa Dotzler managed what no-one else has done - make me switch to a Microsoft product out of sheer desperation.
IE is a switch I'd never make. UI issues aside it's clunky and slow, even with the upgrades. The biggest drawback for me in IE is a seemingly minor one... that you can't access the address bar when first opening the program until the onload event is fired. I get so frustrated at this when using others computers - granted the simple fix is to simply load about:blank. It makes large session saving impractical though.
I would so fork 3.6 if I had the technical know how.
So am I the only one still using Firefox 3.6.x ? I have a lot of extensions that I like, and I know they'll break if I update. But at the rate Firefox is updating, the extension writers just can't seem to keep up.
Without extensions, I might as well just switch to Chrome.
snap links plus- sounds mildly useful
quickdrag- wtf?? ever heard of middle click??
abp- chrome has it now.
element hiding- abp does this in chrome
modify headers- i don't need this, and i suppose you also don't *really* need it.
fireftp- useful
canadian english- lol wut?
ietab- chrome does this 100x better
morning coffee- i dunno anything about this one, but if you just wanna open some websites at once, you can create a bookmark folder or something.
chatzilla- people still use irc in the age of fb and gmail chat?
dev tools- agree
so i think you would agree that now is the time to switch.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
ie9 is actually a pretty sweet alternative to ff now. its very fast, clean ui, and does not freeze up like ff does. also, there's no performance hit of opening a lot of tabs. also it has very nice gpu acceleration and uses much less battery. but i still stick to chrome just because it is as fast as ie9, and also has loads of extensions.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
I'm wiping Firefox entirely off computers at home, just can't be bothered to deal with a high-maintenance broad, er, browser.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
modify headers- i don't need this, and i suppose you also don't *really* need it.
Web development reasons aside, getting around certain regional restrictions makes this one invaluable. Anything on MTV Services, BBC, etc - all easily tricked with the X-Forwarded-For header. Sadly not Hulu.
quickdrag- wtf?? ever heard of middle click??
Ever heard of not having a mouse wheel? Like on a laptop! I also find it much faster than middle click personally.
abp- chrome has it now.
Last I researched it, which was admittedly a while ago, ABP in Chrome just hides elements but still downloads them to the system. For me it's less about not seeing the ads and more the speed increase and data savings not having to download all that crap. That said, I still like getting rid of the ads so ABP Chrome does hold some value.
morning coffee- i dunno anything about this one, but if you just wanna open some websites at once, you can create a bookmark folder or something.
Yeah, this one just has nice day of the week features so work stuff is opened Monday-Friday and Everyday my usual sites are opened - all in one click - or - as my home page. Very much a convenience thing which I could give up if need be.
PS: Not on Facebook (was, left after the ToS changes years back... haven't missed it a bit) and gmail chat gets blocked by ABP so it doesn't load every time I check gmail. Skype is my IM of choice for personal stuff (so looking forward to Xbox integration) and Chatzilla for professional/hobby chat.
my laptop can be configure to act out a middle click if i press both buttons, or if i do a double finger tap. i thought all laptops could do this now? how is a tap on the touchpad slower than ctrl+tap?
i'm not sure about this but i think abp in chrome actually does block ads, not just hide them.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Version numbers these days are more about marketing than informational content. Based on no knowledge of the politics of the decision or any formal statements issued to the contrary, it really seems like someone signed off on a corporate plan to bring Firefox version numbers up to match or exceed IE version numbers.
At least, that would be the best explanation for it that comes to mind. It's really weird for tech people to see, but it may help convey the relative maturity of the browser to new laypeople.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Re: ABP Chrome, I did a little digging and in fact all AdBlockers on Chrome hide elements and do not truly block them due to a limitation (or restriction?) in Chrome itself. It also does not block ads in videos with the exception of YouTube.
For me I disabled taping on the touch pad - I would trigger a tap every time I'd go to two finger scroll on the touchpad or start a mouse movement. Gesture based interfaces are great if you can get used to them/have good fine motor control, if you don't they're all but useless for more than a couple actions (I leave 2 finger scroll enabled and that's it). I also found leaving it enabled that my right thumb would trigger clicks while I was typing due to the position of the mouse relative to the F and J keys on this laptop. It's centred below the N key instead of below the B so the top right corner is directly under my thumb as it rests on the space bar.
