Slashdot Mirror
Updated: Mozilla Community Contributor Departs Over Bug Handling
An anonymous reader writes "A blog post published by Mozilla community contributor Tyler Downer claims the Mozilla Triage QA process is broken, and he believes that the rapid release implementation does not work with their current method of handling bugs. Quoting: 'I understand that change takes time, and there is always a delay between planning a change, and the implementation. But with Triage, time is our enemy. We currently have 2,598 UNCO bugs in Firefox that haven’t been touched in 150 days. That is almost 2600 bugs that have not been touched since Firefox 4 was released. ... In Spring 2010, we hit roughly 13,000 UNCO bugs in the Firefox product on BMO. 13,000!!! We currently have 5,934. While this is an improvement, that is 6,000 bugs in Firefox that could be shipping today, and enhancements that could be making the web better (of course it isn’t that high, but the potential is there). This is several thousand contributors that we have told "Thank you for filing a bug report with us. We don’t really care about it, and we are going to let it sit for 6 months and just ask you to retest when you know it isn’t fixed, but thank you anyway."'"
Update: 08/29 19:46 GMT by S : Downer has made another blog post clarifying the bug issue. Updated title and summary to reflect that he was a volunteer, not a Mozilla employee.
Mozilla community is killing Firefox with their super-fast releases. we went from 4 to 7 in no time.. (i'm on the beta channel)
Addons break non stop because of upgrades
Bugs arent being fixed
= Users will leave soon ?
End of message
Took them years to fix the damn memory leaks.
This implementation will be changed over when we get to version 26, in approximately six months.
Oh, and feel free to submit a bug report about submitting bug reports. We are glad to oblige.
Oh how the times have changed. For info about QA for Netscape 4.0, see this short refresher course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarro_boogs
--- cut here --
The following comment is provided in the Bugzilla source code to developers who may be confused by this behaviour: ... way back when, when Netscape released version 4.0 of its browser, we had a release party. Naturally, there had been a big push to try and fix every known bug before the release. Naturally, that hadn't actually happened. (This is not unique to Netscape or to 4.0; the same thing has happened with every software project I've ever seen.) Anyway, at the release party, T-shirts were handed out that said something like "Netscape 4.0: Zarro Boogs". Just like the software, the T-shirt had no known bugs. Uh-huh. So, when you query for a list of bugs, and it gets no results, you can think of this as a friendly reminder. Of *course* there are bugs matching your query, they just aren't in the bugsystem yet...
Zarro Boogs Found
This is just a goofy way of saying that there were no bugs found matching your query. When asked to explain this message, Terry Weissman (an early Bugzilla developer) had the following to say:
I've been asked to explain this
--Terry Weissman
Mozilla has no such position as "Community Lead". Tyler was/is (he is still engaged in constructive discussion) a valued volunteer member of the Mozilla QA and triage community, but he does not have the title "Community Lead".
There are several things which Mozilla's new more rapid release process has made a bit rocky, as Johnathan Nightingale, the Firefox development manager, noted in a recent blog post (syndicated at the Future of Firefox blog). This is one of them.
And, of course, when Tyler says we have told bug reporters we don't care about their bug reports, that's not actually true. He is suggesting that this is what it might seem like. And clearly, it's not great when a bug report is filed and just sits there for months. Mozilla's success has made this a perennial problem for the last decade. We've cracked it, to a degree, before and I'm sure we can do it again.
Mozilla will revert the whole-number version scheme. Major_version.minor_version.bug_patch, or even Major_version.bug_patch, was not a bad arrangement at all, why reinvent the wheel?
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
Just to clear some things up and possibly prevent irrelevant posts...
This has nothing to do with the rapid-release; he states in the 2nd paragraph that
First off, I did not leave because of rapid release. I love the idea of rapid release, and I think the recent spurt of posts to the planet on how Rapid Release will be beneficial in the long run does a great job of explaining it.
His issue is that Triage isnt good enough for rapid release-- not that rapid-release doesnt work with Triage (but thanks for stirring the muck, anonymous reader / soulskill).
But Id like a clarification-- if there were 13,000 bugs 15 months ago, and now there are 6000, doesnt that speak to massive improvement? Why not leave back in spring 2010?
