Slashdot Mirror


Chrome Becoming World's Second Most Popular Web Browser

redletterdave writes with news that Google Chrome is in the process of surpassing Firefox to become the second most popular web browser. Pinpointing the exact time of the change is difficult, of course, since different analytics firms collect slightly different data. The current crop of media reports were triggered by data from StatCounter, which shows Chrome at 25.69% and Firefox at 25.23% for November. Data from Net Applications shows Firefox still holding a 4% lead, but the trends suggest it will evaporate within a few months.

511 comments

  1. Yay by recoiledsnake · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    First post with Chrome!

    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:Yay by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would have had first post but was applying my Firefox updates.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Yay by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Funny

      And your FirstPost extension broke?

      --
      This space for rent.
    3. Re:Yay by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

      If I had this spot, I would have said "First post becomes world's second most popular post" but that's way funnier.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    4. Re:Yay by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I can tell you why Chrome is gaining...SPAM. I swear Google has become as bad or worse than any other for pushing their shit when it is NOT wanted! It used to be that damned Google Toolbar now every piece of freeware comes with a little tiny checkbox that if you miss it? You've been Chromed baby. And if you miss the checkbox most will have it steal your default slot so you'd be amazed at how many complaints I get from some customer that had been chromed.

      Seriously Google, your the #1 fucking search company okay? Quit acting like a damned Mickey Mouse spammer and quit shoving your shit on people that don't want it! You have more eyes on your website than any place else on the planet, isn't that enough? how sad is it you have to steal the spammer crown from MSFT, it used to be that damned Live Toolbar everywhere, but now you don't get binged you get chromed. bad form Google, bad form.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:Yay by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So Google's problem is they don't police people bundling their bar with them? Which is a rather strange point to make, as I've never seen a Google bar being bundled without a specific page dedicated in the installation process entirely to Google's bar.

      But then it's you, so I'm not surprised you're just pulling stuff out your arse to make a point. Badly.

  2. And still... by bwintx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And still Mozilla doesn't get a clue that some of the recent changes are driving away users. Amazing.

    --
    Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
    1. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      You don't like the hourly updates? You don't deserve such an awesome browser!

    2. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Chrome today is what the early releases of Firefix were: a lean, fast browser with a stripped down UI.
      Firefox has become a bloated piece of garbage.

    3. Re:And still... by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      The marketshare bleeding seems to have accelerated with the accelerated release schedule.
      Who cares about a few new features with each release when the extensions providing much needed functionality break? No to mention explicitly giving the finger to corporate usage.
      Ubuntu with Unity and Firefox with this schedule seem to have their head in the sand. Just emulating OS X (in the case of Unity) and Chrome(by Firefox) doesn't make them automatically successful.

      This is like a fox(pardon the pun) branding itself with a hot iron to get black stripes to look and become a tiger.

      --
      This space for rent.
    4. Re:And still... by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And still Mozilla doesn't get a clue that some of the recent changes are driving away users. Amazing.

      Every time Chrome gains market share, the Firefox developers think they need to make Firefox more like Chrome, when that's exactly what's driving people away.

    5. Re:And still... by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      Version 11 is due out next week and is supposed to be faster.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    6. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, Mozilla is updating the browser a lot less often nowadays then they did during 3.X time, don't confuse major version increments to mean progress, the actual development has slowed down.

    7. Re:And still... by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Funny

      The worst thing is that it took me a few seconds to realize you weren't joking.

      --
      This space for rent.
    8. Re:And still... by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think Mozilla is very happy with the stats, because the real news is that the IE usage went down to almost ~50%, and we have today a diversity of browser (engines). Diversity ensures that we don't drive into a dead end, and Mozilla paved the way for alternative browsers, pushing websites away from IE-only design, and making the new technologies we have today possible (CSS, everything beyond HTML4, fast JS) -- although we have to give Microsoft credit for inventing Ajax.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    9. Re:And still... by Pope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every time Chrome gains market share, the Firefox developers think they need to make Firefox more like Chrome, when that's exactly what's driving people away.

      Took the words right out of my mouth. Firefox devs' biggest problem is that they're duplicating Chrome's interface without any reflection or realization of why Chrome does things a certain way.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    10. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And still Mozilla doesn't get a clue that some of the recent changes are driving away users. Amazing.

      Somewhere in the bowels of Mozilla:

      Dotzler: This is proof that we're doing it right. By ignoring our users' UX and installation preferences long enough, we finally got them to go away!

    11. Re:And still... by Galestar · · Score: 0

      Firefox has become a bloated piece of garbage.

      So its like IE you say...

      --
      AccountKiller
    12. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you haven't used it for a long while, how do you know it's still slow and unstable?

    13. Re:And still... by markdavis · · Score: 2

      +1000

      You hit it right on the head. I have zero interest in Chrome, mostly because I simply don't trust it. Google has WAY too much access to stuff already. At least with Chromium, it is open.

      But Chrome/Chromium follow a design that is exactly what I don't want- dumbed down, minimalist, single-user oriented. The more Firefox because like Chrome, the more angry I get.

    14. Re:And still... by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      Its just not true that Firefox is losing "market share" (browser users). Just look at the data, Firefox isn't gaining or losing.
      I can imagine that the inflow of Firefox users from IE is similar to what it ever was, and that Firefox users are going to Chrome. Surely, there are also IE to Chrome converts, but may be a smaller fraction. It'd be interesting to see a flow analysis like they do after elections.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    15. Re:And still... by Millennium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty much this. That's not to say that Chrome is bad: it isn't. But Firefox is trying to be Chrome, and no one is ever going to be better at being Chrome better than Chrome itself (except possibly Chromium, but that's something of an academic debate).

      In the process, Firefox is rapidly losing its own way. This is a shame, because I found more than a few of Firefox's old ways better than its new ones, or Chrome's for that matter. We're losing choice in the browser market because it's coming down not so much to a choice between Chrome and Firefox as between Chrome and imitation-Chrome, and Chrome will always win that.

      tl;dr version - Firefox lost its way when it started imitating other browsers, because it will never be able to beat the originals. It must instead become its own original, as it once was.

    16. Re:And still... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      Mod Funny +1

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:And still... by CmdrPony · · Score: 0

      Actually, Firefox is the only one losing now. Even IE is just slightly gaining users.

    18. Re:And still... by cockroach2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet the only thing they really need to copy to get me to come back and try Firefox again is to replace the 13-click procedure for broken SSL certificates with a simple pop-up window. As it used to be.

    19. Re:And still... by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Version 11 is due out next week and is supposed to be faster.

      Yeah, sure, if you want to use an obsolete version, go ahead, Consumer McSheep. All the cool development work is now being done on version 15... uh, I'm sorry, while I was typing, attention shifted to 17. Ooh, shiny.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    20. Re:And still... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I liked it much better back when it was named 'Phoenix'.
      It was quick & nimble.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    21. Re:And still... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      IE is Windows... Windows is IE...
      At least Microsoft says that ;)

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    22. Re:And still... by arkane1234 · · Score: 0

      s/because/becomes/

      FTFY

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    23. Re:And still... by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Version 11 is due out next week and is supposed to be faster.

      Yeah, sure, if you want to use an obsolete version, go ahead, Consumer McSheep. All the cool development work is now being done on version 15... uh, I'm sorry, while I was typing, attention shifted to 17. Ooh, shiny.

      I use nightly. That's right, the version that came out this morning. Every day.

      It works pretty well actually, but it means more updates.

    24. Re:And still... by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      Chrome deserves some kudos for what it's doing right as well. Their development tools build into the browser are quite good with no need to install extensions. Their javascript engine is also ridiculously fast and their support for the latest standards is quite good. Their security's also arguably the best out there, and they were the first to implement some of the sandboxing features. Even if firefox weren't committing suicide chrome would still be doing quite well because of what they're doing right.

    25. Re:And still... by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Actually, Mozilla is updating the browser a lot less often nowadays then they did during 3.X time, don't confuse major version increments to mean progress, the actual development has slowed down.

      Mozilla marketing actually wanted to drop version numbers altogether.

      One of the reasons that open source development works because real developers don't value money above achievement.

      Open source marketing. Listen, it's marketing, you're lucky to even get what you pay for.

    26. Re:And still... by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      Google has funded the mozilla foundation for years, it is likely that they have become tied to them. So it's not FF vs Chrome, it's FF and then Chrome.

      Which might explain the problems in FF leadership better than "They went nuts all of a sudden".

      FF has the edge with extensions. IE with the OEM installation, Chrome with the speed and google brand.
      FF is forfeiting extensions, that's suicide, if we suppose they are completely independent from google. My bet is they are not.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    27. Re:And still... by SomePgmr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's truth in this.

      I use chrome on my windows machines... have for a long time. I was using either chrome or chromium on linux for some time too. But as it turns out, very basic functionality in the linux builds has been broken for as long as I can remember and your patience eventually runs out. For instance, bookmarks have never worked right in Chromium or Chrome. There are something like 20 related bug tracker entries for the same issues and they've never been fixed. And I just can't get by without working bookmarks anymore... they're kinda essential to a decent browser.

      So I put firefox back on those machines, and I was impressed that everything just works, and it's plenty fast. I'm sure it's because I've only got two extensions installed but I'm happy with it. Now I'm considering moving the windows machines back.

      Either way, you've gotta love having choices.

    28. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard that about version 10... and 9... and 8. And using any version of FF after Chrome feels like walking through mud and starting fires with a few twigs after the speed and power of Chrome...

    29. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You guys are such hypocrites. When versions aren't released fast enough and you end up with memory leaks for months, you whine. When Mozilla takes a pro-active stance and decides to do faster release to get more stable code out there faster, you whine because .. the browser updates? WHO GIVES A SHIT? It's a number you never see unless you actually look for it, and it gets you a better product in the end. Seriously, what the hell?

    30. Re:And still... by cp.tar · · Score: 2

      Well, it does work nicely, albeit a) more slowly than Chrome and b) it tends to crash for stupid reasons (most often while typing up a comment on Facebook; then again, maybe the universe is trying to tell me something).

      I do wish Firefox would implement Chrome’s method of auto-updating in the background (thus eliminating the wait at startup) and finally stop one tab or extension from crashing the whole browser.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    31. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Chromium. I almost forgot about that thing. I haven't had a good go at it for years - I used to run it back in 2000 when it came out. I just installed it and forgot how much that harked back to the 1970's classic arcade games.

      Good stuff, except I wish it would run in higher res. The resolution toggle thing won't go above 1280x960 for some reason.

    32. Re:And still... by NSash · · Score: 2, Informative

      It matters because when they increment the major version number unnecessarily, it breaks extensions (which are the main reason to use firefox).

    33. Re:And still... by masternerdguy · · Score: 1

      They just want to catch up to IE's version number as an ego booster. Then they'll (hopefully) go back to normal.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    34. Re:And still... by tommy8 · · Score: 1

      That is just because IE comes with Windows.

    35. Re:And still... by chispito · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think Mozilla is very happy with the stats, because the real news is that the IE usage went down to almost ~50%, and we have today a diversity of browser (engines).

      Despite what you might think, I'm pretty sure Mozilla is interested in more than just sticking it to MS.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    36. Re:And still... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      And still Mozilla doesn't get a clue that some of the recent changes are driving away users. Amazing.

      I found the huge memory bloat drove me away. For years, I could have 3-4 windows up, with a bunch of tabs in each with a relatively small memory footprint.

      Then it started taking up over a gig of RAM. I haven't used it in about a month or so.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    37. Re:And still... by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I saw the mistake right after I pressed "submit". I hate that there is no way to edit mistakes after submitting. Of course, if people COULD edit, then things would get really strange :)

    38. Re:And still... by BobNET · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if I wanted to use a browser that was exactly like Chrome, I'd just install Chrome.

      Right now it seems that every time a new Firefox version is released, the first thing I do is go to about:config to see what settings have had their default values changed so I can set them back to what I'm used to.

    39. Re:And still... by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You guys are such hypocrites. When versions aren't released fast enough and you end up with memory leaks for months, you whine.

      Uh, what?

      Why do you need to go from version 9 to version 10 in order to fix a memory leak?

      The only difference I've seen between 3.6 and whatever the heck version Ubuntu is shipping right now is that every new version has removed useful features or moved them around on the menus so I have to hunt around to find the damn things again.

    40. Re:And still... by Tsingi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, it does work nicely, albeit a) more slowly than Chrome and b) it tends to crash for stupid reasons (most often while typing up a comment on Facebook; then again, maybe the universe is trying to tell me something).

      I do wish Firefox would implement Chrome’s method of auto-updating in the background (thus eliminating the wait at startup) and finally stop one tab or extension from crashing the whole browser.

      I haven't had it crash on me, I run it on Linux boxes.

      I use all of the browsers for dev, for personal use I use two, Firefox and Chrome.

      Firefox for personal browsing. I can't see that changing any time soon. Chrome for HTML5.

      Firefox beats the rest at privacy and user control hands down. As far as I'm concerned that makes it the best browser. Maybe they should keep all that and switch to webkit as an engine?

      I like that idea.

    41. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still on version 11? You need version 42, it has support for transactional hyperspace modelling in Ruby on Rails and Perl. Makes flash sooo obsolete for youtube videos.

    42. Re:And still... by poena.dare · · Score: 1

      Although I don't use Firefox (much) I want it to be completely different from Chrome.

      Firefox devs are full of great ideas and it's nice when something comes out that makes everyone say "hey, why can't my browser do that?"

      If everyone jumps into the same look-and-feel trench then cool things stop happening.

    43. Re:And still... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ditto, here. My Firefox is at 11.0a1 (2011-11-23). My updates come from the Ubuntu repositories - maybe if I downloaded them directly, I'd be a build ahead.

      There are differences between all the browsers, but I really can't tell that either Chrome or Firefox is "better" than the other. What was it that Shakey guy said? "Much ado about nothing", I believe. I DO NOT like IE, but Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari all get the job done for me. I don't pay much mind to the metrics, to be honest.

      Although, I do look forward to the day that IE falls to 2nd, then 3rd, and then to 4th place. Just doesn't matter who is in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    44. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because user GoogleChromeAndroidFTW on some discussion board told me that Firefox still sucks.

      That way I don't have to evaluate it myself.

    45. Re:And still... by number11 · · Score: 1

      I have zero interest in Chrome, mostly because I simply don't trust it. Google has WAY too much access to stuff already.

      I use Comodo Dragon, which is a hardened version of (open source) Chromium that doesn't phone home to Google. Look & feel are much like Chrome, and it uses the same extensions.

      Of course, this product is from Comodo, the same company whose certificate authority was hacked earlier this year.

    46. Re:And still... by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 2

      Are you using the FireBrain extension?

    47. Re:And still... by icebraining · · Score: 5, Informative

      AMO now automatically updates the major version for every extension that passes a series of automated tests.

    48. Re:And still... by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      +3

    49. Re:And still... by tepples · · Score: 1

      If pure-JavaScript extensions are ported to the frozen APIs of Jetpack, how are they breaking? Or do you claim that extensions need APIs that aren't part of Jetpack?

    50. Re:And still... by Tsingi · · Score: 2

      You guys are such hypocrites.

      LOL! Anonymously calling people hypocrites.

    51. Re:And still... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Oh how time flies by.
      It feels like only a year ago that FireFox was 4.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    52. Re:And still... by Frankie70 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Version 11 is due out next week and is supposed to be faster.

      I heard that V12 is so fast that it is due this week - even before V11.

    53. Re:And still... by Tsingi · · Score: 0

      Because user GoogleChromeAndroidFTW on some discussion board told me that Firefox still sucks.

      That way I don't have to evaluate it myself.

      The NaziOldLadiesMustDieFTW discussion board says it's time for your Granny to die. Be a good lad and pull the plug will you?

    54. Re:And still... by spire3661 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ACs arent allowed to call out UIDs, feeb

      --
      Good-bye
    55. Re:And still... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      I have Firefox Chrome and IE installed, Use Firefox for most sites, Chrome for testing, IE for testing and the odd site that insists on IE ...

      Chrome is still renders incorrectly some sites I use regularly.... fix this and I might change ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    56. Re:And still... by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and the useful extensions don't pass. that mantra of yours is getting old....

    57. Re:And still... by danomac · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many of these are mobile devices? I can tell you that Firefox Mobile is a turd that turns my phone into a laggy mess on my Android phone. TFA doesn't really say anything about that.

      It would make sense, as other browsers on my phone just plain suck... I always wind up using Chrome.

    58. Re:And still... by Jahf · · Score: 2

      +1 to this, and I was a Firefox / Mozilla / Netscape user since the days of beta 14 (ie, 1994/1995).

      Chrome simply does what I want faster and better.

      Thanks to the Mozilla-heads for so many years of goodness. I'll even look at you again some day ... but not under the current direction.

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    59. Re:And still... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Even though I prefer Chrome's UI over FireFox's, I completely agree with you.
      Every time I run FireFox, it just feels like a slow copy of Chrome.
      To FireFox-fans, Chrome probably feels like "FireFox Amateur Edition", but the more FireFox is like Chrome, the less reason there is to choose FireFox over Chrome.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    60. Re:And still... by cyfer2000 · · Score: 2
      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    61. Re:And still... by Creepy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they may be developing more slowly, but they break plugin compatibility with each release now, and they also say that pleasing corporate users by maintaining compatibility with stuff like the java plugin is not important at all. This decision doesn't just affect corporate users, though - I've stopped using Firefox at home because they broke my slingbox player twice now and I'm fed up with it. I switched to IE at home, and I hate IE with a passion (I'd use Chrome, but Chrome wasn't supported yet when I checked last - I just checked and as of Nov 17 it is supported, so time to make that switch).

      Congratulations Firefox - you've managed to change me from biggest fan to I hate your f**king guts.

    62. Re:And still... by Flammon · · Score: 2

      So... I'm running Chromium 15, Linux 3.0.4, Firefox 9, LibreOffice 3.4.4, libc 2.13, nVidia 290.10 and Ubuntu 11.10. What does that tell ya? Nothing!

      The version number indicate different things for different products. Some indicate stability, some indicate when it was released and some simply indicate an incremented release number - nothing else. There are no rules or standards on versionning. The only thing in common that I've noticed is that later releases have larger numbers but even that isn't a given.

    63. Re:And still... by bobcat7677 · · Score: 1

      It was less then that actually. Businesses that are looking for a stable platform to work from will generally not even try to hit a target that moves that fast. And consumers are going to get "upgrade fatigue"....already are actually. I stopped using Firefox a few weeks ago and probably will not go back unless they stop this insanity and come up with a better way of doing things. The volume of jokes in these comments accurately reflects what FF has become: a joke.

      OTOH, Chrome is treating me very well. It has all the features I need, behaves very well on almost all sites I go to (even ones that I wouldn't expect to work well) and almost NEVER crashes. Oh, and it's perceived speed on windows is WAY faster then FF right now (I could care less about benchmarks, I need my browser to be responsive in the real world)

    64. Re:And still... by DarkTempes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the difference is that Chrome updates all of the time but it does it transparently (to the user) and so doesn't impact their browsing experience.

      If Firefox updated in the background and it didn't break anything in the process then no one would care.
      Well, except when major GUI changes happened and then everyone would have a fit because they didn't get a choice to not update and keep things like they were.

      Chrome has avoided that so far by pretty much keeping the same GUI throughout its lifespan.
      Alternatively, Chrome's design makes some add-ons not feasible (Adblock Plus doesn't really work well at blocking flash ads on Chrome last time I checked).

    65. Re:And still... by cHiphead · · Score: 2

      No, all the extensions that I actually use were disabled when I accidentally clicked to 'install' button to upgrade to version 47 instead of clicks ask later.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    66. Re:And still... by kbrosnan · · Score: 1

      The stock Android browser is not Chrome. It uses Webkit but otherwise the development is completely separate.

      --
      These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based upon the order I joined. -Homer Simpson
    67. Re:And still... by Captain.Abrecan · · Score: 0

      I want 64 bit firefox. I wouldn't care about memory leaks if it could use the memory I payed for.

    68. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've hit on something, why hasn't the meteoric rise of the iPhone translated into more hits for Safari? Folks just aren't hitting the web much from their phones? Or do the studies exclude mobile variants in the fine print somewhere?

    69. Re:And still... by Bucky24 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They must be using neutrinos.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    70. Re:And still... by Bucky24 · · Score: 0

      National debt: 15117776260865.28
      If you're gonna troll at least make sure easily looked up facts are correct.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    71. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so does Rockmelt, a Chrome-based browser for social network + RSS feed geeks like me.

    72. Re:And still... by JerkWeed · · Score: 1

      Every time Chrome gains market share, the Firefox developers think they need to make Firefox more like Chrome, when that's exactly what's driving people away.

      Actually I am re-liking Firefox now that they are taking cues from Chrome. Much better.

      Chrome still lacks in basic OS/desktop integration and some of the developer goodies.

    73. Re:And still... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      No, IE is anorexic compared to Firefox. Perhaps you should try a recent build before making silly claims about it. I'm not saying its a great browser, but its far from being the bloated POS that firefox has turned into.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    74. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do wish Firefox would implement Chromeâ(TM)s method of auto-updating in the background (thus eliminating the wait at startup) and finally stop one tab or extension from crashing the whole browser.