I did try the both button workaround, more often than not I'd click one button before the other which resulted in either opening the page in that tab (instead of a new one) or clicking the bottom item in the context menu. For whatever reason Left-Click+Hold+Drag+Release works really quickly/easily/accurately for me. Even faster if I have an actual mouse plugged in.
Release often with new features, but once in a while realase a long term version that's maintained for at least a year or two for those who require stability.
- QuickDrag ---- removes the need to do ctrl+click to open in a new tab
That's what the middle button does
Why is this modded up?
You can use all of these. Actually I AM USING ALL OF THESE IN 6.0.
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/febe/
1. backup your profile. If you are on windows or you can't command line on linux, use FEBE (yes there's a 3.6 version (scroll down and look in version information), yes it works cross versions), or if linux, cp -r ~/.mozilla ~/.mozillabackup to backup your profile.
2. if windows, use portable firefox. otherwise on linux download the latest executable from the site. you must backup your profile somehow in step one before you do this to allow you to revert and use your settings if you decide to keep your settings. if you are paranoid that some obscure setting wont save use a portable 3.6 and try to clone it.
3. test the new version. if you used portable firefox, you can use FEBE to transfer settings to a real install (portable versions can lag behind drastically). revert if you are pedantic, impatient to configure and install new ui extensions to fix things (like statusbar 4eva, tab mix plus, etc.), or have serious problems.
Literally, don't go apeshit about it. You can do something about it, without addons breaking. New in 6.0 is heuristics for AMO (addons.mozilla.com) plugins to be auto version bumped for beyond versions. You're just gonna whine about it and not take the time to research, nor voice your concern to mozilla, nor know all the facts. By the by, i agree, mozilla should add for enterprise and people who want stability: Stable version and rapid release version of firefox.
Performance enhancement? Does that mean they finally got rid of XUL?
>80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
>life
Firefox changes UI and version releasing to Chrome's methodology.
LOL
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
a) The UI sucks hard in 4+
b) Just because it auto-version bumps doesn't mean it won't break the addon. Prior to this the addon developers had time to deal with code changes in Firefox before a major version release. Now with new versions coming out frequently they'll be scrambling to test/update for one version and the next will already be out. That may be fine for some of the major plugins but the small developers won't bother to keep up with that pace.
c) Why the f**k should a user have to go through all that trouble for an upgrade let alone every 6-8 weeks or so?
Firefox 4, 5, and 6 were piles of overbloated resource hogging pieces of SHIT.
Firefox 7? Too little too late, my friend.
I've been using Mozilla from before the firefox days, hell I even used firefox before it was called firefox (remember phoenix anyone?), but firefox truly has gone the bloated route now.
Both IE9 and Chrome are now FAR better browsers than Firefox 4/5/6.
I've personally switched to Chrome everywhere, and looking at getting the entire office at work switched from Firefox to Chrome as well (the rapid release cycle of Firefox is nuts, its more rapid than even Chrome and the browser only gets worse with each new release anyway.)
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
You mean Ctrl-U or Firefox/Web Developer/View Page Source?
They felt the need to get rid of the protocols/schemes in the Address (er, I mean "Awesome") Bar. Apparently, it's because the developers think that it will put more focus on the actual page within a website by allowing more room for it to be displayed. But I'd argue that the server is pretty important, especially for us web developer types, and how we connect to a server is a vital piece of knowledge. I mean, the scheme is necessary for a valid URL.
I don't know about anyone else's displays, but my browsers all have sufficient space to show the full URL most of the time. If not, it's not a hassle for me to click and see the end of it if I really need to. Usually, I know where I am on the web based on how I got to that page as well as the page itself. I don't think we need these silly URL omissions. What's next, hiding URL parameters? Removing the favicon?