"This is several thousand contributors that we have told "Thank you for filing a bug report with us. We don’t really care about it, and we are going to let it sit for 6 months and just ask you to retest when you know it isn’t fixed, but thank you anyway.""
yup. That sounds just about right. I was there for the MNG/JNG debate, and that's exactly what the attitude was, sucks that it hasn't changed any.
that is exactly why I don't bother wasting my time with them, firefox is not the only one, but many many many OSS projects is like that. So why bother helping you if your not even going to look at it ?
What a drama queen. First he pens a GBCW post refusing to explain why he's leaving the project, and then when that gets him his highly craved attention, he follows it up with a rambling, self-pitying post about Mozilla no longer being "community" driven. Wahhhh...
This is a very common problem with many open-source projects.
It's always more fun to design and write new features than to actually fix bugs and make things work properly. Take Ubuntu for instance - it still can't reliably handle take-for-granted simple things like auto-mounting USB drives with a multi-user desktop. No progress has been made on this for years, yet they keep releasing new versions with more fancy interfaces and just as many show-stopping bugs, including ones from 2006.
Firefox is not much different.
I upgraded to Aurora last week (Firefox 8 now). It's pretty amazing.
For a product that allegedly has 6000 bugs, I don't encounter very many, and I use Firefox on three different machines every day and I know plenty of others who use it every day. So either they're very esoteric, or very rare. Hmm...fix bugs that bother 0.001% of users, or add features that benefit 1% of users? As a developer, it's a tradeoff.
But my main point is that addons are not broken. I'm using the exact same addons I used in Firefox 3 - I should know because I didn't download new ones. All you have to do is open the xpi in e.g. 7zip or winrar, open the install.rdf in a text editor, search for maxVersion, and change it to match your version. Change it to something big, like 10, and you'll be in the clear for a long time.
:(){
Firefox gets personas, syncs, tab groups, etc. instead of bug fixes.
GNOME3.
Unity.
Version number treadmills.
Ad nauseam.
Change for the sake of change. Bleeding edge bullet points for the bloggers instead of bugfixes for the users.
How about returning to our roots and building software which runs faster with less bugs. There are plenty of commercial options for those who want the glassy artwork and UI equivalent of smooth jazz.
How about software for people who need to get things done.
Remember when we took pride in something like Apache being vastly superior to IIS? Now the community seems to hang its head in shame that Mac has spiffier icons and a hipper dock or Chrome gets new version numbers on a faster schedule.
Has anybody told Captain Smith there's an iceberg ahead?
I guess Firefox has chosen to hand it's considerable market share back over to MS. Many users who left IE over the countless bugs and security issues. The benefit of switching to Mozilla/Firefox is quickly evaporating with each half-assed bug filled release. Plug in hell. Run away memory usage. Unpleasant GUI changes. Change for the sake of change.
So will users flee to Chrome or will gravity pull them back to IE?
I mean does this really surprise anyone? They have done numerous ignoring of what people wanted. Examples include removing the prompt to sanitize on close option; the changing of the UI and removal of status bar; rapid release cycle; hiding of version numbers; etc. I am absolutely not surprised that they do it on the bugs either.
We currently have 2,598 UNCO bugs in Firefox that haven’t been touched in 150 days. That is almost 2600 bugs that have not been touched since Firefox 4 was released. ... In Spring 2010, we hit roughly 13,000 UNCO bugs in the Firefox product on BMO. 13,000!!! We currently have 5,934.
In a related story, from this point forward "Debbie Downer" is no longer the correct pseudonym for an overtly depressing person. Hereafter, that person shall be cited as "Tyler Downer".
All hail our new horribly sad overlord.
I tried googling but all I get are hits about a college. No one ever defines what UNCO is. I even found INCO, but no definition for that either.
:(){
A rapid release cycle is one thing, but inflating version numbers is quite another thing. How about a rapid release cycle that goes 4.0 > 4.1 > 4.2 > 4.3 > 4.4 > 4.5 > 5.0 instead of 4.0 > 5.0 > 6.0 > 7.0 > 8.0.
As 13 years are not enough to handle a major bug.
They are focusing on HTML5 (which is not a standard but a draft) and leave HTML4 implementation with all existing bugs.