      I do wish that firefox would implement simple .msi file releases like most other windows programs. That would make deploying it much easier.

    75. Re:And still... by rwv · · Score: 1

      Firefox for personal browsing. I can't see that changing any time soon. Chrome for HTML5.

      I've been concurrently running both Firefox and Chrome for several weeks. Chrome is given one responsibility... manage my Google Account including E-mail and Calendar. Firefox gets everything else. I feel like this increases performance and enjoy having a dedicated "Google Account" window. Meanwhile... Firefox is happily managing 29 tabs in 4 different tab groups and has greatly simplified my workflow. Suffice it to say... having multiple non-Microsoft choices is pretty damned awesome.

    76. Re:And still... by 9jack9 · · Score: 4, Informative

      And still Mozilla doesn't get a clue that some of the recent changes are driving away users

      Actually, I switched BACK to Firefox during this last year from several years of Chrome recently, and I couldn't be happier. Extensions have been a big part of that. So have the recent changes.

      Noscript and Ghoster have shown me how truly pervasive Google is. The majority of websites that I ever visit run some sort of Google scripting. I'm not being a hater here. I like Google. That aren't evil, right? I just like having some control. Or at least the illusion of it. And I know, Mozilla gets funding from Google. I hope that doesn't mean that FF reports every click back to the Google mothership, but you never know.

      I also run Chrome, IE, and Opera, but of the bunch, I'm the happiest with Firefox.

    77. Re:And still... by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      I want 64 bit firefox. I wouldn't care about memory leaks if it could use the memory I payed for.

      Weird. I've been running 64 bit Firefox for years.

    78. Re:And still... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

      Yeah think again. IE is a pig.

    79. Re:And still... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Versions 7 & 8 were both huge improvements.

    80. Re:And still... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      firefox just plain sucks, right now. the latest version (fuck me if i know which number) can't even scroll properly, at 60fps, if you have >5 tabs open. chrome uses WAY more memory, but it doesn't hog cpu for no reason, NEVER crashes and pages scroll smoothly.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    81. Re:And still... by nicedream · · Score: 1

      Firefox NEEDS to add support for multi-threading or having each tab run as a separate process. Faster javascript benchmarks are great, but with multiple tabs open, Chrome gives you a faster seat of the pants experience.

    82. Re:And still... by Tsingi · · Score: 1

      Chrome is given one responsibility... manage my Google Account including E-mail and Calendar

      That's an idea worth considering. GMail sucks on FFx.

    83. Re:And still... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The worst part is that the features which do actually add something often get overlooked. I had never heard of Perspectives until I spent some time looking for tab organising add-ons, only to discover that there is a good one built in.

      Firefox is trying to be Chrome, and no one is ever going to be better at being Chrome better than Chrome itself (except possibly Chromium, but that's something of an academic debate).

      I wish Chromium would diverge more from Chrome because there are some features that Google refuses to add or remove that I think would really improve Chrome. A lot of it is simple stuff like adding a preference for opening searches via the context menu in a background tab instead of switching instantly. There is an extension for that but due to limits of the extension API it causes the screen to flicker. Actually the extensions API leaves a lot to be desired.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    84. Re:And still... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Bah to the latest versions. I still use Mozilla's SeaMonkey v2.0.14 and Firefox v3.6.24 because I use many addons, and some of them don't work with the latest web browsers. I will upgrade when they are updated or have replacements. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    85. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adblock works perfectly fine on Chrome. UI should have nothing to do with it unless you like to see the red stop sign. WTF?

    86. Re:And still... by lgarner · · Score: 1

      Well, it does work nicely,

      Good to know

      albeit a) more slowly than Chrome and b) it tends to crash for stupid reasons ...

      Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the show? Sorry, I wasn't sure it this was intentional or not.

    87. Re:And still... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      you can find out the national debt down to the fucking cent??!!?!1

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    88. Re:And still... by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      I'm not actually sure how accurate it is, but this is where I went:
      http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

      I suspect it's using some sort of an algorithm, rather then getting this data live, but I imagine it's probably accurate at least to the million :P

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    89. Re:And still... by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 1

      And still Mozilla doesn't get a clue that some of the recent changes are driving away users. Amazing.

      Asa Dotzler personally stated that he's responsible for designing a Firefox for one billion active users.

      I wouldn't say it's Mozilla as such. It's just a few people on the top, unattached to reality and earning a ton of cash. Not much different from any other company.

    90. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Adblock works perfectly fine on Chrome. UI should have nothing to do with it unless you like to see the red stop sign. WTF?

      It's not a UI thing, but it is an API issue. Adblock on chrome hides the ads, but it can't stop them from being downloaded. Unless you've used adblock on firefox, you have no idea how much faster the web is the moment you stop downloading all those ads and executing all those scripts.

      It really makes the performance of the browser itself irrelevant. Firefox can be slower to render content while still rendering pages much faster, simply because it's rendering and downloading less.

    91. Re:And still... by The+Moof · · Score: 3, Funny

      Watching two people go back and forth about the bloat of Firefox versus IE is like watching two morbidly obese people argue about who's fatter.

    92. Re:And still... by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      While I'm sure it's probably somewhat accurate, why not get the debt directly from the government agency who monitors the debt?

      http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

      Also, it's $15,110,498,560,876.77 as of 11/30

    93. Re:And still... by creepynut · · Score: 1

      Adblock for Chrome has been preventing the ads from downloading for ages now.
      Reference: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom

    94. Re:And still... by Captain.Abrecan · · Score: 0

      Gimme!

    95. Re:And still... by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Where does Chrome lack in OS/desktop integration where Firefox succeeds? I'm genuinely curious, not being a smartass.

    96. Re:And still... by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      This was my thought as well (though I wouldn't say 'ego booster.') Once they've caught up to everyone they'll "cave" into the pressure and go back to slower stabilized release schedules.

    97. Re:And still... by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Who cares WHY extensions are breaking? If enough people are complaining about breakage (which they clearly are), then it's a problem!

      Personally, I have completely stopped installing Firefox (I, like millions of others, have gone to Chrome) because I got tired of the updates and breakages. I never could seem to keep the HTML validator extension working for more than a few days at a time!

    98. Re:And still... by Raenex · · Score: 1

      So I put firefox back on those machines, and I was impressed that everything just works, and it's plenty fast. I'm sure it's because I've only got two extensions installed

      If those two extensions are NoScript and AdBlock then that would explain it. I've been running with these for years and haven't had memory leaks or slowness problems that other people have complained about.

    99. Re:And still... by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Hardly. The debt isn't even accurate to the trillions.

    100. Re:And still... by elashish14 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet some users (like myself) still prefer Firefox because that bloated garbage actually translates into useful features. Firefox is still the best browser in terms of customizability and (consequently) respecting users' privacy.

      As far as I see, Firefox and Chrome occupy different niches - Chrome for more of a lean, one-size-fits-all approach, and Firefox for a more custom browsing experience (which, in my opinion is what makes it great). I know that Chrome has come a ways with some of the essentials like script- and ad-blockers, but Firefox still has the edge. While I'm sad to see that more users choose Chrome than FF, it doesn't mean that the most popular browser is the best. If that were the case, IE would still be king.

      Though it still annoys me to no end that Firefox can take 700MB on memory. On this machine with only 1GB of RAM, that's pretty serious. But it's still worth it IMO. I'll be upgrading soon anyways

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    101. Re:And still... by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Maybe the kewl kids just decided Chrome is more kewl this season, and Mozilla should actually just care even less?

      It is open source, it is not a product, who cares if a some people switched? They're not going to get their $0.00 from those users?! Oh noes!

      Are they happy now? If so, great!

      Most of them will be back next month, anyways.

    102. Re:And still... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      He may be young, but at least he had half a clue more than you did, Mrs. Coward.

    103. Re:And still... by Galestar · · Score: 1

      Watching two people...

      there's 4 people + you here.

      --
      AccountKiller
    104. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This comment is simply astonishing. What's not to understand? If you want a bugfix, you upgrade to a newer version with that fix. It doesn't matter if that means a 9 changes to a 10.

      And not noticing any significant positive differences since 3.6 sounds surreal to me.. like something straight out of the Twilight Zone. I don't even use Firefox, but this comment is just.. out there.

    105. Re:And still... by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      As a caveat, I should say that I didn't create them from scratch.. but I imported bookmarks from Firefox to Chrome on my Linux machine, and bookmarks all work fine.. and the bookmark manager works as expected.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    106. Re:And still... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I don't use you much, but I want you to be completely different than humaans.

    107. Re:And still... by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1
      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    108. Re:And still... by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      The Browser Wars were about choice, not about "sticking it to" anybody. And yes, choice proves victory.

    109. Re:And still... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The most recent benchmarks (you can look it up over at slashdot) showed FF winning in memory usage with large numbers of tabs, and doing well in all memory categories.

    110. Re:And still... by clarkn0va · · Score: 1
      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    111. Re:And still... by G-forze · · Score: 1

      Chrome is given one responsibility... manage my Google Account including E-mail and Calendar.

      I do this as well, but mainly to prevent Google from registering all my searches to my account because of being logged in at Google Plus all the time.

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    112. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving users away to.... Chrome? They don't want the browser to be like Chrome so they jump ship and use Chrome? Hey buddy, step here and ease yourself into this comfy straight jacket...

    113. Re:And still... by jafac · · Score: 1

      Wearing my "Tester" hat. . . of course I would like ONE browser, and that ONE browser to be Firefox.

      Wearing my "User" hat - I am happier with more competition and more choice. I just hope that the add-on market does not get cannibalized to the point where people stop producing and maintaining useful add-ons for Firefox. The add-on situation for other browsers is pathetic.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    114. Re:And still... by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      Firefox does not likely report any click, but if you look up in the preferences there is something like: block reported attacks, forgeries.
      Now, to block them the browser must either download a blacklist or upload the site who one is about to visit to a central server to have it checked. I guess it's the second one. There is potential for abuse even if it would mean risking the end of mozilla foundation and a fork in a matter of months.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    115. Re:And still... by Bj�rn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not true. Firefox is rather lean when it comes to memory use, and Chrome is actually somewhat poor. There are many comparisons available on-line, and the ones I have seen all come to that conclusion.

      Here is one on Tom's Hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-chrome-opera,2558-4.html

      When comparing ten tabs the article states. "The big surprise here is Opera's and Chrome's poor showing in the multi-tab tests. Overall, Firefox delivers the best memory usage results. It comes in first place for the five- and ten-tab usage tests, but fourth in the single-tab metric."

      --
      Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
    116. Re:And still... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Firefox started to whip the butt of IE because it was a small, light, fast and supported the standards well browser. Then over time and got more and more stuff, and and now is considered Large, bulky, slow, that is behind some of the standards browser. And Chrome is the new small and light one.
      I figure next month for Firefox 29 they will put in the email client and rename it again to Netscape Navigator 4

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    117. Re:And still... by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Lastpass and AdBlock.

      Both seem to work just fine. In fact, the lastpass extension for firefox seems to work much better than the Chrome one, though I realize that's likely a reflection on the extension makers and not the browsers themselves.

    118. Re:And still... by RatherBeAnonymous · · Score: 1

      Surely you mean, "they WILL be using neutrinos."

    119. Re:And still... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "And still Mozilla doesn't get a clue that some of the recent changes are driving away users. Amazing."

      They took a cue from the Unity developers.

      Of course, people writing software to scratch their own itch don't need users. At all.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    120. Re:And still... by Jessified · · Score: 2

      Plus ever since version 3.6 I can't get firefox to go 4 minutes without crashing on my Windows 7 64bit systems (any of them). It seems to be specifically a problem with that OS.

    121. Re:And still... by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      >I do wish Firefox would implement Chrome’s method of auto-updating in the background.

      This is actually my major beef with the rapid update cycle. A rapid update cycle is OK if nothing much changes in how something works, and the update is not disruptive. Either the Chrome approach of updating without you noticing most of the time, or the old Firefox approach of infrequent major updates work quite OK for me.

      But having a rapid update cycle that always disrupts your work all the time because things change around in the UI or in how stuff works is bad. I still like Firefox basically, so I just stay on one version, disable auto-update, and do an update when I do a global update of my system every 6 month or so.

    122. Re:And still... by aix+tom · · Score: 2

      But If I want a bugfix, I just want the bug fix not an almost complete UI change every month.

      And I also haven't seen any "positive differences" since 3.6. The only thing I noticed so far was "where is this thing I need because I use it all the time?" "Oh, they removed it, I now need to hunt through multiple extensions for stuff that was a basic functionality once, while they ram other crap I don't need in there without the ability to remove the bloat"

      I went to 4, 5 and 6, and every time it took a few days to get things back into the way I need it. I then decided going through all that again wasn't worth the effort so I staid on 6 for now, and will only update when I update the entire machine again in a few months.

    123. Re:And still... by Bj�rn · · Score: 1

      I can't think of anything that miss from the 3.x versions. What are you missing in later versions?

      The change of putting the tabs over the URL, like Chrome, might have put some people off perhaps, but I thought it was the perfectly logical thing to do. I don't think Firefox should avoid doing what is logical just because some other browser has already done it. A good idea is a good idea. And, besides, it is just two mouse clicks to change back to the old behavior. What other things did Firefox copy?

      --
      Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
    124. Re:And still... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      re: the memory, if you start using lots of other apps does firefox reduce it's usage and does it affect your computers performance?

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    125. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is /., so fat guys and browsers are the most important things. It's Friday, I'm fucking leaving.

    126. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though it still annoys me to no end that Firefox can take 700MB on memory. On this machine with only 1GB of RAM, that's pretty serious.

      My own experience shows that Chromium is not necessarily leaner than FF in terms of memory use. Sometimes it appears to use more. However, unlike Firefox, Chromium doesn't seem to leak, whereas an idle FF window with only a few tabs (and no plugins) left open will somehow end up taking more and more memory by each passing day. Also, Chromium does seem to actually use the memory it takes to make things zippy. Having been with Chromium for over a year, I can happily say that there aren't any FF addons that I miss. I even find the developers tools a lot nicer to work with than Firebug. To each their own, though.

    127. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox is hopeless garbage for fanboiz. It's bloated, insecure and has numerous unpatched vulnerabilities and memory leaks. Now people have a new way of "sticking it to the man" without putting up with Firefox. It was only a matter of time.

    128. Re:And still... by westlake · · Score: 1

      Despite what you might think, I'm pretty sure Mozilla is interested in more than just sticking it to MS.

      The add click keeps Moz alive.

      It has no other significant source of funding.

    129. Re:And still... by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Because by making you install a new version you also are forced to restart. Restarting the browser clears up the memory leaks!

    130. Re:And still... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes, people would care! It's not that we have to click some buttons that annoys us, but that the browser keeps changing and is not stable, the look changes, the add ons keep breaking, etc. Stable is important to a lot of people whereas new and shiny is important to others.

    131. Re:And still... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Maybe but Chrome is even more insane than Firefox with its rapid updates.

    132. Re:And still... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Firefox is definitely being developed by something with a much higher density.

    133. Re:And still... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of people who just don't like chrome and prefer firefox. So being more like chrome doesn't do anything to attract those users while also not causing chrome fans to switch either.

      The big problem with Mozilla is that they took such a major shift in direction which is naturally going to alienate existing customers. Then they compounded that with awful PR and marketing.

    134. Re:And still... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      True. They also want to stick it to their corporate customers as well.

    135. Re:And still... by sunzoomspark · · Score: 1

      Although, I do look forward to the day that IE falls to 2nd, then 3rd, and then to 4th place. Just doesn't matter who is in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd!

      +1 It is nice to see IE dropping, no matter what happens with the rest of the browser world.

    136. Re:And still... by knarf · · Score: 1

      There is one thing I just don't get with the way Chrom{e|ium} and FF do their auto-updating thing: both browsers seem to assume that the user who runs the browser should have write rights to the browser binary. The way I install software (on Linux), normal users do not have write rights, only read and execute are available. Giving users write rights to their browser binaries makes it a lot easier to subvert those binaries, either through malicious 'updates' or by the action of some external program. I see no reason to change the way I install software to something which mimics the way software was (and probably still is...) handled on the majority of Windows installations. That means I have to use different means to update these browsers, but that seems like a small trade-off compared to the alternative as describe above.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    137. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, your complaint is over an arbitrary numbering scheme?

    138. Re:And still... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy, because in the real world, we have morbidly obese people along with normal size people, skinny people, anorexic people, etc. In the browser world, they're all "bloated"; there aren't any real browsers still under active development that don't use a ton of memory. And no, lynx doesn't count since it's not graphical.

    139. Re:And still... by Bj�rn · · Score: 1

      > Then over time and got more and more stuff, and and now is considered Large, bulky, slow, that is behind some of the standards browser. And Chrome is the new small and light one.

      People keep saying stuff like that. But all comparisons of memory usage between browsers that I have seen say the opposite. Chrome is one of the worst browser when it comes to memory usage, and Firefox one of the lightest ones. Chrome's Javascript engine is still the fastest but Firefox is closing in. But ultimately I have to wonder a bit about how important it is to squeeze another millisecond of performance from Javascript. PC-mag did a Javascript comparison recently, with the following results for the SunSpider test.

      Google Chrome 15: 293
      Firefox 8: 296

      --
      Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
    140. Re:And still... by DeadboltX · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yet the only thing they really need to copy to get me to come back and try Firefox again is to replace the 13-click procedure for broken SSL certificates with a simple pop-up window. As it used to be.

      You open a page with an invalid certificate:
      1) click "I understand the risks"
      2) click "add exception"
      3) click "confirm exception"

      I'm not sure where you're extra 10 clicks are coming from.

    141. Re:And still... by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      Indeed, small stupid things like moving the reload button to an unreasonable place. But Chrome has got some pretty big stupidities too. Still no "save all bookmarks as tabs". What's up with that? And Chrome loves to litter my ~/Downloads directory with pdfs I needed to look at first before deciding whether to keep or not. For just these two reasons, I use Chrome only for "throwaway" browsing while Firefox is used for "serious" browsing like researching a topic where I do want to save a whole set of results in an organized way and do not want to litter my filesystem with garbage that I looked at and deemed irrelevant.

      Technically, Mozilla foundation should wind down Gecko and move to Webkit. How that would impact the plugin API is a big question. Probably in a positive way. Plugins are Firefox's greatest strength.

      Anyway, I do not believe that technical reasons are the prime reasons for the shift in market share. It is actually network effect. Google has effective means of pushing Chrome into the market by leveraging its other assets. Rather like Microsoft versus Netscape affair actually. Remember how that hostile market takeover was always explained away by Microsoft as being due to technical superiority of IE over Netscape. But in the end when it all came out at trial, it was proved that the dominant reason was Microsoft's illegal application of market power. So we have a similar situation now playing out with Google as the attacker. But of course, Google is not evil so it's all good this time. Right? Right?

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    142. Re:And still... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      That is what I don't get, you see your numbers dropping like flies, your users tell you in no uncertain terms what you are doing is a big DO NOT WANT and yet what do you do? "We'll just do it twice as fast, that's the ticket"?

      I have to support everything from netbooks and old office P4s to the latest quads and I had to switch myself and my customers to Comodo Dragon (Chromium based without the Google phone home) simply because I found on a LARGE swath of the older machines and netbooks it was no longer suitable for purpose. it wasn't extensions either, just to ensure of that I ran tests with ONLY extensions that Dragon and FF had, namely ForecastFox and ABP. For test beds I chose 3 systems, an off lease P4 2.2GHz, 512Mb of RAM, my nettop which is a Sempron 1.8GHz with 1,5Gb of RAM, and my netbook which is one of the new E-350 Brazos EEE netbooks with 8Gb of RAM.

      What did I find? The latest version, 8.01 I believe, is simply unusable on both the Sempron AND the P4, and is frankly barely functional on the E-350 while causing its temps to shoot up nearly 20 degrees from all the CPU slamming. I just tried to go to basic sites that I knew my customers would go to, YouTube, Yahoo Mail and Gmail, a couple of random websites, and in every single case while the max that Dragon hit was around 70% CPU and that only for a few seconds FF would literally GRIND on the CPU causing such hard 100% CPU spikes that the entire desktop became unresponsive.

      I personally learned of this after the 4 series when all my customers started complaining about how Facebook was slow and their PCs became unresponsive so I traced it back and sure enough it was FF slamming their CPU. In fact the ONLY customer I haven't had any complaints from is a single one that bought an AMD triple core, maybe FF doesn't know how to slam an odd cored CPU? But I would suggest to those wanting another browser either Comodo Dragon which has excellent features like the option to use their secure DNS or if you want something portable you can use the also excellent QTWeb which is built using the QT framework. From what I've been told by a poster here QTWeb will run on anything going back to Windows 98. Oh and for you Mac and Linux users? QTWeb has the links for those OSes in their download section, enjoy!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    143. Re:And still... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      It's very arguable because firefox still has noscript. I have tried using notscript with chrome. It sucks and it is not even a comprehensive solution to javascript/flash whitelisting. it has holes you could drive a truck through and the developer openly admits it. You can run firefox strictly noscripted and sandboxed with sandboxie in a limited user account.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    144. Re:And still... by yuhong · · Score: 1

      Don't forget innerHTML, drag and drop, and other little bits and pieces that was first introduced in IE.