For anyone else who feels my frustration, you can bring back the schemes pretty easily:
Bam. Your suffering has been relieved.
a) I still have the same UI. There's a right click setting if you do a fresh install to revert to the old UI. If you upgraded you get the old UI. If you are pedantic there are more UI mods to make it more "normal." I see you never found the menu.
b) Read the release notes and you'll see why they don't break. You're literally too lazy to do anything like a typical American. I would also read the definition of heuristic, since it is extremely important. Also I would like to add that changes have been moderate but not major after 4.0 so far and only added new HTML5 technologies and memory fixes. 6.0 took care of your concern about add-ons breaking as the main feature.
c) The instructions only apply once. You can backup your settings using FEBE regularly (which by the way can be set to be automatic and with online syncing services like Dropbox or the built in Box.net syncing make it redundant and saved for anywhere) and if something breaks, you can just revert and restore. Again, too lazy to complain to mozilla and not slashdot, where they will gloss over it as angry ranting.
I'm literally telling you how to fix it yet you just trash it. Nevermind that with something as customizable as Firefox, things can (and have) change drastically and Mozilla will be stuck in a hard place if they must change the way Firefox works like they had to starting with 4.0.
You're welcome, I guess.
I use Firefox for the extensions (as do most others). If they break the extensions, then there's no need for the vast majority to use Firefox.
Why they are refusing to listen to the users and keep such an biased attitude is beyond me. You know Microsoft and Google are grinning ear to ear.
Lastly, why would you remove features/functionality (for example the status bar), and then give no way to turn them back on?? It's going backwards and actually losing functionality! That's "better"??
a) I have another computer with Firefox 7 on it and while you can get the file menu back the UI does not revert to the old style. I should not have to install a crapload of addons to fix UI problems that did not exist in previous versions and were entirely of Mozilla's making.
b) I'm not American but I see you are an assumptive pre-judging ass. I understand the definition of heuristic just fine. Take something as simple as the "Undo Close Tab" extension - technically speaking it will install and "work" in 7 just fine. Unfortunately you can no longer place it anywhere on the UI like you previously could, FF only allows it to be install on the tab bar where it's awkward and gets in the way. It also doesn't function as expected because Mozilla made several adjustments to how tabs work through 4-7 which broke it. The developer isn't hugely active and can't keep adjusting his script with every new change to tabs.
c) Great, yet another piece of software that has to run in the background on my system tying up resources for a problem that need not exist. I've complained to mozilla repeatedly in several different forms but they could care less about what users want they just do what they want. Don't believe me? I can show you years old bugs where the only dissenting voice is Mozilla and even then some of the Moz devs are onboard but still can't implement what users want.
When Firefox came out, and Mozilla became deprecated, that ended my (unusually supported-by-management) attempt to replace Outlook/IE on our desktops. Firefox was slow and crappy, but Mozilla (the browser) was fast and good, and it's suite had the tools we needed. This was my impression even having run all the milestone builds, which had a pain level about the same as passing stones -- ie, about 1/10th that of running Netscape 4. Admittedly NS4 sucked so bad that in comparison anything was better... hell, I even converted a few to IE just to get away from that POS.
The alternatives were Lynx, wget and telnet * 80, so Firefox it was for desktop-oriented HTTP requests.
The day Chrome was released was the day that Firefox stopped getting used on my desktop. At home it's been a great time. At work I get wrist slapped every 9-12 months by IT Security ("off the top of my head, uh, security reasons" no sh!t) but it's been so worth it to spend my days Fsckingslowfox-free.
FF has been garbage since day 1. Slow, crashy, unresponsive. Their mentality towards the people who use it is flabbergasting and demonstrates a total lack of understanding/experience in the field. Truly offensive.
The fact that people are up in arms _only over plugins_ should be enough indication that the core product is worth very little. Nobody gives a rats ass about Firefox, they care about plugins developed by individuals and companies who, IMHO, seem to be far smarter than those behind the platform they build on.
Good riddance.
--- Bigger bits, softer blocks, tighter ASCII.
On Linux, they aren't yet putting the tabs in the window titlebar. The screenshots show the usual Windows version, which looks awesome compared to what I see when I run it on Debian.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
>plugin development and have version numbers on that API instead.
Same issue dude, we need to know a version number, and might have to do something diff. because of it, how is that any different then say needing to know if ie6 to avoid using a special jquery call or structure that hangs the system???