They think that all web pages will be rewritten in HTML5 as soon as it will land as real standard. It will instead take years.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
I would guess that it meight stand for UNCOrrected.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The last time I searched Bugzilla, its search results displayed the first four characters of a bug's status and resolution type. These are usually UNCO(nfirmed), NEW, RESO(lved) DUPL(icate), etc. I'd provide more detailed instructions, but there appears not to be an way to click through to a search result on bugzilla.mozilla.org that doesn't involve typing. (Ook!)
I've been following a bug that has been open for something like 5 years. Some dev looked at it the other day and went wtf how is this old ass bug still open?
brickspeed.net for your old Volvo performance addiction
That's a bug not necessarily in Gedit as much as in Bugzilla. If Bugzilla supported payment processing, then users could vote with their dollars/euros toward fixing a specific bug, and whoever uploaded the accepted patch would receive the bounty.
While not directly related to Firefox, I submitted a bug for Thunderbird's import mechanism about 6-12 months post launch. Every year or so I get someone else posting to this still outstanding issue...
Bug fixes/support, the achilles heal of FOSS. Where are these folks who want to maintain existing software? Paging all autistic OCD programmers!
-rt
firefox 6 was pushed on top of my working firefox 5 on ubuntu to end up fucking my bookmarks (leave aside all bookmarks being gone, i cant import any bookmarks from json or html), and fucking up something with the fonts - now on google, there is quite a queer color for the fonts used, and fonts also look different. i wasnt able to weed out the reason, and instead of fucking my productivity by working on the shit the 'fast release hype' of mozilla group produced, i switched to chrome and spent that time to my actual paid work.
really. instead of shelling out shit with concepts like 'fast release cycle' -> 'hey we are dropping version numbers', you should release things that work. if i have to fix your software's bugs in order to be able to do MY work, i use another browser.
Read radical news here
without assistance.
It is only natural that with open source bugs gather less volunteer enthusiasm. Ask any programmer and I doubt they enjoy squashing bugs over implementing new features. Debugging is the grunge work, or rather, the toilet cleaning of coding, yet it can also be the hardest part, requiring your very best resources.
With that said, IE sucks the worse. Just imagine how many bugs IE would have if they had the same bug reporting system? "Our software has bugs, we don't care, and we are sitting on billions of dollars."
For mozilla to lag on fixes is forgivable, and their openness is truly commendable. And for someone to be able to come out and speak up like this is a testament to why the model is so much better than closed source.
But honestly, you'd think Microsoft would do a better job. It's as if they intentionally want every web developer to hate IE. That is a lot of people that hate you, and for a fairly good reason. And with browsers being the #1 application everyone uses, you'd think someone high in the ranks would think of making it a priority.
Either that, or this proves you cannot just throw money at code.
Sad, but for the first time since the mid-nineties when I started using Netscape, I'm considering switching. That includes the Netscape6, pre 1.0 Mozilla days.
None of my plugins work and I'm asked to install and upgrade major versions every few weeks it seems.
Microsoft has the nasty habit of tying their Browser releases to their OS sales. That's why you won't be able to install IE 10 to Vista, or IE 9 to XP. Also, they don't backport the render engine as a middle ground. How about an IE 8.5 that has much better HTML5 support but leaves out the Vista+ reliant features?
This leaves Google Chrome. They too have a rapid release schedule but if they can manage to not piss off their user base *and* and at the same time ignore the user constant complaints I think we may have a winner.
Firefox crashes so much anymore, I've switched it IE. It is a sad day when I switch to a Microsoft product for increased quality. Try using Yahoo mail. That seems to be what always crashes it.