    145. Re:And still... by webnut77 · · Score: 1

      and their support for the latest standards is quite good.

      Now if they could just correctly support the standards that aren't the latest. Webkit's outline extends above the table caption (incorrectly) while the border doesn't. Webkit doesn't handle a div min-width:45% inside a div min-width:90% correctly.

    146. Re:And still... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Firefox is still the best browser in terms of customizability and (consequently) respecting users' privacy.

      How does Chrome disrespect users' privacy?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    147. Re:And still... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      This is actually my major beef with the rapid update cycle. A rapid update cycle is OK if nothing much changes in how something works, and the update is not disruptive. Either the Chrome approach of updating without you noticing most of the time, or the old Firefox approach of infrequent major updates work quite OK for me.

      So if the devs do something stupid or impulsive or add some really annoying feature or remove one you found essential what do you do? What about when this happens every few days or every week? You could leave your internet connection unplugged so you are not surprised by devastating feature changes you weren't expecting every few days. Or you could switch to a sane browser that doesn't do this. For instance Firefox 3.6.24.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    148. Re:And still... by webnut77 · · Score: 1

      +5 Insightful WTF? Who's modding this up?

      FF still has memory leaks. I've had it open for one day and it's up to 1.459 GB. And this is the only version of FF to ever crash on my computer!

      He, he; waiting for you to ask "what version are you running?"

    149. Re:And still... by webnut77 · · Score: 1

      every new version has removed useful features or moved them around

      and don't forget trim fsck'ing URLs in about:config

    150. Re:And still... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Why do you need to go from version 9 to version 10 in order to fix a memory leak?

      Because otherwise the developers end up having to fix the memory leak twice, once in the released version and once in the in-development version. And, inevitably, it happens sometimes that only one of those two fixes gets done, which leads to either a long wait for a fix or, even worse, a fix that regresses when the new version is released.

      It's much more manageable to make all but the most critical changes in the dev version, and then release it quickly.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    151. Re:And still... by swillden · · Score: 1

      What's the problem with bookmarks in Chrome? I have to admit that I don't really use bookmarks (that's what search engines are for), but on the rare occasion when I do use them they seem just fine. How are they broken?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    152. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think Firefox is the best browser "in terms of customizability and (consequently) respecting users' privacy", then you need to check out Opera.

      It's slightly different than Firefox and if you still prefer Firefox that's just fine. Some people prefer blue to red. It's just that Opera is every bit as good on user privacy. At default, and when customized for heavy privacy. Since that's the basis of your argument, you need to know this.

      And it does it without the "bloat". Try it, You don't have to wear a hair shirt to get good privacy.

    153. Re:And still... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And yet some users (like myself) still prefer Firefox because that bloated garbage actually translates into useful features. Firefox is still the best browser in terms of customizability and (consequently) respecting users' privacy./quote.

      True. In practice, however, most users don't really care much about privacy (how many of them have Facebook accounts?), and even fewer care about customizability, hence the trend.

    154. Re:And still... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What about `links2 -g`? ~

    155. Re:And still... by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      Obviously not all 1,035 open issues matching "bookmarks" are exclusively bookmarks bugs... but you'll see a good handful of them here:
      http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list?can=2&q=bookmarks

    156. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it has been less what features either browser had, but the amount of advertising that Mozilla and Google did.

      Other than being pre-installed on some computers or operating systems, Firefox literally got around by word of mouth (which is pretty amazing). But what Google did with their browser was slap the "Try Chrome," ads on their homepage, over Youtube, and all across the web. It's no wonder it got so popular so fast.

    157. Re:And still... by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      Mozilla paved the way for alternative browsers, pushing websites away from IE-only design

      While it did push websites away from IE-only design, it didn't pave the way for alternative web browsers. What happened was that websites got pushed to IE and Firefox-only designs. Then Chrome came along and the clueless designers had to add Chrome to their list of supported web browsers.

      The point is that there's still a long way to go before alternative web browser discrimination ends.

    158. Re:And still... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Obviously not all 1,035 open issues matching "bookmarks" are exclusively bookmarks bugs... but you'll see a good handful of them here: http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list?can=2&q=bookmarks

      That doesn't really answer the question. Software can have many bugs around minor issues without actually being unusable. Stuff like "bookmarks bar flickers on mouseover". What is it that makes bookmarks actually not usable for you?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    159. Re:And still... by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      I figure next month for Firefox 29 they will put in the email client and rename it again to Netscape Navigator 4

      That'd be pointless as we already have SeaMonkey for that.

    160. Re:And still... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      .. and for those of us who need to target IE only businesses for support or websites I have to say even IE is MUCH IMPROVED with IE 9 and IE 10 is the most standards compliant out there with 100% Javascript conformance believe it or not.

      MS has learned their lesson from IE 6 not to be proprietary and they have no desire at all whatsoever as they want want applets from IOS and Android ported to Metro. Funny that seems to happen when you lose marketshare.

      Chrome however is showing signs similiar to IE 4/5 with proprietarness that I am wary of. Dart is 100% proprietary and so is the HTML 5 code from that demo posted on slashdot a few months ago. It wont work on any browser but Chrome. Worse are the applets.

      I believe Google plans a whole ecosystem inside the browser itself similar to ActiveX but Chrome will be more of an operating system rather than just a jar to run win32 objects like IE was.

      In that regards Mozilla surely does not want Chrome to succeed to be the next platform and has a vested interest to see Chrome as just a browser instead.

    161. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the tag you missed ;-) The point is, for people who know what they're doing, it has gone from being a useful warning to an inconvenience. Build up enough inconveniences and you will drive people away.

    162. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the changes are driving people from firefox to chrome, then chrome is really doing some great marketing to make people think that chrome is what these people want. Most of the changes people complain about in firefox are changes to make it more like chrome!

    163. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox and Chrome both send a hash of the domain to Google's URL-checking service for this. Firefox sends it alongside a few hashes of random other websites, so it's not clear which one is the one you were actually going to visit.

    164. Re:And still... by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      It's the first. urlclassifier3.sqlite is actually a list of bad sites supplied by Google.

    165. Re:And still... by mattgoldey · · Score: 1

      Yeah.... Windows 7 came out AFTER Windows 95! Figure that shit out!

    166. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox beats the rest at privacy and user control hands down. As far as I'm concerned that makes it the best browser. Maybe they should keep all that and switch to webkit as an engine?

      I like that idea.

      Yes, intentionally breaking all extensions AGAIN is a great idea. I thought we already established that doing that is a bad idea?

      Firefox is Gecko, literally. The entire goddamn GUI is written in XUL+HTML+Javascript and rendered by the browser engine. You don't port something like that, you rewrite it from scratch and desperately hope to recapture the original essence (and probably fail).

    167. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you go once you hit the top? Down!

    168. Re:And still... by webheaded · · Score: 1

      And god help you if you want to use a local HTTPS service on Chrome. You have to install certificates and all kinds of shit and it's basically impossible. It takes a few clicks in Firefox but it basically isn't even possible in Chrome.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
    169. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On ubuntu, firefox fills teh 'crash every 10 minutes' niche.

    170. Re:And still... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The rapid updates which happen in the background, don't change the UI, and don't break anything. Precisely unlike Firefox.

    171. Re:And still... by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Webkit was never designed to have hooks, and therefore took the Chromium team some effort to get the little bit of customization their plugins allow. What you describe is more a fork of the direction Chromium took to add customization.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    172. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is of course not what he said. Way to quote out of context.

    173. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "Hyperbole"
      Making a situation seem more than it is.

      I work with dipshits that do this all of the time. Gets seriously annoying after a while.

      Meanwhile, Chrome will continue to eat Firefox user base as they have something that was unique to FF .. built in .. 'extensions'.

    174. Re:And still... by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      The stupid Zedo popups I can't block at a browser level are what's keeping me in FF. And, with the architecture issues in Chrome hindering things like AdBlock (http://tinyurl.com/GoogleChromeBugs), we won't see the same level of plugins.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    175. Re:And still... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I think you fail to see the drives behind open source software. Its beautiful development nature, like an infinite estuary where many diverse beings live upon it's banks and in it's waters, where forks continually develop, only to merge again downstream, as driven by the wishes of the majority or by the shear effort of a minority.

      Firefox will go where it needs to go to satisfy the drives of it's contributors, whether fiscal or code or just commentary. If features in Chrome become very popular it is only logical they find their way into Firefox. If features left out of Chrome but still found to be very desirable in Firefox, it is only logical they find their way into Chrome. It is the way of things in Free Open Source Software.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    176. Re:And still... by pgpalmer · · Score: 1

      The result graph in your linked article left out the rather important detail of what versions of browsers they were testing.

    177. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And after the code happy people at Google get finished "fixing it" and "improving it," it will become a bloated piece of garbage too. I'm counting on K-meleon to stay what it is..fast, efficient, streamlined and light.

    178. Re:And still... by Baki · · Score: 1

      I see chrome using more memory than Firefox, both including an equivalent set of (the usual) extensions. Since version 7 and 8 I think Firefox has reversed the trend of becoming bigger and slower. And it still has some extensions and tab handling that is better than any other browser.

      Maybe it doesn't win benchmarks, but it is fast enough for me.

      And it gives some peace of mind to use a browser that is not tied to a powerful company.

    179. Re:And still... by Baki · · Score: 1

      How about tab groups? Firefox has invented many things, tab groups being the latest. I do not think Firefox is merely copying features. They have been leading in features and have been copied by the others.

    180. Re:And still... by Hyperhaplo · · Score: 1

      Only reason I now have FF 4 instead of FF 3.6 is because 4 allows dynamic resizing of HTML textarea input boxes.. which can be really really useful when sites don't code for setting an appropriate size for input.

      Other than that, I would still be on 3.6

      --
      You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
    181. Re:And still... by DrDeusEx · · Score: 1

      As long as firefox was copying features from little known Opera it was fine. But when it started adopting the Chrome feel it started bombing.

    182. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, he was, the current version is 8, version 11 won't be here before February.

    183. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish it was just the random UI changes but some broken tools you just can't replace, incompatible, incompatible and the worst part was not having anything to say in the matter.
      When you build something for yourself you have every right to do as you please, but when you release it to a community you have a moral obligation to respect the users and the third party developers who invested the same amount of time and resources from their own pocket to help you become what you are today.
      So FUCK you Firefox for forgetting where you came from and who supported you along the way.

    184. Re:And still... by robsku · · Score: 1

      Though it still annoys me to no end that Firefox can take 700MB on memory. On this machine with only 1GB of RAM, that's pretty serious. But it's still worth it IMO. I'll be upgrading soon anyways

      On my machine it's the chromium that hogs memory like nothing else... With only 50 tabs it consumes way more RAM than my FF with 5 windows and 120-250 tabs usually open (the memory consumption difference is even bigger now that I use BarTab extension on FF). I also have only 1GB RAM (though I have another 512Mb or 1GB waiting for when I reboot and can modify the hardware again :) ). Mind you, I also run wordpress blog on Apache+PHP+MySQL and several other end user desktop programs all the time too, my swap use is usually less than 200Mb and everything runs smoothly - as long as I don't run Chrome or Chromium.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    185. Re:And still... by robsku · · Score: 1

      What about Links2 started with -g parameter or Dillo then?

      And anyway, when it comes to text browsers, why do people always refer to Lynx and not something more advanced, ie. w3, Links, Links2 - or eLinks, hands down the best text browser I know of?

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    186. Re:And still... by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      When comparing ten tabs the article states. "The big surprise here is Opera's and Chrome's poor showing in the multi-tab tests. Overall, Firefox delivers the best memory usage results. It comes in first place for the five- and ten-tab usage tests, but fourth in the single-tab metric."

      Probably due to Chrome's multi-process architecture. Each tab runs in a completely separate process, and other applets (Flash, Java, etc) are segregated into their own individual processes as well, and they're all controlled by one master process that doesn't actually handle any of the rendering. Overall, it creates a faster and significantly more stable operating environment, because one individual process can't bog down (or completely crash) the entire program. Because of this system, each tab requires its own memory space as well as a lot of redundant code running in every process. Firefox has more bloat in the main process, but doesn't need redundancies when running multiple tabs. Therefore, Firefox uses less memory with a high number of tabs and Chrome uses less with a low number. Mozilla has been trudging along towards bringing multi-process architecture to Firefox as well, though, so that "advantage" (in quotes because memory usage isn't all that important as unused RAM is wasted RAM) may "soon" (in quotes because they've been talking about this for years and I have yet to hear about a whole lot of progress) go away.

    187. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome went from nothing to 2nd in how long? Are you suggesting Chrome's ceiling is close and will flux back to zero? I think you underestimate Chrome's climb to where it is now, and underestimate its peak. FF will soon be 3rd, and may start acting it.

      Note, I am still using FF 3.6... and will continue to use it for the foreseeable future. This is when the shark was jumped. I've even stopped putting FF on computer's I touch. /me shrugs.

    188. Re:And still... by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      I thought the opposite as I had problems with a partially firewalled LAN, firefox as a local webapp client took 60secs before displaying the page. Disabling the checks made everything work smooth. this was last year so... 5 versions ago :)

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    189. Re:And still... by SmilingBoy · · Score: 1

      this has not been true for more than 2 years. Ads do get blocked from download.

    190. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bite. What version are you running? 5? 6?

    191. Re:And still... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Because of this system, each tab requires its own memory space as well as a lot of redundant code running in every process
      Design flaw.

    192. Re:And still... by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      Can't really comment on this since I don't monitor the memory usage very closely. All I can say is that my machine starts consuming hundreds of MB of swap space, so yes, it definitely reduces performance by a lot.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    193. Re:And still... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Ah Swap space, supposedly it should be 1.5x your memory... even back when I had 8mb memory!! I turned that off years ago and haven't had a problem in either xp or win 7, don't know about Linux, worth a try.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  3. Inevitable. by fantazem · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think this was inevitable given how much better Chrome is then all the competition. Once Chrome gets the breadth of plugins that Firefox has, it's game over.

    1. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't mean plugins; you mean extensions.

    2. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also, once Linux gets the breadth of apps that Windows has, it's game over.

    3. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      plugins? you mean extensions written in javascript, that drive browsing speed to a crawl?

    4. Re:Inevitable. by Freedom+Bug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once Chrome gets the breadth of plugins that Firefox has, it'll be no better than Firefox.

      Modern Firefox is virtually as fast as Chrome and actually uses less memory than Chrome. `The problem is that many Firefox extensions leak memory and really slow Firefox down. The reason that Chrome's plugins don't is that Chrome plugins simply aren't allowed to do a lot of the things that Firefox extensions do.

    5. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow. Thank god for that correction.

    6. Re:Inevitable. by jonnythan · · Score: 4, Informative

      AdBlock Plus runs on Chrome. It's in Google's Chrome Web Store.

    7. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      need noscript as well.

    8. Re:Inevitable. by jenic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AdBlock Plus runs on Chrome. It's in Google's Chrome Web Store.

      Get back to me when they have a fully functioning NoScript.

    9. Re:Inevitable. by ohnocitizen · · Score: 4, Informative
      The problems with modern Firefox are:
      1. The UI itself is slow and prone to freezes
      2. If one page slows/freezes the browser, the entire application slows/freezes
      3. Firefox is currently less stable than Chrome

      If they fix these issues, they will see more users flock their way.

    10. Re:Inevitable. by thsths · · Score: 1

      > The reason that Chrome's plugins don't is that Chrome plugins simply aren't allowed to do a lot of the things that Firefox extensions do.

      Yes, but Firefox is changing that with the Jetpack API. Which brings us right back on topic: Firefox is trying to be Chrome, and it can only lose.

    11. Re:Inevitable. by danomac · · Score: 1

      There's NotScript that tries to duplicate this functionality, although it's still in infancy based on some of the comments I see...

      Once that matures I'll have no reason to stay with Firefox.

    12. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And fully functioning adblock plus. Because right now, it sucks.

    13. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit. I was about to post saying that unless Chrome gets adblock plus or an equivelant, it's meaningless to me.

      Well, this turns things right the hell around. I'm also getting pissed off at Firefox's memory leak. Sorry Firefox, sometimes I want to have something OTHER that only a browser window open.

      What are the odds it has noscript, or an equivelant? That's the second piece of the puzzle for me.

    14. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately the plugin system for Chrome is a little more restrictive, and certain things simply can't be done with it.

      However I couldn't give a damn myself -- I don't customize my browser, I prefer it to be good by itself.

    15. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get out of my head!

    16. Re:Inevitable. by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 1

      I have... whatever version of FF, I lost track, still installed because both versions of Adblock for Chrome don't block embedded video ads. Granted, this is apparently a technical issue that would require a patch to Chrome rather than crappy plugin porting. Does anyone happen to know if this is the case for Chromium (I'm assuming Adblock works for Chromium)?

    17. Re:Inevitable. by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      I know you meant to be sarcastic, but it may still be true. Games and a competitor for Microsoft Office are the two things holding it back (along with a slick GUI that doesn't remind people of windows XP).

      Also, it's not good enough if you're relegated to using wine. Things get complicated and buggy.

    18. Re:Inevitable. by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, Chrome doesn't support HTTPS Everywhere because it doesn't have the plugin hooks to do it. That's the main reason I stuck with Firefox. https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    19. Re:Inevitable. by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 1

      Just tried it in Comodo Dragon, no dice. On the plus side, Adblock for Opera does in fact kill embedded video ads properly. I hadn't given Opera a try in a few years, definitely worth looking into if you're considering ditching FF. The UI is pretty similar as well.

    20. Re:Inevitable. by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this. I do use Chrome, but only for a carefully selected set of web sites, not general browsing. When I do use it for general browsing, I'm confronted with an array of dancing, prancing jiggies trying to draw my attention to everything except the words I'm trying to read.

      Ironically, that's now part of the reason I use Chrome. Some web sites don't play well with NoScript, downloading bits of JavaScript from world+dog, and various reloading bits that make it hard to tell just what piece isn't getting loaded. It's easier to just let my Chrome download all of the crapware, view the site, and then be done with it. I rarely want to visit such sites more than once anyway.

      But my main browsing is in NoScript-protected Firefox (with the damn GIF animations turned off).

    21. Re:Inevitable. by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 1

      I use NotScripts, and while it's not quite as good as NoScript, it still works great. Seems development has stopped though, but it's already perfectly functional as-is.

      Actually, I use NotScripts for Chrome OS, which is basically the same thing but removes the need to edit configuration files with a password first. It does introduce the possibility of web sites looking at what sites I've disabled and enabled, but I really don't care if some site knows I let youtube.com run scripts on my browser. This also makes it easier to recover your site settings from a corrupted profile, or when you want to move them to another computer, both of which have happened to me.

    22. Re:Inevitable. by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 1

      See my post above, I've used NoScript, I use NotScripts on Chrome now, and I don't miss any functionality.

    23. Re:Inevitable. by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 1

      If one page slows/freezes the browser, the entire application slows/freezes

      That there is the single biggest reason I switched to Chrome. I got so fed up with the whole browser freezing up every other time I loaded a new web site. If they switch to a process-per-tab setup like Chrome, I'll consider switching back.

      Well, not exactly the same. Chrome has this problem to an extent too, because tabs belonging to the same website share a process. So if I'm reading a news site and open up several articles in background tabs, the one I'm reading becomes unresponsive while they load.

    24. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tools->Options->Content Tab->Uncheck Enable Javascript

    25. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Options->Under the Hood->Privacy->Content Settings...->JavaScript->Select "Do not allow any site to run JavaScript"

    26. Re:Inevitable. by jenic · · Score: 1

      See my post above, I've used NoScript, I use NotScripts on Chrome now, and I don't miss any functionality.

      While an average user might not miss any functionality with NotScripts the overwhelming truth is that there are limitations to what NotScripts can do with the limited Chrome API. Let me list some features I use daily:

      • Clickjacking protection
      • inline script blocking
      • Script Surrogates
      • XSS Filtering
      • Application Boundary Enforcement
      • HTTPS Enforcement
      • Secure Cookie Enforcement

      I could go on but lets discuss ABE for a moment. Singularly the most awesome part of NoScript. Lets say you allow Facebook.com scripts to run since you have a facebook account. Now lets say you allow slashdot.org scripts to run because you are a masochist. Facebook inclusions will run on slashdot.org because you trust both facebook and slashdot. But not with ABE:
      # Facebook XSS
      Site .facebook.com .fbcdn.net .facebook.net
      Accept from .facebook.com .fbcdn.net .facebook.net
      Deny INCLUSION

      I could still go on but you get the point right?

    27. Re:Inevitable. by webnut77 · · Score: 1
      Grammar Nazi here:

      than, than, than. Then means afterwards; than is a comparison

    28. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out ScriptNo

    29. Re:Inevitable. by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 1

      True enough. There are many advanced features you find in NoScript but not NotScripts, and I can see how one would miss them. But if all you're looking for is to block flash and ad network/tracking scripts, it gets the job done.

    30. Re:Inevitable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    31. Re:Inevitable. by robsku · · Score: 1

      You actually blame the browser for sucky plugins?