First off, I never intended my post to be taken in the way that it was. Simply because there are 6000 UNCO bugs in the Firefox product does not mean that Firefox has 6000 bugs in it. Out of all those bugs, the majority are going to be duplicates of other bugs, they are going to be user error, they are going to be bugs caused by a misbehaving extension that a user installed on Firefox, and so on. Out of all those 6000 bugs, I'd estimate at most there are 1000 REAL bugs in Firefox, and that is an extremely high guess. What I was trying to say is that without going through and triaging all those bugs, we have no way of knowing which are real and should be taken seriously, and which are not real bugs. If you read https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#status, you will see: "This bug has recently been added to the database. Nobody has validated that this bug is true. Users who have the "canconfirm" permission set may confirm this bug, changing its state to NEW. Or, it may be directly resolved and marked RESOLVED. " An UNCO bug has not be confirmed yet, it needs to be marked as NEW before it is considered a real bug. So it isn't fair to say that Firefox shipped with 6000 bugs, but more that there are roughly 2600 bugs that haven't been touched in 150 days, which is far more worrisome to me. We will never be able to have 0 bugs, but we may at least have a quick response to the bugs we do get. That is what my whole blog post was about, quick responses, and treating our reporters fairly. Unfortunately, Conceivably Tech was too eager to get a shocking headline, and so misconstrued my points. If you come back to re-read my blog in a day or two, I'll post more clarifications.
After the release of FireFox a few weeks ago, it started crashing. A LOT. While browsing my morning web comics, about 1/4 of the sites would cause it to crash. I tried disabling most of my plugins/addons - didn't help. I just gave up on it. FF has been getting slower and buggier with each release.
>In Spring 2010, we hit roughly 13,000 UNCO bugs in the Firefox product on BMO.
Don't blame this shit on me.
--
BMO
There are bugs that where introduced back when I was still in high school like 5-6 years ago that I am still waiting on.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
so quit adding new features and focus only on fixing the bugs, put all your resources on the bug fixing
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
new versions one by one,I hate this.
Basically, bugs have a lifecycle - they may start out UNCOnfirmed, move to confirmed, then in progress, then resolved and finally rest in verified.
I used to do volunteer triage for Mozilla back in 2000 (folks like Gerv, Timeless and Asa probably don't remember me though ;). I even have an old out of date page called kill-unco.
However the reality is that there a lot of people filing bugs at a rate that is very high. Generally speaking there are not enough people to look at bugs at the best of times and this leads to a never ending amount of work. Bugs that poorly written, bugs that need to be followed up, bugs that are feature requests, bugs that are old and really difficult to fix and so on all take up vast amounts of time.
To handle this, people looking at bugs need to spend less time (or magically grow in number) in order to handle the ever increasing load. However being terse can lead to its own problems and the inevitable fall out occurs. The person in this blog post seems to be saying "Triagers are people too! We need more people doing triage full time" but the reality is this situation has existed since the beginning. Triage is a thankless, unfashionable task and the better you do it the more work you attract. It does teach how to write a really good bug report though :)
Mozilla's objective should be to release great software, not to close bug reports. In fact, if they can release the software while touching fewer bug reports, that's more efficient.
The problem is that Mozilla continues to be careless about setting their community's expectations (on other issues too). They solicit bug reports from people, who invest time and effort in reporting, testing, following up, and even patching -- but then Mozilla does nothing with the bugs. It's disrespectful to use people's time like that.
Mozilla needs to set expectations clearly from the start: Feel free to report it, triage it, patch it, etc., but realize that most bug reports are never implemented.
Isn't the Mozilla Foundation still getting multi-millions of dollars from Google? Maybe they should stop paying their tard management and hire some temp professional coders. Hell they probably have the money to hire 1:1 for each of the 6000 UNCO bugs.
Is this push for more features, more releases, and lower quality coming from the people Google has working on Mozilla? Google has an incentive to migrate people to Chrome, where they define and control the platform.
Okay, we get it now. Being a leading browser is a huge deal, and it's a massive thing just to keep up with the bug reports, much less the bugs themselves.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
>> "Please stop pretending that Firefox is some piss-poor, bug-addled, sub-standard product..."
I'm not pretending. Did you RTFA? The head of bug triage quit because mozilla isn't managing bug fixes. It's a pretty damning statement from someone in the loop.
>> "And please stop pretending that most people will drop it just because a shiny new toy comes around.. they won't."
I've been a Mozilla/Firefox user since it became available on Linux. IIRC that was shortly after my first distro RedHat 5.1. I don't say any of this out of hate, I do so from concern.
I too find it annoying when people blindly criticize the old and bask on the new, that's not what people are doing with FF. The update schedule has become frantic to the point where there might be a new release by the time I hit submit on this post. It is difficult to believe due diligence is being done toward bug testing. This feels like "Go fever", and that almost never ends well.
Add-ons are the reason people use Firefox. Decisions are made that break Firefox Add-ons, without notice.
Firefox is extremely important because it is the only browser that has such an extensive list of add-ons. (Unfortunately, Add-ons are also called "extensions" and "plug-ins".) For some uses, the add-ons are so convenient that they can be considered necessary.
Firefox instability corrupts the Windows operating system. There is huge instability seen only by people who open many windows and tabs, and leave them open for a long time. (It is not necessary to say you don't experience this bug if you don't commonly have 30 or more windows with 100 or more tabs open for several hours. Those of us who must do research have needs different than the average user.) That particular Firefox instability has been there since version 1, perhaps 10 years ago. An example: Two days ago I had a crash in Firefox version 6.0 that did not generate a Talkback report.
Mozilla Foundation Top 20 Excuses for Not Fixing Firefox Bugs (Last updated in 2009.)
Here are the top 20 things Firefox and Mozilla developers say to those who report difficult bugs, collected over the last 8 years. See also the extensive information provided in this Slashdot comment, Firefox is the most unstable program in common use, and the links in the comment.
Hey Tyler,
I have some questions:
Hopefully you'll see this and if you reply, thanks in advance.
I know of a troll who files bug reports just to piss people off; last time he tried to claim an About window displaying the same information as every other GUI app in existence is "a bug and confusing people". Maybe you should ban people like him from the system, just saying.
The picture you paint may seem rosy to you, but it is not attractive most people IMO. The good news is, reality is even better than you think it is.
If the add-on developer hosts the add-on on addons.mozilla.org (AMO), the browser will check with AMO to see if the extension is compatible when the browser starts; if so, the maxVersion of the extension is *automatically* bumped.
The extension compatilibity is determined through automated analysis, and the *vast* majority of updates work properly this way. The update bump normally happens some time around the second week of Aurora; it is possible that *you* need to edit your XPI files by hand because you are on the beta channel, but that is *not* the expected end-user experience.
End users should almost always find out that extensions hosted on AMO "just work"
http://blog.mozilla.com/addons/2011/05/21/firefox-5-compatibility-bump/ :
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
"I'm guessing that's because of lack of resources."
That sounds to many people like a reasonable guess, but it is incorrect. See this story: Mozilla Extends Lucrative Deal With Google For 3 Years.
Mozilla Foundation's audited financial statement from 2009: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-2009-audited-financial-statement.pdf
This is a question of management I guess. If you build upon a buggy product and somewhere in the high-level you access a buggy function it may create a cascade of accesses to buggy functions. Debugging will be quite a bitch
let it sit for 6 months and just ask you to retest when you know it isn’t fixed, but thank you anyway.
Sounds a lot like MySQL's process...
That would be nice. I hate to say it since FF is a fork of a fork of a fork, but maybe that's what the community needs to keep one of the only open source browsers from becoming extinct, forcing people to look to proprietary browsers as their only choice for something stable.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
This guy did the right thing leaving Mozilla.
I'm also leaving Firefox behind after using and evangelizing it, and its ancestors, for 10+ years.
Why? Because this has been my life since v4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IemvFkFPf4U
STOP fucking around with versioning policies with no successful strategy to keep the extensions working!
STOP revamping UI bits every couple of years. You now have a Frankenstein app with some windows inherited straight from Seamonkey.
STOP COPYING CHROME!!!
STOP pushing retarded ideas about browser based operating systems
START working on real problems and SHOW US you have a clue about what matters and why we''ve been in love with Firefox. YOU FUCKING MORONS!!!
"where my memory go?!!?!" is bug #5933.
I said this. Managed to post anonymously by mistake.
Years ago I had time on my hand and decided I'd submit bugs for Mozilla and help make test cases. On one of my early attempts, I submitted a bug for the current beta-release version of FireFox and was met with the response that if I didn't use the latest nightly build, then my bug report was not welcome.
Okay. I never submitted another bug. Instead I built some Konfabulator widgets. And the response I received, itself received a response, saying that my submission WAS welcome. But alas, I didn't stick around to figure out what that community really wanted. That community had to chase off either me, or the person who demanded the nightly build, and they didn't chase off that guy, so they chased off me.