      Man, that must mean emacs *really* sucks, the extensions to it can (and do) do pretty much anything, including rewriting existing functionality (it's Lisp family, baby).

      Because Chrome plugins are so restricted there is no good NoScript equivalent (NotScript is not even close), just for example. Also I believe someone said that you just can't make a plugin to modify the tab bar with vertical lines to avoid having to scroll or getting tabs squeezed ta favicon size. That sucks.

      Your problem with plugins is obviously that you haven't uninstalled ones that cause problems - that's no FF fault.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    32. Re:Inevitable. by robsku · · Score: 1

      The problems with modern Firefox are:

      1. The UI itself is slow and prone to freezes
      2. If one page slows/freezes the browser, the entire application slows/freezes
      3. Firefox is currently less stable than Chrome

      If they fix these issues, they will see more users flock their way.

      The first two issues I agree with, FF has those problems, but personally I've never had stability issues (odd crash 1-2 times a year not counted) that are related to FF (buggy extensions not counted), but I had minor ones with Chromium and Chrome crashed horribly on my Debian - but the problem I have with Chromemium, tee-hee, is not stability but the memory hogging. Really, if it consumed memory more like FF I might even switch (or in reality run both according to how I feel at the moment).

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    33. Re:Inevitable. by jenic · · Score: 1

      True enough. There are many advanced features you find in NoScript but not NotScripts, and I can see how one would miss them. But if all you're looking for is to block flash and ad network/tracking scripts, it gets the job done.

      It mostly gets the job done. The inline javascript is huge. On the developers own site he admits he cannot currently block inline javascript. Which means a simple <script>while(1){alert('trolololol')}</script> would defeat it. I know Chrome detects this and will not allow an infinite number of alerts but my point is inline scripting is used a lot and NotScripts cannot protect against that.

  4. Comodo Dragon by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    Does that include Comodo Dragon as "Chrome" since it based on Chrome?

    I've been very happy with Dragon. Whether it really is more secure or not I don't know.

    Used to use Firefox- prefer Dragon now.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Comodo Dragon by whereissue · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the recommendation... Your post is the first I'm hearing of this "Comodo Dragon." About to try it out! This is sort of exciting? Yes!

      --
      where is sue? sue is idle.
    2. Re:Comodo Dragon by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      I doubt it - you could say Chrome is based on Safari since they both use the same rendering engine.

      It's probably not statistically relevant either way though.

    3. Re:Comodo Dragon by JustinKSU · · Score: 1

      How is Comodo Dragon different from running Chrome in "Incognito" mode?

    4. Re:Comodo Dragon by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Regular dragon is not always "incognito".

      Pretty much the only difference you notice from a UI perspective is they changed the colour and the icons- otherwise it seems to work identical to Chrome.

      Comodo claim that they have improved performance and security- plugging up some security holes and automatically detecting bad sites before you visit them.

      I'm not sure how much better it is. I've had it warn me not to visit a couple of sites though.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re:Comodo Dragon by tapo · · Score: 1

      Who is Comodo and why should I trust them?

      --
      "Joy is contagious," he said, peering into the microscope.
  5. ff sux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol.. it does

    1. Re:ff sux by swinferno · · Score: 3, Informative

      it really does not. I still find the available plug-ins and interface reason enough to continue FF as my main browser even if it takes 2 second longer to load on start up...soit

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
  6. Complete lack of surprise by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With the way things have been going for firefox, it was a matter of time, not competition. The community said they wanted a swing and the firefox team has consistently provided a tire. I get that firefox is open source and they don't have the resources of google or microsoft, but still for a long time they were extremely competitive. What happened? My guess is they either stopped caring about anybody actually using firefox for anything reliable and began toying with the source, or senior developers left the project and were replaced by monkeys.

    I actually had a chat on slashdot with a developer of ff. The guy was so disillusioned towards why would people ever have expectations of an open source project and he can do wtf he wants cause he's not getting paid to do it. Well he's right, but what will he do when nobody is using firefox anymore?

    1. Re:Complete lack of surprise by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      I actually had a chat on slashdot with a developer of ff. The guy was so disillusioned towards why would people ever have expectations of an open source project and he can do wtf he wants cause he's not getting paid to do it. Well he's right, but what will he do when nobody is using firefox anymore?

      Continue to work on FireFox? If he's really doing it for what it gives him directly (a product tailor made for him) then the number of users needs to be 1 for this person to be happy.

      I've certainly released things like that. If it works for you then great, but if not then find something else and don't bug me about it.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    2. Re:Complete lack of surprise by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      What your missing is w/e you created was used only by you probably. Firefox is used by millions, you seriously can't tell the difference? If you wrote a wallpaper rotator or something, that is WAY WAY WAY different from working on firefox or linux or even openoffice.

      If that is indeed his goal, he should not be on the firefox dev team, but start his own project deriving off the firefox source with the blessings of its organizers.

    3. Re:Complete lack of surprise by kiwimate · · Score: 2

      (firefox)...for a long time they were extremely competitive

      Firefox had gotten to a point of maturity and very high popularity. It's easy to become complacent at that point.

      What do you do when you have a mature and stable product? There are a lot of directions you can go, and in a commercial product those directions are usually set by people in the marketing and product owner roles. Marketing/sales give feedback as to what they believe will be important to the customer. The product owner is responsible for deciding what to implement and in what timeline - the product lifecycle.

      If you don't have those roles as part of your team, who makes those decisions? It's not impossible, but there is a reason those roles exist (as unpopular as they might be with some - not all - Slashdot readers, who view sales and marketing as fluff).

      And I understand the viewpoint of the developer. What motivates someone? For me, I have a job and I enjoy it, but if I was getting constant criticism on my output and very little praise that'd be pretty demotivating. Now, I realize that part of a job is sometimes you have to do things you don't like, and even if you enjoy your job and are good at it there's still going to be feedback that you won't like.

      You might be driven by ideology and desire to go on despite criticism. Personally, there's a great motivation for me in recognizing that I need to make a living because I have a family to support and that means I have superiors that I need to make happy. I.e. I can't afford to just drop this job - I have too much to lose.

      If you're an unpaid open source free software developer, your motivation is, what? Ideology and grateful feedback. If you've reached a fulfillment point ("the product is mature and popular") and now start getting a whole bunch of negative feedback, that's very demotivating. What happens if you just stop? You've already done a great job, you can get precious time back, and you don't have to care any more about the complaining. For some people, they're constantly driven to move on, push forwards, continue. They're the entrepreneurs, or the high ideologues (like Richard Stallman). But it takes a lot of energy and passion, and sometimes it's easy to decide it's not worth it any more.

    4. Re:Complete lack of surprise by arkane1234 · · Score: 0

      No, he gets it, he's just being an off-the-wall asshat who thinks that we live in a world where everyone can do anything they want with little to no repercussion from said event.
      What the GP fails to realize is that a single developer doesn't (at least should not...) control what goes into the code. There are (or at least should be..) project managers and committee votes within the application project.

      You are right.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    5. Re:Complete lack of surprise by tommy8 · · Score: 2

      Isn't ff developed by mostly by people who work for mozilla?

    6. Re:Complete lack of surprise by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I actually had a chat on slashdot with a developer of ff. The guy was so disillusioned towards why would people ever have expectations of an open source project and he can do wtf he wants cause he's not getting paid to do it. Well he's right, but what will he do when nobody is using firefox anymore?

      If he's not getting paid for it, then why would he care if it has any users? As long as it does what he wants, he's fine. Software developers never care about users, even proprietary ones. They care about customers, who are a subset of users. Free software projects care about contributors (whether they're contributing money, designs, code, art, or even bug reports). People who just use the project but don't contribute anything are totally irrelevant.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Complete lack of surprise by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      I completely get where your coming from, and that is a very good way to look at it, of course different from my views, but respectable nevertheless. The new features are kinda seesaw like for me, I don't really mind them, nor do I really use them. But here's the thing, they can do w/e they want w the product in terms of features, private browsing mode was a good one, however, they are introducing bugs w these features, firefox has never frozen on the google home page before, or frozen on a download, only in the recent couple of years. They are doing the equivalent of a kernel upgrade for linux except on a monthly basis, they aren't just adding new features, they're fuckin up the existing core functionality and stability. Something changed at mozilla to allow this to happen, the QC has gone to shit and thus the underlying source. I'm complaining against a high standard of firefox though, but IE & Chrome seem to meet it...

      There is another factor here to consider, developers are a lot more hesitant to take on slop projects, if the source is so bugged and has core cracks because of bad development, thats the death of the project right there, nobody will want to work on it.

    8. Re:Complete lack of surprise by iroll · · Score: 1

      All of this "open source community spirit" talk is completely pedantic with respect to the real or perceived downward spiral of Firefox's competitiveness.

      Firefox is open source, and community involvement is both included and important, but it is largely developed by paid developers in a corporation that includes people who specialize in marketing and customer feedback. This corporation (Mozilla Corp), by the way, has revenues of approximately $100M/year, and stands to lose the ability to generate such revenues if it loses significant ground to its competitors.

      FF isn't rudderless because it has a bunch of open source volunteers running it and feeling sad because they aren't getting the warm fuzzies these days; it's rudderless because its (well-paid) management can't find the rudder.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    9. Re:Complete lack of surprise by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      Users = customers in this case, it's free retard, are you referring to me when you say?

      People who just use the project but don't contribute anything are totally irrelevant.

      Are you sure I wouldn't beg to differ?

      P.S. you can't speak for software developers, it's questionable if you even are one, but certainly not for others. Free projects that don't care about the users can be independent projects, no need or morality in hijacking a good and stable project like firefox but your ideology is extreme, the firefox project hasn't gotten this bad yet. I don't say this often, but your views are f'in stupid, and nobody would hire you or let you work on any open source project with such views.

      They sound like a throwback to the 90s superiority complex where some developers were able to anchor themselves in their jobs by not providing any docs or manageability of their projects making it very hard to fire them, once realized, the developer develops the f the users attitude.

    10. Re:Complete lack of surprise by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Users = customers in this case, it's free retard, are you referring to me when you say?

      No, customers are the people who pay. Users who don't pay are not customers. Their existence or nonexistence is totally irrelevant to a project. In the case of FireFox, they may indirectly be customers of the project as a whole, if they don't change their search page from the default Google one, since Google pays a tiny amount per visitor. They are not customers of this developer, because they are not paying him anything even indirectly. Other contributors are, because they are paying him in contributions to the codebase.

      I don't say this often, but your views are f'in stupid, and nobody would hire you or let you work on any open source project with such views

      And yet a significant fraction of my income comes from being paid to work on open source projects and I have commit access to two relatively large ones (LLVM and FreeBSD) and a few smaller ones. When I work on them, the people who pay me are my customers, and I care about their views. The people who are also working to improve my code are paying me with their contributions, so I care about their views (and, to a slightly lesser extent, about the views of the people who are paying them). I even care about people who are taking these projects and using them with other projects that I want to use.

      But I don't care about anyone who is just taking the code and giving nothing back - why should I? They're welcome to use them, but if they're not giving anything back then their opinions are not really important. If they're going to file detailed bug reports, that's a contribution that I value (the bugs may not affect me now, but any bug is likely to affect me eventually and fixing it before it does is great). If they're just armchair quarterbacking then the only response they can expect is 'patches welcome'. You need a massive entitlement mentality to believe that just because you downloaded something for free that you are entitled to direct how it evolves in the future.

      As I said, this attitude isn't unique to Free Software. If you phone up Adobe and say 'I downloaded Photoshop and it should have these features' do you think they'll care? Now if you phone them up and say 'my company bought 1,000 copies and we hit this bug, will you fix it?' you're much more likely to get a positive response.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:Complete lack of surprise by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You can beg to differ all you like, he's still correct. Keep begging, maybe you'll get a treat.

    12. Re:Complete lack of surprise by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      I'm not your mom buddy.

    13. Re:Complete lack of surprise by kripkenstein · · Score: 2

      What happened? My guess is they either stopped caring about anybody actually using firefox for anything reliable and began toying with the source

      Hi, I'm a developer at Mozilla. That part is certainly not true - but it is an amusing thought ;) All of our meeting notes are open (for example), you can see our discussions on IRC, etc., so you don't need to speculate on this or to just take my word for it. You can read everything we say as we build Firefox.

      or senior developers left the project

      Also definitely not true.

      and were replaced by monkeys.

      I'm pretty sure that one is not true either ;)

      I actually had a chat on slashdot with a developer of ff. The guy was so disillusioned towards why would people ever have expectations of an open source project and he can do wtf he wants cause he's not getting paid to do it. Well he's right, but what will he do when nobody is using firefox anymore?

      There are a lot of people that do get paid to work on Firefox. The Firefox dev community is an interesting mix between paid people and volunteers. It's different from say WebKit, which is almost all paid (Google and Apple, mainly), or at the other extreme a typical community open source project that is 100% volunteer.

      As to "what happened to Firefox" - two parts. Regarding market share, Firefox is not gaining and perhaps losing a little. That isn't surprising - the browser market is extremely competitive now. Firefox has also made a mistake with addons and the rapid release schedule, we are working to fix it (and have been for a while - it's a complex problem), and the top people at Mozilla admitted the problem. Aside from that, we are constantly improving performance and responsiveness, and latest benchmarks and reviews are quite positive, so I think we are doing a good job. But again, the market is now (thankfully!) very competitive. I don't expect Firefox, which has far fewer resources than Google, Apple and Microsoft, to easily gain market share like before when IE was a monopoly. Even competing on the same level with those companies (the biggest in the tech industry), when Mozilla is a nonprofit, is a nice achievement in my opinion.

    14. Re:Complete lack of surprise by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      How difficult is it to set a stable extensions API, make extension developers aware of it, and then making the browser get out of the way?

      Just because the browser number changes, doesn't mean the extension should stop working because of an arbitrary string value check performed by the browser. This is what currently happens, or we wouldn't be able to edit one of the files inside of the extension to change the version compatibility number, repack it, and have the extension work just fine on the updated browser.

      When you get to major revisions of the extensions API, that is when you temporarily "break" extensions while having informed the developer community well in advance what is going on so that they can make real changes to the way the extension interacts with the browser.

      This would put an end to so much user and extension developer frustration.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    15. Re:Complete lack of surprise by kripkenstein · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How difficult is it to set a stable extensions API, make extension developers aware of it, and then making the browser get out of the way?

      It's very difficult, with certain types of extension APIs.

      We could just drop the current extension API entirely and replace it with one like Chrome has. That would make things much simpler, it could be stable, there would be no way for extensions to leak memory or slow down the browser, and the browser could auto-update very easily. However, that means throwing out all the current extensions that Firefox has. Worse, that new extension API would not allow recreating all the current extensions either - stable, safe extension APIs are necessarily more limiting: They are stable and safe because they don't let extensions do everything. The upside is safety and stability, the downside is the addons are less powerful, that is they can do less. As one example, Firefox addons can radically change how the browser looks, Chrome addons cannot. There is a tradeoff here, I am not saying one approach is better than the other, but just that you can't have everything.

      Firefox is taking two paths here: First, we are adding a new, safe&stable extension API (Jetpack addons). But we are also keeping the existing one, and making a lot of complex changes to the browser to allow those addons to be updated automatically etc., so the current downsides are less troublesome. That takes time, but each release is an improvement (in the number of addons that can auto-update, for example).

    16. Re:Complete lack of surprise by BZ · · Score: 1

      > What happened?

      Google and Microsoft started actually throwing money at the problem? That means both developers and marketing; Chrome's yearly marketing expenditure is estimated at between 4 and 20 times Mozilla's _total_ budget.

      Oh, and the other thing that happened was that Firefox 4 took a long time to release. So people spent a year or so comparing new Chrome versions with a very old Firefox version (3.6). Some still are, if you read the press.

      Add in the fact that some technical debt had to be paid off in Gecko and Spidermonkey (hence the timeline on Firefox 4), and here we are.

      Now the good news, for Mozilla, is that the technical debt issue is much less now, and they have a lot more engineers than they did 2 years ago; almost to the point of having enough to cover the whole codebase. ;)

    17. Re:Complete lack of surprise by robsku · · Score: 1

      If he's not getting paid for it, then why would he care if it has any users? As long as it does what he wants, he's fine. Software developers never care about users, even proprietary ones. They care about customers, who are a subset of users. Free software projects care about contributors (whether they're contributing money, designs, code, art, or even bug reports). People who just use the project but don't contribute anything are totally irrelevant.

      Mod parent down, as a FOSS coder for hobby I call BS on this - yes it holds true on part of my own projects too, but only part and this one claims generalization. Mostly, after myself I care about users, not getting contributors that much. People who "just use" are my main target - for projects I put to public and that are not geared towards developers.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  7. just keep copying opera by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

    and you'll be fine. Horray for opera!

    1. Re:just keep copying opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you'll be fine. Horray for opera!

      Still bitter?

    2. Re:just keep copying opera by arkane1234 · · Score: 0

      There's a reason opera has a small userbase...

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    3. Re:just keep copying opera by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I use Opera as my primary browser and I absolutely love it, but I have to admit that it's not as idiot-friendly as Fx or Chrome so I rarely recommend it to other people. Opera is great for power users who appreciate the fact that you don't need to install plugins, extensions, add-ons or bells and whistles to make it a useable browser. However, I do highly recommend Opera Mini to users with mobile devices due to the fact it tends to be faster thanks to Oepra Turbo as well as more user friendly and intuitive than the native Android, etc browsers.

    4. Re:just keep copying opera by alex67500 · · Score: 2

      Guys, we've got him! The last Opera user in the world!

      And he reads Slashdot!

    5. Re:just keep copying opera by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I use Opera as my primary browser and I absolutely love it, but I have to admit that it's not as idiot-friendly as Fx or Chrome so I rarely recommend it to other people. Opera is great for power users who appreciate the fact that you don't need to install plugins, extensions, add-ons or bells and whistles to make it a useable browser.

      Opera is perfectly fine for inexperienced users - its default UI these days resembles Chrome a great deal, and you don't have to customize it if you don't want to.

      Keep in mind that in e.g. Russia, it's a browser that vies for the top spot with Firefox, with ~30% market share each - among general population. And it's not like it's used only by techies - I recall one guy showed his visitor stats for a website he maintains, which are "women's forums" kinds of thing where girls come to discuss men, children and cosmetics - and it has 35% of visitors using Opera.

    6. Re:just keep copying opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Type "/." as URL in Opera!

  8. Firefox is to blame by lsolano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not saying that Chrome is not a good browser, but, what happened IMHO is not that Chrome is getting better, instead, FF is getting worse every day.

    I do not know how the Flash Plugin in a browser can suddenly take the 90% of a i7 CPU.

    FF people forgot what made them succeed: simplicity.

    1. Re:Firefox is to blame by dargaud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, particularly FF on Linux. It used to worked great, but in the last 6 months or so, after a few hours of use, FF maxes up my memory and CPU and starts crawling in molasses. Never had the problem before. A kill/restart fixes it but it's a PITA. Chrome is so much faster.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    2. Re:Firefox is to blame by markdavis · · Score: 2

      I *never* used to have crashes in Firefox in Linux until version 5 came out. And there has been ZERO improvement with 6, 7, and now 8, as far as crashing goes. Sometimes I can go for days, other times, it can have a fit and crash several times in a day, even in a row.

      I think memory usage was silly high in 3 and 4 and hasn't changed much with 5/6/7/8. It is not a problem if you start the browser every day, but on systems where you leave it running for days, it can get crazy (if it doesn't crash first).

      I wish Firefox developers would work ONLY on speed, memory usage, and stability, and stop trying to make Firefox LOOK and FEEL like Chrome! I know it is not as exciting, but it is what we need more than anything else.

    3. Re:Firefox is to blame by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that Chrome is not a good browser, but, what happened IMHO is not that Chrome is getting better, instead, FF is getting worse every day.

      What? No, Chrome is in fact getting better. I don't know if Firefox is regressing or not, but Chrome is in fact getting improved.

      FF people forgot what made them succeed: simplicity.

      That's where Chrome has the advantage, and Google is managing to keep the browser simple while continuing to improve it. I'll never leave my beloved Opera, but Chrome has at least replaced Firefox for development on my machines. The Javascript developer tools get a little bit too abstract at times, but at least I don't have to deal with the sluggishness I was seeing with Firefox/Firebug.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:Firefox is to blame by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      And yet I have the pretty much the reverse experience with FF on ubuntu. I leave it running for weeks at a time. I even run multiple copies - not just multiple windows, but completely separate profiles for specific tasks. And with every iteration its become more stable and more efficient, or at least no worse than before, even with roughly 20 extensions installed in my main profile. I used to regularly run into swap on my 4GB system due to having 100+ tabs open. That hasn't happened for a couple of months now.

      I leave the menu-bar turned on and for all intents and purposes FF8 looks no more like chrome than FF3.6x did.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:Firefox is to blame by Freedom+Bug · · Score: 1

      I used to leave Firefox 2 open with hundreds of tabs on Linux for months at a time. Firefox 3 forced me to restart it every week or so. However, it has worked great for me since Firefox 7, and 8 appears to be even better.

    6. Re:Firefox is to blame by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Well, I didn't say it was getting worse after 5. I just have not seen much improvement in stability or memory. I did notice the speed improvements, though.