Maybe FireFox is better off without my contribution; maybe not. I'd like to think not, but we'll never know.
http://tylerdowner.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/even-more-clarifications/ Goes over some of the apparent misunderstandings stemming from my last blog post.
Open bug counts are related to the quality of a product. The more a product is actually used, the higher the bug counts will be. Only a small fraction of those reported bugs, confirmed or not, will be critical to security or to the operation of the software.
Your house has bugs too! Get a good professional inspector, and see just how long that report will be. Get a second inspector, and the list will get longer. Keep hiring inspectors, and there will be no end to your defect list. But the house may still be a great place to live if the problems are minor.
The question is, What is the experience of most Firefox users most of the time? Does it meet their needs and perform well? Is it generally secure? These are harder questions to answer than bug counts, but they are more relevant.
Sadly, I have had similar experiences with PHP where my web server dumped core the moment the php module was loaded by the web server. I faithfully reproduced the issue, and included back traces in the reports, for over 8 months long with god knows how many different versions of PHP. The results were always the same, and every time a developer finally got around to looking at the bug report, they simply said: "you are running an old version of PHP, please retry with the latest version.". After zillions of retry's of different PHP versions with the exact same backtrace, I decided to give up and stated so in the bug report. The bug was then closed as 'BOGUS'.
I regularly keep about 30 windows and 100 tabs open, as you describe. For me, Firefox was crashing almost nightly for a while, with the 100% CPU usage you describe. I would leave it running overnight, and come back in the morning, and the system would either be running so slowly it was almost unusable, or would have crashed overnight. Every time this occurred, I would leave a talkback report. There are probably dozens of them in their system.
I did some analysis of which tabs were open when this happened, and found the culprit, in my case anyway:
If I had multiple tabs open on cbsnews.com, this problem seemed to occur. (More reliably if there were more tabs open on that site.) If I didn't, there weren't.
A bit more experimentation revealed that:
If I used the noscript plugin to block the "com.com" domain (used by cbsnews.com), then the problem went away. If I didn't, it continued to occur. Unfortunately, blocking scripts from this domain also meant that I couldn't watch video on cbsnews.com. (Currently, I open any video-related pages in Chrome when I want to watch them.)
I reported this bug to Mozilla several years ago, and also to cbsnews.com. When last I checked, (by temporarily unblocking com.com), this problem still occurred.
The NSA is trying to soft kill Mozilla because it represents a competitor to it's Google platform (e.g. Chrome in this case) where they get to see all your data and break in through trojans. It's much harder to hack in when security bugs are being discovered and fixed by independent, non-complicit individuals, as with OSS.
"Your trying to browse 3000 web sites at once and you expect your browser NOT to crash?"
As MurukeshM said, that is 30 windows with 100 tabs total. Many of those tabs are on the same web site. For example, try to compare Fujitsu scanners with scanners from other companies. Check the support options, the cost of accessories and supplies. Check the user reviews on Amazon.
Can anyone recommend a fast large-format flatbed scanner? *grin* We've already did the sheet-fed research and got a good sheet-feed scanner.
We've been discussing the Firefox memory-hogging and CPU-hogging bug on Slashdot for about 10 years. Always someone joins the discussion who doesn't understand the issues, and doesn't try to understand the issues.
Clarify "large format".
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
What precisely did I get wrong about add-ons? Because I know for a fact that my method works.
OP said add-ons were broken. Add-ons are not in fact broken. The process I use may not be simple (I certainly don't think it's "rosy"), but it works.
Yeah, add-on compatibility manager is better, but it would be nice if it were built-in to Firefox.
:(){
Wow, I never knew about this addon. Certainly easier than mucking around inside the XPI. Thanks.
Mozilla should shout about this thing from the top of mountains. It ought to come bundled in the Aurora build at least.
:(){
It's informative because little has changed. Firefox has become more stable, but it is still unstable when a total of 100 tabs or more are open.
Why should we give yet another chance to a product by criminal company? It doesn't matter how IE is, the company behind it hasn't changed.
I'll never forget all the shit MS has done. From sabotaging Lotus123 to OOXML bribery and many dirty deeds in between.
World is a worse place because of MS.
At least 8 1/2 x 14 inches.
11 x 17 is what we really need.