      I haven't had 8 long enough to be confident about memory usage having not improved. It seems to be a bit less than 7, but I can't really tell yet.

      Firefox 8 crashed on me yesterday, and then crashed on recovery, three times in a row after that, before it stopped and just started working again (and the recovery was successful).

      There are a LOT of factors to consider, of course. Which Linux? Which compile of Firefox? Provide by whom? 64/32 bit? What plugins? What extensions? What sites? Etc. In my case, I am using the same Mandriva distro across FF 5/6/7/8, 64 bit Linux, and using the 32 bit plain-vanilla, Mozilla-supplied FF binaries. Same version of 32 bit Flash, and just four extensions- Adblock Plus, JS Switch, Nuke Anything Enhanced, and Flash Killer.

    7. Re:Firefox is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox for the Mac got so bad I bailed to Safari, back around FF7. Crashes, freezes, other odd behavior. It had been great before.

    8. Re:Firefox is to blame by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yep yep, I run FF for months on linux with no problems. Actually, I used to, but now with on-demand tab loading I restart every few days to keep the memory footprint down on the tabs I keep open but use once a month. (I keep documentation tabs open so I keep my place)

      I really wonder why these fickle users install so many extensions to make FF suck. They claim to be happy to switch to other browsers without the extensions, so why didn't they just not install a bunch of extra crap in the first place, and have a working browser?

    9. Re:Firefox is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a similar experience about a year back. It had worked well for a long time, and all of the sudden it started leaking memory at an insane rate, refusing to actually release that memory when I closed the program, and crashing. Switched to chrome, and the whole "one process per tab or plugin" makes those problems all but impossible. Not that Chrome is perfect, but firefox has gone a long way from its roots.

    10. Re:Firefox is to blame by mixmasta · · Score: 1

      I was having trouble with very high memory usage in FF and was upset at having to restart it every day. The problem stopped cold with the last update of Firebug. Turns out it was the culprit. If you are using an old version of FB, I highly recommend you update.

      --
      #6495ED - cornflower blue
    11. Re:Firefox is to blame by mixmasta · · Score: 1

      You'll also need the status bar extension.

      --
      #6495ED - cornflower blue
    12. Re:Firefox is to blame by BZ · · Score: 2

      Would you mind looking at about:crashes in your browser and either sending me the links directly (bz at mit dot edu) or putting them in a comment here? Or are you running a version provided by your distribution that doesn't include the crash reporter?

    13. Re:Firefox is to blame by markdavis · · Score: 1

      I have never used Firebug and it is not installed.

    14. Re:Firefox is to blame by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Amazing that there is still no way to private message on Slashdot! As you can see in my other comments, I am running the Mozilla-supplied binaries. I have dozens of crash links with date and time submitted. However, all but three result in "We couldn't find the OOID you're after. If you recently submitted this crash, it may still be in the queue." (they are not recent). Here are the three that actually work:

      http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-d7ad42bd-e605-4104-bea4-782712111130
      http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-c635334d-a688-46b5-95f4-c60d92111115
      http://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp-13648d6a-0e9f-47ef-a1cc-a72bc2111018

    15. Re:Firefox is to blame by robsku · · Score: 1

      My use case is very similar, though I still haven't installed newer than 3.6 - I have Debian Squeeze Iceweasel and latest Swiftfox, though I normally don't run several instances I do have separate profiles for regular use on both, one test profile with no extensions or altered settings whatsoever and one special purpose profile - I think I could install latest FireFox on side of these with it's own profile also of course, though already with 3.6 Swiftfox beats the hell out of Iceweasel/FF regular version in speed, and unfortunately there is no newer release of swiftfox than 3.6.13 yet.

      Aside from version number, another major difference is that my system - which also runs apache+php+mysql for wordpress blog and other stuff in background - only has 1GB currently, though soon it's either back to 1.5 (used to be that) or up to 2GB, and swap use is usually around 10-30% (of 1.33GB), the system normally runs smoothly (though having too many heavily scripted pages open at once can make the system crawl - as can flash plugin, but that's not even running under same process as FF itself.
      Now I have ~150 tabs in 5 windows, Swiftfox-bin is using ~400MB - when couple months ago I tested chromium I got it to consume almost 800MB's (!!) with only ~20 tabs!!! That's insane, and fox is clearly NOT the hog here.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    16. Re:Firefox is to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, particularly FF on Linux. It used to worked great, but in the last 6 months or so, after a few hours of use, FF maxes up my memory and CPU and starts crawling in molasses. Never had the problem before. A kill/restart fixes it but it's a PITA. Chrome is so much faster.

      If you run a 64 bit Linux, do what I do, kill flash.

      Apart from using flashblock (so I only have to run the flash-application(s) in the tab I look at), I have a shortcut on my desktop that run "pkill npviewer.bin". Whenever Firefox starts acting up, I click that shortcut and everything is well in the world again. I then restart the flash-application(s) in the tab I view, and continue my merry way.

      NoScript also help. In blacklist-mode (white-list-mode is default) it only stop JavaScripts that start acting suspicious or are from suspicious places (and the one you blacklisted).

    17. Re:Firefox is to blame by BZ · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the lag here... Those all look like memory corruption issues of some sort on the JS heap. I'll get the JS folks to take a look. Thank you for the links!

    18. Re:Firefox is to blame by BZ · · Score: 1

      One other thing that may be worth trying is disabling the extensions you have installed one at a time and seeing whether any particular one of them is correlated with the crashes...

    19. Re:Firefox is to blame by markdavis · · Score: 1

      I will play around with it. I only have a few extensions:

      Adblock Plus (hard to believe that would be a problem)
      Flash Killer (doesn't do anything unless I click on it to stop flash)
      JS Switch (again, doesn't do anything unless I click on it)
      Nuke Anything Enhanced

      That and Flash 11.0 r1 (updated recently- no change in FF crashing). Just now disabled everything except Adblock (can't live without that).

      I even have the browser crash when I come back to the computer after a while of not even touching it! But usually, it is happens immediately or shortly after a click on a link.

      Might also try switching back to 64bit Firefox and use 64 bit Flash. Hasn't been quite annoying to force me into action. Although yesterday, it pulled one of those crashing many times in a row, recover, crash, recover, crash, recover, crash, recover, works fine.

    20. Re:Firefox is to blame by BZ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, current versions of Adblock Plus shouldn't have known crash issues. I did look at the extensions involved, and none of them look like obvious culprits to me, so I fully expect that you'll still hit the crashes.... but worth double-checking.

    21. Re:Firefox is to blame by markdavis · · Score: 1

      I got home from work and my Firefox had crashed again :(
      Had 8 tabs open: Slashdot, hotmail, 4 different forum sites, my tomato router screen, and my cable modem diag screen.

    22. Re:Firefox is to blame by BZ · · Score: 1

      OK, so it's not the extensions. Thanks!

  9. Use a browser written by an advertising company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Over my dead body.

  10. No surprise due to bundling by birukun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We are constantly removing Chrome from the software packages that are bundling it. Kind of a turnoff for me.

    Just like getting a new PC with all the trialware crap.

    --
    Self Defense - A Human Right www.a-human-right.com
    1. Re:No surprise due to bundling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know your pain; so far every single Windows machine I've had has come with an ancient crufty piece of bundled bloatware called something like "Internet Exploder" that proven almost impossible to remove.

    2. Re:No surprise due to bundling by swanzilla · · Score: 2

      Just like getting a new PC with all the trialware crap.

      As an aficionado of both Paint Shop Pro and Corel WordPerfect, I find this statement offensive.

    3. Re:No surprise due to bundling by Hentes · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, it's perfectly okay because it's not Microsoft that's doing it but Google.

    4. Re:No surprise due to bundling by tapo · · Score: 1

      The issue wasn't that Microsoft bundled IE, it's that they prevented OEMs from bundling Netscape.

      --
      "Joy is contagious," he said, peering into the microscope.
  11. Some people are sloooow to change by Killer+Instinct · · Score: 1

    I have tried to get my parents to use it, but for some reason they stick to IE, and sometimes use FF. It kill me cause they always bitch about all the tools bars in IE and yet wont click on the damn chrome desktop link. I love chrome, I hate tool bars, and FF generally got so bad i quit using it about a year ago (except for freecorder) I have AVG, Zonelabs, Ad-aware on there computers and they still manage to get them so mucked up I have to spend about 30 mins every month cleaning them up. I really dont see how they can stand the load times, slow page loads, searchs being redirected to some other site all the time. Progress does happen with them, but at this rate they will be dead before I can ever get them to use chrome as their default browser.

    --
    #include bier;
    1. Re:Some people are sloooow to change by pandronic · · Score: 2

      ... and they still manage to get them so mucked up I have to spend about 30 mins every month cleaning them up ...

      Sound like a job for Deep Freeze. Makes tech support for clueless relatives much easier.

    2. Re:Some people are sloooow to change by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      $35/year...

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    3. Re:Some people are sloooow to change by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      How much is an hour of your time worth?

      Consider the number of hours a year it will save you and you'll fairly quickly get an idea as to cost effectiveness. Whats better ... you make THEM pay for it or stop helping them.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:Some people are sloooow to change by pandronic · · Score: 1

      In that page there's a fairly big list of competitors. Maybe some offer cheaper products.

  12. Déjà vu by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When Firefox appeared on the scene, it gave Microsoft the kick up the arse it needed to improve their crappy, aging browser.

    When Chrome appeared on the scene, it gave Mozilla the kick up the arse it needed to improve their crappy, aging browser.

    It'll be interesting to see if the same thing happens in a few years with IE.

    1. Re:Déjà vu by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      Judging by the Subject of the comment, we have a Mac user on our hands...

      And what browser might you be using?

    2. Re:Déjà vu by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2

      When Firefox appeared on the scene, it gave Microsoft the kick up the arse it needed to improve their crappy, aging browser.

      Yep.

      When Chrome appeared on the scene, it gave Mozilla the kick up the arse it needed to improve their crappy, aging browser.

      Nope. Here's the difference: when Microsoft got its kick, they actually started doing new things with IE. They didn't try to become Firefox. Sure, they took some ideas that were in wide use in all other browsers, like tabbed browsing, but they're mostly their own thing. When Mozilla got its kick, it decided that it needed to become Chrome. That's a losing strategy, because there already is a Chrome. If I liked Chrome, I'd be using it. I kept Firefox because I disliked Chrome, and every new release (which is what, every week now?), they get closer to Chrome and I dislike them more.

      Let's start with this release schedule thing. I don't care about the version numbers, they can name it Firefox 3000 if they want. However, I don't want to see a window that tells me that I need to update more often than every six months, ideally once a year. If you've got a security bug, by all means, put an update out there. If we're talking about new features, bundle them up into a big package twice a year at most. When I open my browser, I want to go to a website, so getting stopped by a window that tells me it's time to update is annoying and gets in my way.

      For the users who do want new features as they come out, they can run the nightlies. The rest of us who are perfectly happy with the current feature set and just want a browser with all security fixes up to date don't want that shit.

    3. Re:Déjà vu by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      It's already happening. IE9 is damn near as good as Iron (chrome by Germans)

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    4. Re:Déjà vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Chrome shows you anything it should be that updates don't have to be in your way. It's the one feature that is really nailing it because it's so good no one notices. It's also really hard if you didn't design to work your product that way.

  13. I Could Be Argued That... (Re:And still...) by EXTomar · · Score: 1

    A problem is that Firefox is adopting a lot of what Chrome is doing including look and feel and release schedule. It would seem to me the more Chrome gains the more the Firefox team wants to make it behave like Chrome but you are fundamentally correct that doing this isn't listening to users.

    1. Re:I Could Be Argued That... (Re:And still...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that if we wanted a browser that's just like Chrome, we'd use Chrome rather than a bad copy.

  14. Re:Use a browser written by an advertising company by paimin · · Score: 2

    Everything is an advertising company at this point.

    --
    Facebook is the new AOL
  15. How long before Safari #3? by Bryan-10021 · · Score: 1

    With all the 100's of millions of iOS devices being sold each year its just a matter of time.

    1. Re:How long before Safari #3? by camperdave · · Score: 2

      With all the 100's of millions of iOS devices being sold each year its just a matter of time.

      Safari runs on Cisco?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:How long before Safari #3? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I'd be using Safari exclusively, if there was a plugin for Google Bookmarks and Google Voice... it works nice.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    3. Re:How long before Safari #3? by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      The numbers being talked about are only for desktop browsers. If you include mobile browsers then Safari would be at least 3 and might even be higher than that with about 60% of all mobile.

    4. Re:How long before Safari #3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, because the android users are more actively using their smartphones for mobile web, so the major amount total number of mobile web requests comes from android phones

  16. IE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    (Posting AC because I'm at work)

    I wish that Chrome's success came at the cost of IE's market share rather than Firefox's, which I'm sure is a sentiment shared by many (all?) other web designers out there. I don't use Chrome nor Firefox so I have no investment in either of their success, but I most certainly would like to see IE taken down a few more pegs so that Microsoft would be forced to update and become more standards compliant or risk becoming more irrelevant. I'm so sick and tired of being forced to work around IE's deficiencies...

    1. Re:IE... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      So your post tells me you haven't used a recent version of IE in the last few years.

      You're confusing the fact that IE6 is still required in a few hassling places that we can't forget about it with MS having an old crappy browser. IE9 is most certainly not IE6, regardless of what browser you prefer.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:IE... by webnut77 · · Score: 1

      IE 9 doesn't run on Windows XP. Chrome, Firefox, and Safari do.

    3. Re:IE... by BZ · · Score: 2

      Actually, it does. Firefox market share has been flat or gone down by a percentage point or two (depending on which stats you look at) over the last 2 years. Over the same time, Chrome share is up 10-15%. Guess whose share those 10-15% came out of?

  17. They screwed it with the new release process by danielcolchete · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you know what changed between FF4 and FF10? Almost nothing! Really! From FF6 to FF10 it is nothing for sure. But they managed to break addon compability 7 times in between. So, from what I understood, we were going to have releases from often so that we could get more features more frequently. We got nothing! Or almost nothing. I jumped of from FF6 to Chrome and I lived happily ever after. By the way, 5% of the Internet users are stuck with the outdated FF3.6 today, without the HTML5 advances of FF4 and FF6, because of this new release process. It is as if we need another browser vendor holding the web back. Thank you Mozilla.

    1. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by AdamJS · · Score: 1

      The 'release' schedule didn't really change. Instead of being 4.0.1 and 4.0.2 ... to the latest coming version (4.1.1) they just started incrementing whole numbers.

      Because marketing.

    2. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by rjmx · · Score: 1

      But they managed to break addon compability 7 times in between.

      Yep, that's what happened. They changed the versioning strategy, but left the addon compatibility as it was. Since most of the good reasons for running Firefox were its addons, they wiped out their advantage overnight. Apparently the addon developers were all expected to modify their apps once a month.

      They'd have been much better off having addon compatibility rely not on the browser version, but on the API version, and left that alone unless it absolutely needed to be changed (*waves at Python developers, who don't seem to have a clue either*).

    3. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by Microlith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they managed to break addon compability 7 times in between

      Which is inexcusable really, I mean, it's not like the betas are kept behind closed doors and dropped on users and addon developers at the same time. That addon developers can't be arsed to keep up with the changes and really, the shift from FF3.6 to 4.0 broke more addons than subsequent changes from 5-11 (especially if you use the Addon Compatibility Reporter to enable them.)

      Well, except for the competent ones like NoScript and AdblockPlus, which work great even up in the latest builds of Nightly.

    4. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really haven't noticed any new functionality between 4 and 8 (I'm not on 10 yet). All I notice is things going missing - like View > Page Source, and all of my extensions that no longer work.

      The only reason I'm sticking with Firefox is because of the Awesomebar, which works better than Chrome's (at least, it did last time I tried out chrome). I like to type in phrases like "amazon wishlist" into the URL bar, and Firefox always pulls up the URL I'm looking for, while Chrome doesn't. The UI looks a little better than Chrome's on my mac, too, so that's a plus.

    5. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by Freedom+Bug · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, Firefox has done a lot to improve addon compatibility. They now have a bot that checks the API calls of all addons in their repository and automatically marks those that don't use any changed API's.

    6. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by Stalinbulldog · · Score: 1

      And man oh man is that marketing effective... Have you seen the numbers of new interested customers who think FF is solid as a rock?

    7. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the HTML Validator add-on? The guy that authors that is no slouch but he's dropped support for every architecture except for windows because HTML Validator relies on library binaries within the extension, and that binary extension interface has changed with every release.

      I've since switched to Chrome, but the HTML validator available as an extension there isn't quite as useful.

    8. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Yes but by the time they'd implemented this, they'd already changed up the API and cranked browser versions several times, broken a lot of things, and scared off the developers.

      If they'd done that first, before they changed their numbering strategy, they might not have broken so many things.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    9. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by tepples · · Score: 1

      [AMO] checks the API calls of all addons in their repository and automatically marks those that don't use any changed API's.

      Please see replies to icebraining's comment.

    10. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight. It's just the extension developers being lazy? It's not like extension development is their job or anything. What motivation do they have if the work becomes extremely tedious or time consuming, repeatedly testing against new versions, only to repeat the same process so suddenly?

      You do know the "competent ones" you explicitly mention actually make a living off of their extensions, right? They have a vested interest in keeping them up to date and running. It's not the same for everyone else.

    11. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      Actually, Firefox has done a lot to improve addon compatibility. They now have a bot that checks the API calls of all addons in their repository and automatically marks those that don't use any changed API's.

      A bot scanning their addon repository is their (presumably temporary) solution? How about roll back to the previous version scheme until they can actually fix their software? Any plugin system which relies on hardcoded version numbers is clearly broken.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    12. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But they could have kept lots of customers if they had just kept the major version numbers, kept the stability instead of breaking addons, have bleeding edge versus tried-and-true branches, etc. Instead they decided they'd drag users kicking and screaming into their new vision and the users said "screw this I'm going home".

    13. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yep, down to exactly ONE addon in Firefox now, adblock. All the others have broken along the way with no fixes in sight. Maybe they weren't great addons but they were useful and necessary in many cases and we didn't need Mozilla to be patronizing to us for our own good.

    14. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      That's because these are add ons! It's to be expected that they're not being developed full time with a process, and so the changes in Firefox aren't being tracked closely. Maybe those addons weren't so great but that's irrelevant. It is not Mozilla's job to tell us what we should and should not be running or to say that we're better off without the addons. This especially hurts the corporate add ons where the IT staff just does not have the schedule to keep up with the insane release rate of Mozilla or Chrome, and I expect a big move back to IE to be coming.

    15. Re:They screwed it with the new release process by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      So, from what I understood, we were going to have releases from often so that we could get more features more frequently. We got nothing! Or almost nothing.

      There have been many features added between 6 and 10. If you want to know what those features are, look at the feature tracking pages: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Release_Tracking https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Release_Tracking/Archives The two features I'm particularly looking forward to are type inference in Firefox 9 and OpenGL acceleration in Firefox Mobile 10.

  18. noticed this a couple months ago by elgeeko.com · · Score: 1

    We noticed this in our site logs months ago. Chrome has been sitting higher than Firefox for a long time. When possible we encourage our clients to use Chrome because of the lightening fast JavaScript engine (we do a lot of heavy js development). On a personal level I use Chrome as my primary, but almost always have IE loaded.

    1. Re:noticed this a couple months ago by Reasonable+Facsimile · · Score: 1

      Top five for our e-commerce site (over the last 30 days): 1. Chrome 33% 2. Safari 29% 3. Firefox 22% 4. IE 12% 5. Android 2%

    2. Re:noticed this a couple months ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that Chrome has better separation of privs than Firefox, so a compromised third party add-on wouldn't be able to get user privileges was the decision maker for me. I tend to use Chrome and Firefox interchangeably, although I do wish Chrome would encrypt stored passwords and offer a master password natively without requiring LastPass or another extension.

    3. Re:noticed this a couple months ago by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming your site is either Mac-centric/focused or mobile-centric/focused? That's a huge Safari figure.

    4. Re:noticed this a couple months ago by Reasonable+Facsimile · · Score: 0

      I'm assuming your site is either Mac-centric/focused or mobile-centric/focused? That's a huge Safari figure.

      The latter. Lots of customers/users on iPhones, etc.

    5. Re:noticed this a couple months ago by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Are iOS users counted in the Safari numbers?

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    6. Re:noticed this a couple months ago by Reasonable+Facsimile · · Score: 0

      Are iOS users counted in the Safari numbers?

      Good question. OS breakdown is as follows: Windows - 56%; Macintosh - 35%; iPhone - 3%; Android - 2%; iPad - 1.6%; iPod - 1.6%; Linux - 1.1% This is from google analytics, BTW.

  19. Faster! Faster! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Overheard in the Mozilla offices after reading this:

    "Damnit, how are they still catching up? More releases! MORE! FASTER! If we reach version 100 first, we win! GO! HURRY!"

  20. The power of marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not taking anything away from Chrome, in itself it's a pretty decent browser and I'd rather see the average Joe use Chrome than IE..

    But by far the biggest contributor to Chrome's success is marketing and Google as a recognizable brand. You can hardly download a piece of popular software (Flash, Skype...) without being offered Chrome.

    While nowadays all major browsers are decent, 5-6 years ago Opera was way ahead of the competition. Did that help them gain market share? Hardly. Sure, 1% of people might like Chrome for some technical merits, but the average Joe uses it because of marketing. Also that Firefox is playing "me too" with a "major version" every week doesn't help. Would it really be so bad if FF was at, say, 4.3.5 now instead of 8? At least Chrome updates in the background, without annoying users.

  21. Own experience by MrMickS · · Score: 1

    My own companies consumer website, I work for a financial institution, shows figures of 11% Firefox, 11% Chrome, 11% Safari (including mobile Safari), with IE having all but 1% of the rest.

    I'm always skeptical of browser stats because they very much depend on the audience you are monitoring and don't take account of changing usage. As an example Firefox and IE are likely to have dropped percentages on google.com as Bing has been an alternative/default search engine. This could be interpreted as a decrease in the use of these browsers when in fact its just that the traffic is going elsewhere.

    --
    You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    1. Re:Own experience by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Yes, IE is by far the most common browser for our sites, with about 50% IE, 30% FF and the rest chrome. Geeks use Chrome because it seems faster (especially when using their beloved Google Apps), but check out your process list. It uses a pretty meaty process for each tab and eats RAM like crazy. For traditional web browsing, Mozilla is the best. And it does have some deployable settings for a corporate environment. It supports Kerberos. Etc. Etc. Chrome is for like javascript stuff only. All the kids might say, "Who uses Kerberos instead of a web sso solution?" but the answer is millions of people at their jobs do. Finally, I agree with the parent. StatCounter is a geek counter.. not a everyday joe and grandma counter. Look at your own browser analytics and determine for yourself what audience is using your sites.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    2. Re:Own experience by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/http-authentication

      Chrome has supported Kerberos for a while. They kind of want to be able to work in IE environments so they need Kerberos to function in ActiveDirectory shops ... and well, their own internal networks are Kerberosized.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Own experience by b0bby · · Score: 1

      Our consumer site is pretty similar; IE 61%, Firefox 15%, Chrome 10%, Safari 9%.

    4. Re:Own experience by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I am guessing if it is a financial institution that many customers are business customers that have to use IE for work. Small business owners sometimes check daily while consumers check monthly when bills are do and of course the small business owner is probably using IE more than an average consumer on a home PC. If you work for citigroup or Chase I can tell you your site is buggy on non IE browsers. Especially your student loan site where the tables are not where they should be. I always use IE for these sites generally.

      On slashdot only 10% of users use IE. Arstechnica.com showed something like only 15% used IE. It depends on your users indeed and these polls test overall traffic from the US.

  22. Color Management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only Firefox and Safari support color management. IE has partial color management support. Chrome and Opera don't support it at all.

    Color management is vital to me so I use Firefox.

  23. Popular of Common by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    There's a little bit of a distinction. I personally have a love-hate relationship with it. Somethings it does well, other things are not present or idiotically implemented.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  24. Firefox by apcullen · · Score: 1

    Since the Firefox developers seem to be tripping over themselves trying to copy chrome, there's really no reason to use anything else. If they just focused on better performance and a smaller memory footprint, I'd switch back in a second. Some kind of review of browser add-ons would be a compelling reason to go back also.

  25. Until Pepper is pwned (again) by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Chrome is popular partly because of three things: it's new, users are ignorant (below), and the Chrome plugin API[0] allows the browser to do some really fast, but braindead[1], crap (aka ActiveX/IE) like running native system code in a sandbox.

    Re Ignorance: There has been a lot of misunderstanding towards mozilla "memory usage" over the years because users can't figure out that each of the 100 tabs they have open consumes a certain amount of memory. And several of those tabs, running Adobe Flash in the background, simply bring their system to it's knees.

    Yeah, chrome is snazzy, and Mozilla does some brain dead stuff too, but I trust them more than Google. Furthermore, segregation in the market space is actually a really, really, really good thing for the consumer.

    [0] - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/25/mozilla_on_npapi_pepper/

    [1] - http://www.tech.slashdot.org/story/11/10/24/151238/bug-opens-chrome-to-easy-remote-code-execution

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Until Pepper is pwned (again) by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I was getting a heavy hit on memory usage even with four or five tabs open. Firefox had memory usage issues for years that was never dealt with, other than the odd claim that "storing all that stuff in memory makes browser faster!" even as you watched your hard drive grinding constantly.

      And that underlines the problem. Firefox developers have been too busy giving users what they think users should want, rather than what users want. I finally dropped them at version 4 and go back every once in a while and go "meh" and go back to Chrome.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Until Pepper is pwned (again) by AdamJS · · Score: 2

      Firefox still doesn't desegregate tabs properly like Chrome does.
      As in, if you remove a tab from a windows to form its own new window, Chrome does it seamlessly while Firefox sort of trudges along.
      It's better than it used to be, when it would just refresh the whole bloody page, but it's still pretty mediocre.
      Plugins like Flash also lose orientation if you do so from a non-fullscreen window while they're operating. That's a big usability glitch with Firefox.

      They also seem to be getting the "white page only rendering" glitch that Chrome has after a couple hundred tabs in multiple windows, wherein each tab contains a large amount of data or images. It's one of the main reasons I switched back to Firefox, and now a reason I'll have to jump to another browser as it gets worse with each version release.

    3. Re:Until Pepper is pwned (again) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Firefox with only two tabs open. Gmail and Facebook (I use other browsers for other things). It still manages to hoard over a gig of memory if I ignore it for more than a few hours. That's not even taking into account the 'nonresponsive scripts' which are probably Gmail's fault, but still eat away at my cpus.

    4. Re:Until Pepper is pwned (again) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you are trolling, but did you read the links you included?

      Re: link 0 - you do realize that the native code is sandboxed even within the Chrome sandbox - which has mitigated the impact of the frequent WebKit rendering engine vulnerabilities that other Webkit browsers, e.g. Safari pre-Lion? That's not to say there won't be any flaws discovered, but considering that NPAPI (the plugin API Pepper is replacing) runs native code, without any type of sandbox? That's the one that's most similar to ActiveX.

      FTA in link 1 - does this sound easy?
      """So how can this vulnerability be exploited? Three conditions need to be met:

      Google must not be the selected search engine. This setting is configurable under the Options page, and users can set Yahoo, Bing, or any other search provider as their selected search engine. We confirmed that Yahoo and Bing don't send any HTTPS requests when Chrome is launched and are therefore suitable for mounting the attack.

      User must not have visited any HTTPS resources before the attack. As described above, the attack relies on the fact that the NSS capabilities have not been initialized yet in the running parent Chrome process. Ideally for the attacker, the user would have just launched Chrome and not visit any web sites that send HTTPS requests.

      Chrome's current working directory must be set to attacker-controlled location. Since Chrome sets its current working directory to its own folder on user's machine upon startup, double-clicking on HTML file in a remote shared folder (which often works for binary planting attacks) wouldn't achieve anything for the attacker. The best remaining way we know of to set the current working directory in Chrome are then the file browse dialogs. If the attacker could get the user to try to load a file from her network shared folder, and trigger the first HTTPS request while the user had this folder opened in the "Open" dialog, Chrome would load pkcs11.txt from the root of attacker's network share and load the library specified in it."""

    5. Re:Until Pepper is pwned (again) by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      What the heck do you people do to make Firefox use all that RAM? Firefox here has been running for a couple of weeks with dozens of tabs open and is using 260MB.

    6. Re:Until Pepper is pwned (again) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome is popular partly because of three things ...

      chrome is popular mostly because of one thing.. marketing... well, maybe two.. marketing and greed.

      they market it on the single-most visited url on the planet, they market it in print and television ads, they market it via android and the new google-driven netbooks (going so far as to create those products from the ground up for this purpose).

      chrome is nothing but a tool to drive traffic to google properties. google doesn't care about you, the user, all they want is for you to blindly click on their ads (and ignore google's horrific privacy issues). their customers are not the users of their products, their customers are their advertisers. the product they sell is your personal profile that they build from your use of all their products.

      mozilla used to care about its users.. now they only seem to care about copying chrome... that's why firefox market share is flat or even falling.

    7. Re:Until Pepper is pwned (again) by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      But market segregation is not as good for the consumer as actually competition.
      Right now IE is being it normal moderately incompetent competition hating self, Firefox decided to start throwing crap at its users and Chrome is the only browser that seems to have a clue about anything.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    8. Re:Until Pepper is pwned (again) by nahdude812 · · Score: 2

      Re Ignorance: There has been a lot of misunderstanding towards mozilla "memory usage" over the years because users can't figure out that each of the 100 tabs they have open consumes a certain amount of memory. And several of those tabs, running Adobe Flash in the background, simply bring their system to it's knees.

      I'm currently testing a website in various browsers. I've had Firefox and Chrome both open for a few days. Firefox has only had one tab open during this time (the site I'm testing), while I've been using Chrome for active browsing (two Gmail sessions, Google+, Google Reader, the site I'm testing [in several tabs], and various searches on StackOverflow, RFC's and the like).

      Firefox's current memory usage: 692mb (never had more than 1 open tab, just loaded pages periodically when I needed to test something).
      Chrome's current memory usage: 200mb (currently 11 open tabs, actively browsing for days).

      Firefox does have memory issues. After a few days of actively using Firefox, I need to shut it down and open it back up to let some other programs have some RAM. Chrome is also just a lot faster in many ways. Faster rendering of pages, faster execution of JavaScript, faster startup, faster opening of new tabs, more responsive to UI events (eg, Firefox takes 2 seconds to tear off a tab, Chrome the tab is torn off as I drag my mouse)

      I agree, platform competition is good for all involved. I sincerely hope Firefox sticks around and remains popular. I resisted Chrome at first too, but when you've used it for a while, Firefox just feels sluggish. Also, when Chrome upgrades itself, my extensions all keep working. It seems like every time I fire up Firefox, some new extension is broken and I have to go hunting for a new version.

    9. Re:Until Pepper is pwned (again) by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Umm... as of a couple weeks ago Firefox was still able to hit ~3.5 GB of memory on my system and crash (since I don't use page files). This was with 1-2 tabs open. Now, to their credit, the Nightlies have started to release memory that was used by closed tabs, which helps a lot. I also was able to crash Firefox with such regularity because I was using some bookmarklets to preload images. That said, 300 MB of images displayed cumulatively over a browser session should not take 3 GB of RAM; it's like they store them as uncompressed bitmaps or something... (Since I was curious, a ~700 kb PNG added to a page via javascript increased Firefox's memory usage by ~15 MB, this was probably a few months ago.)

    10. Re:Until Pepper is pwned (again) by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      They have a FF extension that creates a small singularity inside /dev/null I think it is called fantroll.

    11. Re:Until Pepper is pwned (again) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re Ignorance: There has been a lot of misunderstanding towards mozilla "memory usage" over the years because users can't figure out that each of the 100 tabs they have open consumes a certain amount of memory. And several of those tabs, running Adobe Flash in the background, simply bring their system to it's knees.

      Now that about:memory exists and you can actually see what's being used, you can get a better idea of what's actually going on.

      1) Memory per tab for most stuff is pretty low. 1 MB per tab for non-complicated is only 100 MB for 100 tabs, and would barely be noticeable. Obviously that's not the problem. I'm guessing this is the area that devs looked at in times of yore when they loved to dismiss user complaints, because it gives the rosiest picture. If you're not hitting any complicated pages then of course you're not going to run into memory issues.

      Actually, I wonder.. I remember mentions of things like hitting the top 100 Alexa sites and such as a benchmark. However, -because- those sites are top-100, they have to be optimized in a lot of ways that I bet most sites are not. They are 'common', but they are not 'typical' sites for a long browsing experience, and 'typical' is where the problems are.

      2) Memory per tab with lots of javascript can get nasty. 3-5 MB on fanfiction.net (a couple menubars and a ton of text; how complicated is that really supposed to be?), others hitting 5, 10, 15 MB per tab? (won't mention other sites cause I can't remember which ones I was checking when I reviewed this). Every Facebook 'Like', or Google 'PlusOne' link (as in, every page that uses them) adding another 1-5 MB? That starts adding up fast.

      With Firefox's older issues of not releasing memory properly (despite constant claims that "there are no leaks!", there have been plenty of bugs fixed this year to get rid of the not-really-a-leak-honest! issues), that adds up to large chunks of bloat that eventually make the browser unusable. Thankfully there's been a huge amount of improvement in that area in the last few months.

      3) Extensions. This is mentioned often, but is hard to grasp how much memory is being lost to these little, simple, must-have extensions that people use. Unfortunately there's no good reporting about them in about:memory yet either. I can say, however, that I literally dropped memory usage by 250 MB by uninstalling Firebug. Try looking at about:memory in normal circumstances, and then again after a restart into Safe Mode. Those several hundred MB saved? That's mostly due to extensions.

      Granted, those extensions are why we use Firefox in the first place. If I didn't need/use them, I'd be using Chrome. But Firefox devs need to put some really serious heavy-handed work into fixing the extension landscape mess.

    12. Re:Until Pepper is pwned (again) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel like the real problem is that firefox has *intermittent* memory problems. You can't fix bugs that you can't find, and I personally managed to accumulate years worth of history, settings, and in-place updates before firefox suddenly started leaking memory out the ass and refusing to shut down properly.

  26. Just really not the case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a large web site that gets a broad spectrum of visitors. Over the last 30 days, I've had some 550,000 distinct hosts.

    Chrome has less than 50% of the hits of Firefox and is in fact 4th behind Safari (desktop, not mobile).

    I checked another site with a much smaller base, but more targeted towards web designers and software professionals. The results are very similar.

    Someone's methodology is wrong.

  27. No surprise there then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have been making developers lives a pain in the ass because of the constant changes, not just visual things or stuff like that, no, APIs, things that are supposed to be more-or-less constant and only upgraded, not changed EVERY DAMN TIME EVER.
    It's like DLL Hell all over again, but with browser APIs.

    Not only that, the updating process is painful, forced. (still not as bad as Opera... I deleted that browser because I was in a hurry and it FORCED an update on me! And then Firefox because it had that stupid retarded "THIS SITE IS UNSECURE YOU AIN'T GOIN TO IT BUB" nonsense that everybody hated)
    The updating in Chromium branches are just elegant. Well, most of the time. I've had updates break the browser before, or throw some strange errors, but it was easy to fix. It ain't perfect, but it isn't as annoying as the others.

    I honestly haven't liked Firefox since 1.5. That was the best version. Everything else after it has been atrocious. They ruined such a good thing.
    Constantly adding features upon features to it because "OH THIS IS A POPULAR EXTENSION, LET'S ADD IT" without even a thought put in to it.
    All the while adding more memory leaks and slowdown.
    You'd think they would have a basic browser version and a "feature packed" version.

    Yes, Chromium does have more overhead with more tabs opened, but that memory is used efficiently for the most part, besides the rare cases where some tabs just go loopy, or a plugin decides to screw things up and crash. (FLASH)
    With Firefox, those leaks just pile up in the process.
    I remember terminating the plugin-container process once after FF being opened for about 4 days, it took about a minute to terminate, probably taking a few months off my hard drives life with it.
    Never again.
    As a person who has their machine on constantly, this isn't a nice thing at all. (hey, at least it isn't as bad as those programs that want you to restart your OS... they get deleted and never used again, I don't care if it needs to, if it doesn't work after relog, it is gone)
    If they want their browser to work in embedded environments, they best do some week long tests and fix those leaks.

    See you Mozilla. You never listened to us. Instead you went loopy. Shame. I really liked XUL. I was hoping one day it would become the common spec for interfacing in browsers.
    Now it looks like Mozilla is on a slow path to killing itself...again.

    1. Re:No surprise there then. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I remember terminating the plugin-container process once after FF being opened for about 4 days, it took about a minute to terminate, probably taking a few months off my hard drives life with it.

      You're complaining about Firefox memory usage because some plugin (presumably Flash) is sucking up a ton of RAM?

    2. Re:No surprise there then. by robsku · · Score: 1

      I remember terminating the plugin-container process once after FF being opened for about 4 days, it took about a minute to terminate, probably taking a few months off my hard drives life with it.

      You're complaining about Firefox memory usage because some plugin (presumably Flash) is sucking up a ton of RAM?

      Yup, that's just nuts - the plugin-container is a pro for FF though, and for me 'killall plugin-container' terminates it instantly... if a plugin got so stuck that it wouldn't, I know that killall -9 ... *would* still kill it instantly.

      I call BS on this guy - and I want what he has been smoking!

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
  28. One advantage FF has over Chrome, IMO by bjdevil66 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google's views on privacy. Maybe my view is born of ignorance about what Chrome actually does track vs. doesn't track, but as of now I just can't trust them enough to use that browser all the time. I can't get past the, "Just don't do anything wrong..." comments by the Google leadership a while back.

    1. Re:One advantage FF has over Chrome, IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are ignorant in this matter. If Chrome was reporting back to Google, it would show up in tcpdumps and would be caught immediately.

    2. Re:One advantage FF has over Chrome, IMO by fish+waffle · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to wikipedia at least, there is only one fully non-optional point at which chrome contacts its masters, and that's a unique token generated during install to count unique installs. After that you can avoid any info being sent back to google by turning off settings for instant search, not agreeing to send crash reports, not using google search, disabling auto-updates, and never mistyping a page name and getting a server not found error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#Usage_tracking

      It is more effort than is required with FF, and although they've _promised_ not to be evil it is wise to be wary of evolving intentions and what will become of all the info they collect. But note that use of instant google search and auto-suggest and the safe-search settings send info to google when using FF as well, so that's not much different.

    3. Re:One advantage FF has over Chrome, IMO by Maow · · Score: 1

      what Chrome actually does track vs. doesn't track, but as of now I just can't trust them enough to use that browser all the time.

      That's why I use Firefox (mostly) and Chromium (open-source Chrome) for secondary browser (it's fast).

      Definitely worth a try.

    4. Re:One advantage FF has over Chrome, IMO by Espresso2xshot · · Score: 1

      I am in the same boat as Maow,
      I can't trust Google either.
      Spybot S&D always seems to pull up tracking cookies in Chrome folders and not FF folders. So unless FF cookies are defaulting into Chrome folders I have a pretty good indicator of who's allowing what.

      Google makes it money through intelligent data sales. FF is Open Source. You tell me who seems more trustworthy!?

    5. Re:One advantage FF has over Chrome, IMO by Maow · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it's available for Chrome, but Chromium (and, of course, Firefox) support add-on Ghostery, which blocks most tracking sites.

    6. Re:One advantage FF has over Chrome, IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Search from address bar == Tell Google where you're going

    7. Re:One advantage FF has over Chrome, IMO by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      When somebody feeds you a google conspiracy theory... I'm not saying discard it out of hand. A history of respect doesn't prove future respect. But it should at least give them the benefit of the doubt.

      Make sure your conspiracy purveyor is not also a birther, a truther, an Apollo denier, or whatever they call people who worry the whole world is secretly controlled by a Yale fraternity house.

    8. Re:One advantage FF has over Chrome, IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iron just removes all those things so configuring isn't needed. Yes, I realize it's basically Chromium, but I can't find a Chromium build for Windows.

  29. Convert Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem I had with Firefox is over the course of a day it'd gradually eat up more and more of my RAM until my computer started choking. So Chrome it is!

  30. I'm sticking with Firefox. by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I trust Firefox with my privacy rights more than I trust Google, which is simply an advertising company.

    1. Re:I'm sticking with Firefox. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I trust Firefox with my privacy rights more than I trust Google, which is simply an advertising company.

      Ditto. I don't trust Google at all, so the last thing I want to do is run their web browser as well as being tracked all over the web through whatever browser I am using.

    2. Re:I'm sticking with Firefox. by Tuan121 · · Score: 1

      As opposed to Mozilla, which gets most of it's funding from Google for defaulting to use Google as the search engine. While Chrome does not default to Google search, it gives you options of what search engine to use. Yeah, I magically trust Mozilla more..

      Also, please enlighten us how your privacy rights are infringed upon moreso using Chrome vs. Firefox?

      But nevermind, you'll just stay modded +5 on here because you stated something about pro-privacy, even though it's unfounded.

    3. Re:I'm sticking with Firefox. by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      I'm too lazy to do the research for you, but Chrome is open source and there are forks that address the privacy issues.

    4. Re:I'm sticking with Firefox. by flimflammer · · Score: 2

      You don't even need a special fork, just Chromium. Chrome is based on Chromium. Google checks in development to Chromium and then when it releases a new version of Chrome, checks it out, adds the tracking bits, the Google branding, the h264 playback, a custom tailored Flash plugin, and releases it to the world.

    5. Re:I'm sticking with Firefox. by fa2k · · Score: 1

      I trust Firefox with my privacy rights more than I trust Google, which is simply an advertising company.

      In addition to giving better privacy, the address bar actually presents much more relevant options based only on the sites one has visited. Say I work with an application called Gauss. If I type "gauss" in the Firefox address bar I get that application's page as the first result, not some useless result on Carl Friedrich Gauss. If I need to look up some info about a class called Widget1, I can type "widg" into the firefox bar, and it finds it even if the title of the page is "Member functions for class Widget1", and "Widg" is highlighted to make it easier to see what is the match. It's also really easy, though maybe not necessary, to star a page and add it to the bookmarks. No need to sort the bookmarks, just type a part of the name and you're good to go. That said, Firefox has been crashing every 5 mins on my workstation for the last couple of weeks (maybe due to an add-on, I just have Convergence) and I'm forced to use Opera. I really do miss Firefox.

    6. Re:I'm sticking with Firefox. by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      Feel free to use Chrome. I'm not here to debate anything, I simply stated my preference and opinion. I'm not a browser evangelical, here to convert you to Firefox, can you say the same thing?

    7. Re:I'm sticking with Firefox. by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      That's okay, I've already done the research for myself. I'm sorry if my personal choice has offended you, feel free to keep using whichever browser you prefer.

    8. Re:I'm sticking with Firefox. by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why you think I was "offended by your browser choice". It makes you sound kind of prissy. I don't even use Chrome myself. I just thought you might not be aware of the privacy-friendly versions of chrome that exist since that was your stated reason for not using it (which implies that you didn't do the research for yourself).

  31. Web Engines by fermion · · Score: 2

    To me what is more interesting here is what is happening with the engines and how OSS is forcing innovation. I have used browsers based on the Gecko engine for many years. Lately the browsers based on this engine has become less reliable, but that did not mean that I went to the proprietary Presto engine, even though it is no longer the garbage scow that it was before Mozilla forced MS to provide users with a decent MS Windows browser. No, I am using the Webkit engine more in the guise of Chrome and Safari. of course these two browsers, like IE, are targeted to promoting commercial concerns rather than providing the user with maximum configuration options(for instance my browser comes with flashblock built in, chrome blocking of third party cookies is hidden under a vague button in the preferences) so my primary is still Gecko based though it is not ideal.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  32. Adblock by NYYz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like Chrome, but until Adblock works as well as it does on Firefox I'm not interested. I'm not willing to watch Youtube commercials.

    1. Re:Adblock by cornface · · Score: 2

      Also a version of Noscript that isn't garbage. Because the attempts at cloning it that exist are garbage.

    2. Re:Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been using Chrome for YouTube with Adblock and Smartvideo for months. I forgot that YouTube even had ads by this point.

    3. Re:Adblock by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      I've never recently had to view Youtube video ads in Chrome while using Adblock. I'd like to believe I haven't just gotten lucky this whole time. I do remember it being an issue a while back which made me watch Youtube from Firefox, but that has since stopped.

    4. Re:Adblock by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      YouTube has ads?
      When did that happen?
      -
      firefox user

    5. Re:Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried the experimental version of Adblock? It blocks video ads now. I would say it is about 90% as good as the one for Firefox. I can live with that.http://news.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&type=story&sid=11/12/02/152227#

    6. Re:Adblock by jmcmillan757 · · Score: 1

      Ghostery has been a good alternative to Adblock on Chrome for me. I like the controls they provide.

  33. stranglehold broken; don't do it again by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Diversity ensures that we don't drive into a dead end, and Mozilla paved the way for alternative browsers, pushing websites away from IE-only design, and making the new technologies we have today possible

    Exactly. Their main objective at the outset was to "take back the web". The shape of this graph, where it comes back from monopoly around 2004, is because of Firefox. We all have good reason to be thankful.

    Microsoft's stranglehold on the market let them define the standards including not make any progress for 5 damned years. Stuck with cross-browser incompatibilities, stuck without technological progress or many of the features we take for granted these days, stuck with a browser that got everyone's system hacked and ate up countless geek hours with reinstalls. Man, what a nightmare.

    And it wasn't just Microsoft's fault. It was also the fault of the users who did not opt for a heterogeneous browser ecosystem. Granted, it's a lot to ask the average person to defend a "heterogeneous browser ecosystem", but at least the geeks (and epidemiologists) should get it. And if you don't, let me spell it out for you: Don't push us towards browser monoculture . Not again, please. That sucked.

    1. Re:stranglehold broken; don't do it again by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry, here's the graph.

      The sound that accompanies it as it starts plummeting in 2008 is "aaaaah".

    2. Re:stranglehold broken; don't do it again by Arrepiadd · · Score: 2

      It was also the fault of the users who did not opt for a heterogeneous browser ecosystem. Granted, it's a lot to ask the average person to defend a "heterogeneous browser ecosystem", but at least the geeks (and epidemiologists) should get it.

      While I do get it (I'm more on the geek side here), we should put things into (historical) perspective.

      The first browser I used must have been Netscape 2.x, back in 1996 when I first got a modem. I never lived in the US and paid web access per minute, there was no sort of flat-rate where I was. I remember downloading Netscape Communicator when it first came out (my machine was still on Windows 3.1) and I basically started the download at the end of the evening and woke up around 5 am to go turn off the modem. It had taken several hours on my 28.8 kbps modem to download the 15 MB suite.

      A bit later Windows 95 was coming with Internet Explorer and for most of the people sticking with whatever came was not only the only choice (due to lack of knowledge about alternatives) but also the best choice (considering the hours it took to download the alternatives), time you could spend doing useful stuff with the little bandwidth you had. By the time IE got to version 4.0 it was actually a decent browser. And this lead to the disappearance of Netscape in the browser landscape.

      Nowadays we stream full HD movies and it seems difficult to rationalize not downloading an alternative "browser suite" that occupied 15 or 20 MB, but back then it was a lot harder to do so. And it was certainly based (partly) on this assumption that Microsoft included IE on Windows.

    3. Re:stranglehold broken; don't do it again by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      And of course there was the fact that by the late 90's Netscape was incredibly unstable and slow. People liked to pretend it was a MS conspiracy to make future versions of netscape unstable baked in MS operating systems. I preferred IE (with all it's flaws) at that time because it was more stable. This is all relative. Win9x was unstable and IE was unstable, but both less unstable than Netscape.

      Netscape remained in shambles for years before Firefox rose from the ashes. So IE stagnated. It was all Netscape's share to lose.

    4. Re:stranglehold broken; don't do it again by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      IE was the only browser after 2000. Netscape was proprietary as well and sucked. MS was the standard that everyone else was using. After 2004 websites only worked with IE which gave the illusion of IE being a superior product.

      Firefox was an uphill battle in its early years. People who switched kept switching back to IE 6 because it felt familiar and all the websites just worked on it. It really wasn't until 2008 before websites started putting in hacks to work for standards like Safari and Firefox. Being hacked did help people leave IE but I remember those days. It was not like today where any modern browser can simple just work and you can get one easily.

      Before Firefox there were 4 years from 2000 - 2004/5 where no real browser that was competitive existed.

    5. Re:stranglehold broken; don't do it again by BZ · · Score: 1

      We already have a new browser monoculture in the offing that people are happily contributing to. Trying to browse "mobile" sites with a browser that doesn't support -webkit-prefixed CSS, for example, tends to be an exercise in pain. And if you point that out to the site developers they give you exactly the answer they would have given you in 2002: that they only care about the one browser engine they're targeting.

  34. Re:fixed the RAM problem a version or 2 back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somewhere between FF5 and 8 they fixed a lot of the RAM problem. FF8 has been running for more than 36 hours, with 14 tabs open most of that time and peaked at 580Mb. Currently using 509Mb. I can live with that, the RAM isn't needed for anything else and I've not run out of memory for weeks now, used to be a regular occurence thanks to disabled virtual memory for better XP performance.

    Just a pity they broke so many other things with this insane release numbering. At least the Flash blockers kept working.

  35. Screw them both by DJ+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I switched to Opera just 2 days ago and it blew my mind. It's fast, lightweight and does everything you need and nothing more. It's what firefox used to be before it jumped the shark.

    1. Re:Screw them both by synapse7 · · Score: 2

      I've become hooked on Operas speed dial.

      I read a few stories on ads in chrome and removed it from the one PC I had it installed on.

    2. Re:Screw them both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, have fun while it's still fun. Eventually you will get tired of it crashing all the time.

      Opera has and will probably always be the "disappear" king. That is, you're using it then all of a sudden it just disappears (ie. crashes).

    3. Re:Screw them both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Disappears? I've only been using Opera for 12 years and I've never had that problem. Go figure.

    4. Re:Screw them both by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      I usually run the alpha's and beta's, Opera 11.60 beta, and Opera Next 12.0 alpha/beta. Unless it's a particularly bad release - which gets an update fairly quickly --- Opera generally only crashes when I have hundred(s) of tabs open and it doesn't manage it's memory well enough. When Opera goes over 3+ Gigs of RAM - if it hasn't crashed yet then you are better off closing a few tabs and restarting. Seems to be the only way to reset it's memory use.

      Other than that, it's fairly stable for the most part. There's much less rendering quirks than there used to be. And Opera has the most customizable interface of any browser... it may even be the most customizable application at all.

      That may not be a "selling point" for most, but I've given up on Firefox. I have tried to switch many times in the past when I was disappointed in Opera's direction and stability at times, but Firefox had far too many limitations and far too many plugins/extensions needed for basic functionality. The last time was a few years back now (at least) and there was still no way for FF to put Tabs on the left/or right; as well almost every interface tweak required a plugin as opposed to adding a small JS snippet or just changing an option in the config.

    5. Re:Screw them both by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      This benchmark will crash Opera 11.01 (draws the Mandelbrot set).

      Windows XP with 2.5 GB of RAM:
      Opera silently dies at about 50% through the test, with 1:20 CPU time and 350 MB of RAM.
      FF chugs away and finishes it, albeit somewhat slower than Opera... elapsed time 11:56, and eating 900 MB of RAM.

      (Yes, it's specifically intended to bring any browser to its knees by overloading its DOM engine. It takes seconds to run the same exact code using a canvas for the output.)

    6. Re:Screw them both by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      You've never had a Opera crash in 12 years? What dimension are you from? Is there cake?

    7. Re:Screw them both by evilviper · · Score: 1

      does everything you need and nothing more.

      What are you talking about? The Desktop version of Opera is the ultimate example of throwing everything but the kitchen sink into a program, RATHER than making decent design choices... How many completely different models do they have for tabs and windows these days? None of which works in an easy, smooth, and sane manner...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Screw them both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it does not crash Opera 11.52 on Linux. Who still uses 11.01 anyway?

    9. Re:Screw them both by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Not me. But I did happen to have the portable edition handy, purely for testing purposes such as these, and I haven't updated it in a while.

      But here, Opera 11.52 crashing hard under Win 7:
      http://ompldr.org/vYmtscQ

  36. Konquering the world by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Informative

    I always liked KDE Konqueror browser, but never thought that it would supplant Firefox - albeit by a different name.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Konquering the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't kid yourself. Chrome started with KHTML, but the interface and javascript engine are done from the ground up.
      And guess what people love about chrome? Speed and interface, both unrelated to Konqueror.

      IMHO Konqueror has always been pretty crappy. Last time I used it was back in the KDE3 days though.

    2. Re:Konquering the world by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I always liked KDE Konqueror browser, but never thought that it would supplant Firefox - albeit by a different name.

      Just because Chrome used one component from Konq doesn't make them remotely similar. KHTML overtook Gecko. Konq did NOT overtake Firefox.

      Honestly, the differences between most browsers is the front-end, after all. They all render standard HTML/CSS just fine... but Opera giving you 20 different ways to use tabs, Firefox making the UI buttons drag-n-drop, etc., is what really makes a difference to users.

      Personally, I'll pay $1,000 to anyone who hacks CSS support and (working!) JS into links2... I miss the old, lightning fast browsers, with awesome keyboard support, now replaced by dog slow resource-hogs that do NOTHING any better...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  37. Google Chrome, no thanks, Chromium, maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Firefox since 1.0, and it pretty much covers my need (it rarely crashes, but it freezes for a couple of secons from time to time, but i learned that it depends on the web page's crap), i've tried Google Chrome, and just when i was starting to like it i found that Ghostery (a FF/Chrome extension that blocks tracking cookies and bots) would not block Google's shit on Chrome, right there, i've uninstalled it and never ever thought on install it again.
    Opera?, i rather use Internet Explorer 6, no thanks.
    I'll stick with Firefox until their tries to kill it finally suceed.

    1. Re:Google Chrome, no thanks, Chromium, maybe by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      And I've been using Firefox since it was Phoenix, before it was Firebird, and before that I used the Mozilla suite. Every time Mozilla has always provided the browser that respected my wishes.

      The same is not true of Chrome, Chrome is so intrusive that even not installed it bothers me! It has tried to sneakily install several times when I deal with windows apps, always appearing somewhere between run of the mill confirmation dialogs in installers, always opt-out by default, most of the time the checkbox control HAS BEEN CUSTOMISED TO BE HARD TO UNCHECK!!

      WHAT-THE-FUCK Google!? if Chrome is so good why do they fall so low to make me inadvertently install it? This, coupled with marketing pushing it fucking everywhere including super bowl ads is the real reason Chrome is getting ahead of Firefox.

      Best browser my ass.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    2. Re:Google Chrome, no thanks, Chromium, maybe by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      To elaborate, checkboxes in native applications for Windows, Mac, Gnome, KDE and even Java, can be toggled by clicking anywhere in the control, including the checkbox proper and its text label. The same is not true for web apps in many browsers, but it's often emulated in JS and is also common in Flash. But I'm talking about windows installers here.

      When the option to install Chrome appears, opt-out of course, the checkbox control is customised so clicking the text label does nothing. The install checkbox can be toggled of course, by clicking the square checkbox proper. In windows this implicates disabling the text label as a control making it appear grayed out. So the option to opt-out is not only harder to enter than any other option in the same installer, it also looks disabled unless you pay attention to the smallest section of the control.

      Even if it is good, an application that uses such dirty tricks to get installed deserves contempt.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
  38. Try Perspectives by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    they really need [...] to replace the 13-click procedure for broken SSL certificates with a simple pop-up window.

    Most people will just click past a broken certificate even when it's an obvious man in the middle (MITM) attack because they want to see the dancing bunnies.

    But there's an extension for that, and it's called Perspectives. A browser with the Perspectives extension communicates with notaries scattered throughout the Internet to make sure that the certificate you see is the same certificate that other people have been seeing. The one weakness happens when the MITM is between the SSL server and its only connection to the Internet, but the Perspectives developers appear to operate under the assumption what the whitepaper calls an "Lserver attack" won't happen often.

    1. Re:Try Perspectives by cockroach2 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, never heard of this, sounds like quite an interesting idea though!

      My main point, however, was that in Firefox it's painfully cumbersome to click past a broken certificate for people who know what they are doing which is a major usability issue for me (I have lots of broken certificates everywhere, mostly expired ones). Making your product more annoying for "expert" users to use means that they are also less likely to recommend it (personally I wouldn't know whether I can recommend current versions of Firefox because I haven't used one in ages, due to the SSL stuff).

      Also, on a related note, it's not like a valid SSL certificate means a lot these days anyway. But that's an altogether different issue, I guess.

    2. Re:Try Perspectives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have lots of broken certificates everywhere, mostly expired ones

      Really? I can only remember running into one: MindJolt Games on Facebook. No great loss. And they did eventually get their certificate updated.

    3. Re:Try Perspectives by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      He probably is in the same boat I am in :

      They are not "other peoples" certificates, they are certificates on test / development / experimental / management / etc... boxes in the local LAN network or private boxes of friends all over the place. No public access, you yourself access each box perhaps 2-3 times a year, and thus not a lot of people bother updating the certificates that got installed back in the days sometime. A quicker "Yeah I know what I'm doing" click-through in those cases would be *really* helpful.

    4. Re:Try Perspectives by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Oh, and the other case where this "problem" is happening all the time:

      Customer has problems with a server. They clone a copy of the server into our test farm (Cloud is nice that way), but not of course when we test on that the installed certificates are not for the domain the server is now running in.

    5. Re:Try Perspectives by swillden · · Score: 1

      The one weakness happens when the MITM is between the SSL server and its only connection to the Internet, but the Perspectives developers appear to operate under the assumption what the whitepaper calls an "Lserver attack" won't happen often.

      That attack can be recognized by the server being attacked pretty easily. All it has to do is to request its own cert from some notaries periodically, and compare what comes back to what should come back. The attacker could block these requests, but couldn't spoof them, so the site should shut itself down if the notaries begin returning the wrong cert or if too many of them are unreachable. This reduces the MITM attack to a DOS, and any attacker capable of intercepting and modifying a host's traffic can DOS it easily anyway.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  39. Safari by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I use safari so I have to post an off topic comment right below the first post. In the 2 years I went from safari to firefox, cause it lacked plugins and compatibility, and then when firefox got slow to chrome which was lightning fast. But Then I noticed that for chrome didn't work well with Netflix streaming (Netflix tech support agrees so it's not me) and I also started getting more and more ads related to websites I visited. To solve the Netflix streaming issues, I went back to safari with Lion 10.7. And Wow, safari is now awesome. It's plenty fast and has plugins like flash block. It works on more sites than even Firefox. I briefly flirted with Opera but liked safari because it was more mac-like in expected behaviors.

    So for the next year I'm using safari. Which browser is king varies.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Safari by Nerdfest · · Score: 2

      More mac-like in its behaviour can be both a good and a bad thing of course.

    2. Re:Safari by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a "good" side to mac-like behavior?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    3. Re:Safari by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 0

      Hmm. Modded down... I prove my point.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    4. Re:Safari by creepynut · · Score: 1

      More Mac-like in its behaviour is generally regarded as good thing by us Mac users. He mentioned using Lion 10.7.

    5. Re:Safari by kupekhaize · · Score: 1

      News flash. Act like a troll, and you get treated like a troll.

      Funny how that works, isn't it?

      --
      One of these days i'm going to find this 'peer' guy and reset HIS connection!
    6. Re:Safari by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      What problems do you have with Netflix streaming on Chrome? I use Safari as my primary browser, but I use Chrome for Netflix and it has no serious issues for me.

    7. Re:Safari by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Of course. A browser on Windows should probably not be more "Mac-like". On a Mac it most certainly should be.

    8. Re:Safari by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      And yet insight into the "good" side is neither shared nor explained. While I might have been being snarky in my comment on this occasion I have never really received an adequate/helpful answer just a bunch of snobbery.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    9. Re:Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safari has definitely cleaned up their act and has been my default browser since v4, even on Windows. However, I still use FF for anonymity because of the various extensions available.

      From the logs I've seen, Safari usage is more popular than most believe. On some sites, it's usage has been significantly more than Chrome or FF. The logs I've seen just don't compare with these stats.

      How reliable are StatCounter statistics compared, say, to Wikimedia? I would expect Wikimedia to show the most up-to-date unbiased stats. It's been a long time since I've stumbled upon these old counters.

    10. Re:Safari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      News flash. Act like a troll, and you get treated like a troll.

      News flash. He was modded Flamebait, which means he was flaming, not trolling.

      Moron.

    11. Re:Safari by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      It subtly stutters. the playback just looks shakey. I contact Netflix after experiencing this and they told me this a a chrome problem. It is reproducible for me on multiple machines.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  40. Firefox can burn in hell by GrBear · · Score: 2

    Seriously, as an IT manager, I've been replacing more and more installs of Firefox with Chrome due to features broken in each new Firefox release.

    Our company uses several SaaS applications, and when basic javascript functionality is broken, we still need to get on with business.

    Hell, MLS.COM after 4 major Firefox releases STILL doesn't work (used to), and I've filed a report each version. Just stupid shit that the devs shovel another bullet point onto a feature list, and be damned if it breaks other stuff. Fast and stable, Firefox's two features that made it king, are now dead and buried.

    1. Re:Firefox can burn in hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mls.com is written in old vb and javascript it hasn't worked right in a decade. You're dumb to upgrade to newer version of any software just because it's there. Shit breaks when you do that. That's IT, properly planning a rollout. You probably upgrade to a new version of WinTotal everytime it comes out too don't you. Yeah, it's OK that all my confidential appraisals get uploaded to their server. It's OK that they sell that information right?

  41. Thank you by Gordo_1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Slashdot bandwagon immediately sees the opportunity to point out that "Firefox sucks because 8.0 should be called 5.0.3" and you reveal the real reason that Chrome is everywhere: They're bundling it with bloody well everything but the kitchen sink and the same lemmings that used IE6 until recently are now finding Chrome icons on their desktops.

    1. Re:Thank you by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      And then on a completely different Slashdot bandwagon, people see bundling and make it out to be an order of magnitude worse than it really is.

    2. Re:Thank you by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what's it being bundled with? I don't use a PC as my main desktop anymore and I don't think I've ever run into Chrome inadvertently.

    3. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Slashdot bandwagon immediately sees the opportunity to point out that "Firefox sucks because 8.0 should be called 5.0.3" and you reveal the real reason that Chrome is everywhere: They're bundling it with bloody well everything but the kitchen sink and the same lemmings that used IE6 until recently are now finding Chrome icons on their desktops.

      Sour grapes? Chromium also happens to be a really good browser, especially for devs due to the slick integrated tools. Believe it or not, a lot of us actually choose to use Chrome because of its myriad benefits over anything else (even Firefox), despite Chrome's limitations, real or (more likely) imagined.

    4. Re:Thank you by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      It was bundled with Skype updates a while back. I don't know if it still is. Adobe bundled it with Adobe Reader recently. I'd be interested to know how much of Chrome's growth can be attributed to deliberate and inadvertent installation when it gets delivered with other, perhaps more popular, software like Skype and Reader.

    5. Re:Thank you by BZ · · Score: 1

      The two I know of recently:

      1) Installing Skype on Windows installed chrome and made it your default browser, unless you explicitly did the custom install and opted out. This seems to have stopped with the Microsoft purchase of Skype. You can see a screenshot of the custom install process here: http://people.mozilla.org/~khuey/skype-install-2011-10-3.png

      2) Installing or updating the Flash plugin on Windows would install Chrome (opt out for that part) and suggest you make it the default browser (this part was opt-in).

      3) Installing Avast antivirus would bundle Chrome; not sure whether it was opt-in or opt-out.

      There are others I've heard rumors of; but the above three I have either first-hand experience or credible witnesses for.

  42. Re:fixed the RAM problem a version or 2 back by G00F · · Score: 1

    14 tabs, is that all? Let me give you a hint, I don't use bookmarks, I use tabs (and session manager).

    I could never complain about FF memory issues as I have 100-300 tabs (usually ~120) open, my only beef is that FF is becoming a mini-me of chrome, and I wasn't using chrome for a reason. Although chrome had nice multithreaded features like its own task manager to see what web page is eating all the resources, and an easy way to kill that page.

    Also strange, it was just looking at stats yesterday and I was quite happy to see nothing above 50%. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

    --
    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
  43. Well, duh. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    Chrome is slowly improving, while Firefox is quickly becoming the worst browser on the market. Go figure the numbers reflect that.
    I've been using Firefox for as long as I can remember, but this batshit insane update schedule is forcing me to look at other browsers.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
    1. Re:Well, duh. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You do know that they're updating less often on the new schedule, right? But getting important features and fixes in sooner?

  44. Oh boy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sure love reading the same comments over and over on every article related to Firefox.

    The best part is about the extensions breaking, because I didn't have any extension break on me since Firefox 4.

  45. Duh by MoronGames · · Score: 1

    Of course it's becoming the second most popular web browser. It is the easiest browser to use! There's only one confusing box that you can type things into at the top of the screen, and people like that. Many older people (I constantly watch my parents do this) type their searches into where one would normally put the URL, instead of the IE or Safari-provided search fields. In Chrome, this is not a problem!

    So, if I install Chrome on a clueless person's computer, and they try using it, they will find that Chrome allows them to do something that the other browsers would either choke on, or, depending on your ISP, just return awful search results? It makes sense to me that Chrome is pulling ahead.

    --
    hey!
    1. Re:Duh by thsths · · Score: 1

      > Many older people (I constantly watch my parents do this) type their searches into where one would normally put the URL.

      It is logical, isn't it? There is one field where you type stuff in. There could be two buttons, one for Go, one for Search, but to be honest my browser can figure that our pretty nicely. The separate search box in IE is just retarded.

  46. #1 browser by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    IE apparently but the article links say "desktop browser", makes me wonder what it looks like for all browsers regardless of device. Seems kind of funny all the attention that the move to tablets and smartphones get in the media that we are still comparing browsers based on their desktop market share. I suspect Safari would have a much larger market share if all the other devices (iPad iPhone) were added. Similarly for Chrome with the android devices. So ... would IE still be number one? Would anyone be getting close to knocking them off?

  47. Does Chrome have an identity crisis? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting
    For example, this line from my web access log:

    124.82.44.82 - - [02/Dec/2011:03:22:20 -0500] "GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.1" 200 247 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/535.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/15.0.874.121 Safari/535.2"

    We see Mozilla, Chrome, and Safari all on the same line. And I see a lot of lines like that. In fact of 587 lines I saw in my log that accessed the favicon.ico page, they all mentioned Mozilla and only three did not mention Safari.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Does Chrome have an identity crisis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this nonsense actually makes sense.
      All browsers identify themselves as Mozilla , even IE :)
      Chrome is built on top of Apple WebKit which is derivative of the KHTML library

    2. Re:Does Chrome have an identity crisis? by neonKow · · Score: 1

      Almost all web browsers are going to mention Mozilla. This is a holdover from the days when Netscape was king. It's sort of a way for a browser to say, "throw anything at me that Netscape can parse, and I can handle it."

      Even Internet explorer uses the Mozilla string.
      http://www.useragentstring.com/pages/Internet%20Explorer/

      The line you pasted was specifically Chrome.

    3. Re:Does Chrome have an identity crisis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For example, this line from my web access log:

      124.82.44.82 - - [02/Dec/2011:03:22:20 -0500] "GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.1" 200 247 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1) AppleWebKit/535.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/15.0.874.121 Safari/535.2"

      We see Mozilla, Chrome, and Safari all on the same line. And I see a lot of lines like that. In fact of 587 lines I saw in my log that accessed the favicon.ico page, they all mentioned Mozilla and only three did not mention Safari.

      Use a search engine to find the full story. Short version: People who make websites are so stupid that they serve content by matching to a user agent string. Every new browser throws the name of every old browser in their string to be sure they don't miss any content served to other browsers.

    4. Re:Does Chrome have an identity crisis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called cross-pollination. :)

    5. Re:Does Chrome have an identity crisis? by SmilingBoy · · Score: 1

      It is done to avoid being locked out due to browser sniffing.

  48. Preloaded by OEM's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have noticed more and more that Chrome is coming pre-installed on many systems. I just set up a brand new Lenovo laptop last night and it came with Chrome installed but not Firefox. Maybe this is part of the reason it is gaining market share. If Firefox could get the OEM's to embrace them and start pre-installing it maybe their share would also jump. Just a thought....

  49. Android anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This boost in chrome usage is almost certainly to do with Android adoption rather than desktop use.

  50. I did the math. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did the math. Firefox went from 26.39% to 25.23% in one month, a drop of 1.16%, while Chrome went from 25% to 25.69% in the same month, an increase of 0.69%. If you do the math, the crossover point is 25.51843243%. I wonder what the crossover point will be when Chrome passes IE.

  51. Not surprising... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1
    Not a surprising development, as the Mozilla developers seem to have lost their compass lately.

    .
    Egregious shortcomings, such as the inability to remove any unwanted plugin (there's only the option to disable them), ridiculous version turnovers, etc., .etc., etc., are beginning to cost Firefox popularity with the users. Once the Firefox developers started stroking themselves, instead of providing useful features for their users, the downward slide in users was all but certain.

  52. Firefox is just a dev tool by Anonymus · · Score: 1

    As a browser, I loathe Firefox. I used it as my primary browser for maybe a year about 4-5 years ago. It is slow, cumbersome, has stupid url bar functionality, and the new update cycle is ridiculous with breaking addons and getting in my way.

    However, Firefox with Firebug, Live Http Headers, a ruler and eyedropper addon, and maybe a few other things as needed, and you have the best web development tool available. Other browsers have been trying to add similar features, but nothing even comes close to measuring up at this point.

    Chrome seems to be gaining the most ground in that area, and as soon as they can do everything Firefox can, Firefox will be dead to me, tossed in a bin next to IE and opened only for cross browser testing.

    1. Re:Firefox is just a dev tool by samwichse · · Score: 1

      You should really check out Opera Dragonfly.

      Sam

  53. Chrome system requirements ... lean??? by waterbear · · Score: 1

    a lean, fast browser with a stripped down UI

    I just looked at the Chrome system requirements:
    "100MB disk space, 128MB RAM, WinXP SP2+, Pentium 4 or later":
    It won't even look at Win2000, so if I want to use it at all I have to change my hardware, expand my OS size by '00s of MB and lose backwards compatibility with stuff that I use all of the time. With the number of websites that demand updated web-browsers such as Chrome it begins to look as if I'm being squeezed off the internet. (I wish I could switch more to linux, for which I have a double-booting system, but I can't get it to do the printing work that I need, and even then, Chrome claims to be very picky about which linux distro it works with.)

    -wb-

    1. Re:Chrome system requirements ... lean??? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Are you joking, or serious? Are you seriously suggesting that software written in 2011 should work perfectly on operating systems released when Bill Clinton was the President? If you are serious, then I'm wondering how far back do you think browsers should work well with OSs? Should Chrome work well on Windows 3.1? How about DOS? Should it run on an Altair? on Minix? Should you be able to render it onto punchcards? What is your cutoff, such that your cutoff is longer than a decade?

      My opinion is two years, maybe two and a half years. If your OS is older than that, then you should use an older browser. And I would forgive for cutoffs as little as 18 months.

    2. Re:Chrome system requirements ... lean??? by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Maybe try Opera, that claims to be supported with your setup.

      I've used it since version 6-point-something, and it's still fast.

      (Also, I occasionally use Chromium, and less often Firefox.)

    3. Re:Chrome system requirements ... lean??? by mattgoldey · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should consider NCSA Mosaic. Sounds perfect for your setup.

    4. Re:Chrome system requirements ... lean??? by waterbear · · Score: 1

      Are you joking, or serious? Are you seriously suggesting that software written in 2011 should work perfectly on operating systems released when Bill Clinton was the President?

      Sure I'm serious: and I don't understand why this should be treated like a joke: the suggestion, after all, is that backwards compatibility is important. Lack of it means all sorts of problems, ranging from general inaccessibility in practice of nearly all digital material archived on old media, to smaller scale problems like the ones that I face right now just getting my laserprinter to work properly with new software products written by people who forgot that it exists.

      -wb-

    5. Re:Chrome system requirements ... lean??? by waterbear · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that idea, I do in fact use Opera 9.something (Opera 10.something gives me compatibility problems with the needed older print functions). It might surprise you, but I get a lot of websites throwing brickbats at me for using Opera.

      -wb-

    6. Re:Chrome system requirements ... lean??? by waterbear · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that idea -- I'll look into it.

      -wb-

    7. Re:Chrome system requirements ... lean??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's treated like a joke because it is. A brand new, well powered PC or laptop costs less than $500. If you couldn't come up with that within an 11 year time span, you might want to try getting a job.

  54. Meanwhile on Windows by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Running as admin in Win 7, I was able to update Firefox without issue (8.0.1, IIRC). Under the regular account, the Apply Update button is still present; clicking does nothing. Aces.

  55. Lets not forget by Severus+Snape · · Score: 1

    If it wasn't for Mozilla the web browser landscape would be much worse state, than what it is now. They may have fallen behind because of their problems and Google managing to steal the hip and cool label off them but we owe them thanks. They broke Microsoft's monopoly which at one point seemed impossible. I wish them luck in the future, hopefully they will get their ship in order because at the end of the day they are the only group out there who has no secondary agenda. Microsoft, Google, Apple and Opera (to an extent) cannot be trusted.

  56. Re:And Firefox on Android... by rwa2 · · Score: 1

    Chrome might be replacing Firefox on my desktop, but I am finding myself turning to Firefox on Android more often to use pages that don't work well under Dolphin HD (UI layer for Google's standard browser component).

    So, irony.

    I still consider Firefox my "primary" browser. Even though I haven't used it on my home machine in months, it still has all my bookmarks, from back when I used to care about maintaining that kind of thing ;-P

    I mostly blame StumbleUpon & maybe Twitter (which I mostly use only as an rss feed) that weened me off of maintaining my own set of bookmarks to frequented sites. Oh, and of course the Google Awesomebar.

  57. Firefox is pulling a Netscape 4.xx by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    I remember back in the fun days when I used Netscape, then Microsoft started their shenanigans and there began a period of seeming stupiditulation (my new word, capitulation by stupidity) on the part of the Netscape group where each succeeding revision actually was worse.

    Firefox is really getting that bad vibe. I remember good old Firefox on my mac rendering page after page just fine, now I actually beachball in Firefox (the rest of the system works but FF is stuck) when loading some pages. Even on Windows it behaves erratically.

    Time for another fork, when Netscape got too far from its roots a new browser came from a similar base and it was very good for a decent amount of time.

    I like the idea of taking away stuff till its right, they need some of that

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  58. Doesn't matter what browser is... by higuita · · Score: 1

    Doesn't matter what browser is... ... as long isn't not IE!!

    i dont care how is the first or second... as long isnt IE. FF, Chrome, opera or even safari all support valid standards, dont tie the browser to the OS, work very well.
    IE9 is way better than IE6, but still support broken things, developed for "windows only". It it goes away, sites must update or will lose its users, and by that, everyone wins!

    after all, isnt one of the ideias of chrome increase the pressure over IE... more browser, more fragmentation, more the IE lose by being non-standard

    --
    Higuita
  59. Re:Use a browser written by an advertising company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla gets the bulk of its Firefox funding by Google. Just thought you should know.

  60. wow only the second? by shadowrat · · Score: 1

    I always knew chrome would be called the worlds most popular browser, but i had no idea it was only the second browser to receive the title.

  61. Angry Birds by bradgoodman · · Score: 3, Funny

    A true testimony to the power of Angry Birds...

  62. Re:Use a browser written by an advertising company by PwnzerDragoon · · Score: 1

    Well, you could always use Chromium, which is basically Chrome before Google's tracking nonsense is added.

  63. updates and memory usage by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    The main issues I had with Firefox is that (a) it does some massive update seemingly every time I start it. If I want to bring up a browser to look up something time critical, I do not use Firefox because of the very good chance I'll have to wait for it to update and then tell me it has done so before I can use it.

    (b), the memory usage is massive. It's better now that I've upgraded my machine to 8 GB, but you shouldn't have to do that for a BROWSER. This (massive resource usage) kind-of negates the idea of an inexpensive, low powered browser appliance.

    After switching to Chrome, I immediately noticed that if it *was* updating, it was doing it in a completely unobtrusive way, and the resource usage was significantly lower. I'd been using Firefox since the original beta, but after switching to Chrome never looked back.

    Mind you, Mozilla has done some good things. Firefox now uses a lot less vertical real estate for controls, toolbars and so forth, which makes it much better on netbooks and tablets with confined real estate. But they have to get the resource usage down in order to remain competitive.

    I think it might be time for Mozilla to put Firefox in maintenance mode and start over. They've done it before, and we got firefox, and it was a good product for years. Who knows what they could accomplish starting again with a clean slate?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:updates and memory usage by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      After switching to Chrome, I immediately noticed that if it *was* updating, it was doing it in a completely unobtrusive way, and the resource usage was significantly lower. I'd been using Firefox since the original beta, but after switching to Chrome never looked back.

      What? Every time I've added the private memory pools of each chrome process together it's been larger than FF. Considering I can reproduce this on clean virtual machine installs, I feel something isn't quite right on your end.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:updates and memory usage by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      It's entirely possible that the sum total of Chrome memory usage is greater. I'm aware that Chrome splits into several separate processes and did not mean to imply otherwise. But what I *observe* is that the massive single process that is Firefox is doing massive page faults, and the disk grinding while Firefox is running is significantly higher. So whatever Chrome is doing instead, it doesn't appear to be chewing up virtual memory in the same way.

      Test by, (assuming Windows 7) bring up Task Manager, sort by Page Faults. Bring up Resource Monitor, look at disk activity and memory hard faults/second while doing operations in Firefox, and similar (as possible) operations in Chrome. (It helps for testing purposes to have a lot of tabs open on complicated content.) Like I said, my system is much better behaved after doubling system memory from 4 gigs to 8, but again, you shouldn't need that much memory to make a browser behave.

      I haven't seen the code, so I can't tell you why this is happening; all I can do is rattle the box and try to guess what's inside. But it does seem that although Chrome spawns several processes, each allocating significant memory, the system doesn't churn nearly as much.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:updates and memory usage by mopower70 · · Score: 1

      (b), the memory usage is massive. It's better now that I've upgraded my machine to 8 GB, but you shouldn't have to do that for a BROWSER. This (massive resource usage) kind-of negates the idea of an inexpensive, low powered browser appliance.

      After switching to Chrome, I immediately noticed that if it *was* updating, it was doing it in a completely unobtrusive way, and the resource usage was significantly lower. I'd been using Firefox since the original beta, but after switching to Chrome never looked back.

      I recently switched to Chrome from Firefox because Firefox just plain broke. I'm a tab-whore and it would literally take 10 minutes before Firefox became usable. It was not unusual to see a 1.4G Firefox footprint. I switched to Chrome and I was so happy to see 30M and 50M threads here and there. But then as I started completing my migration I noticed that tabs started loading slower and slower. Now, with the exact same session loaded, Chrome is using about 20% more memory than Firefox ever did. It's an absolute pig. I'm either going to have to change my browsing habits or find another new browser.

  64. Increased popularity = increased malware by Ixne · · Score: 1

    Apparently their increased popularity has not gone unnoticed by malware writers.

  65. Need the why before the who by tepples · · Score: 1

    Who cares WHY extensions are breaking?

    Anyone who wants to know who would be the best person to solve the problem.

    1. Re:Need the why before the who by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      That's my point. How many people have ever contributed a line of code to Firefox. I don't know? 2000 (or at least within an order of magnitude of that)? Those are the people who should be caring about the why of constant extension breakage. How many million users does Firefox have?

      For the vast majority of those actual users, the "why" is irrelevant.

  66. Re:Use a browser written by an advertising company by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    Over my dead body.

    Not sure that your carcass will have any advertising value, but good try.

  67. Unfortunate by RanceJustice · · Score: 1

    Honestly I have to say I'm a little disappointed. I know I'll probably be modded to oblivion by daring to question Google, but I really don't see the advantage to Chrome over Firefox. Five years ago Google seemed to be the type of company that actually managed to "Don't Be Evil", but in the past few years, everything from GPlus "Real Names only, thank you" to other questionable uses of personal information and privacy policy suggest that they're being cowed to the almighty dollar. Google as a company makes their money from search and ads; the latter certainly not conducive to a great browsing experience. Hence, Chrome's variant of AdBlock not truly blocking the ads and allowing them to be downloaded at one time, and nothing similar to the power of NoScript easily available. The divide between Chromium and Chrome may grow even greater, with certain features (translate etc..) only available on the proprietary tracked version.

      Putting too much faith in any monoculture is a bad idea, especially if they have a vested interest in restricting or guiding your experience for their profit while having demonstrated they're not always forthcoming as to how. The Google of the "You get awesome email, we're only going to put an adwords bar up here that searches terms in your mail and not record all sorts of metrics about what you do, is great. The Google of "Real names only on our social network; anything that loses value for advertisers is a no go. We need to cross reference your want of viagra with your age and type of sexual partner to sell to our clients" is less so, despite the retractions and wobble back and forth. I still have faith that Google is nowhere near as horrid as say, Facebook but I want to let them know that their dominance isn't assured just by existing, lest they become complacent and begin "monetizing" in opposition to ethics; I want to support them providing excellent products, open communication with well understood terms that we can both agree serves our needs.

    Firefox is in my experience, an excellent browser and it is one of the few examples of FOSS that fulfills both the layman and geek's needs. I have near limitless control over my browsing experience, great addons, and all without a conflict of interest with the developers. What's really amazing, is that everything from Sync to Personas and even many addon installations can easily be used by those relatively computer illiterate! When I hear geeky breathren say why they changed over to Chrome, they usually cite speed. Personally, I've not had any problems with Firefox's speed and the vast majority of those who I've spoken with who did, loaded it up with 20 addons that heavily tax the browser and RAM below it! Of COURSE bare Chrome is going to be faster if you're giving up Sync/Personas/NoScript/AdBlockPlus/Stylish+Themes/Scriptish+Scripts/Tor/FlashGot/DownloadStatusbar/HTTPSAnywhere and more! I've not met any laypeople who've switched to chrome save for a few who just "heard about it" and transitioned from IE due to advertisement. Is this the volume of switchers at hand? Normal users who just found it better than IE? Strangely, I figured most of them would already have heard about Firefox in years goneby from computer literate friends and family. I've not met one to date who switched from Firefox to Chromium so I can't list there.

    Mozilla's products, including Firefox seem to be everything that the FOSS/geeky user metric wants; nearly a holy grail in that they can give limitless power to the powerusers without impeding the novice. They provide the best experience possible, customizable for any taste on any platform, without an ulterior motive contrary to the goals of the project. I don't see how Chrome even comes close, encumbered with Google's business model in mind.

  68. Dropping Leopard was the last straw. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla's decision to drop MacOS X leopard, an operating system younger than Windows Vista and XP is infuriating. There are a lot Mac users out there who don't want to pay $29.99 just to run an up-to date browser. This is even worse than Microsoft dropping IE9 support for XP.

    Firefox probably evaded a lot of criticism back when it was the only serious competitor to IE (when Opera was adware, Safari Mac only and Chrome is only from 2008), but now there are plenty of good browsers out there it is time for Firefox to pull itself together. They get $100 million a year in Google dollars yet they piss it away on stupid gimmicks like stealing your status bar which dates back from early web browsers (Even IE 9 has one) and other UI changes such as stealing the forward button.

    The memory and speed issues are contentious but Microsoft does serious testing on IE to make sure its browser is good enough.

    I am really mad at Firefox for messing up after being the good browser for several years. Firefox needs to be forked by competent developers to undo the brain damage that has happened in 2011. I want Firefox to be good again, don't make me flee to Chrome/IE permanently.

    1. Re:Dropping Leopard was the last straw. by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      There are a lot Mac users out there who don't want to pay $29.99 just to run an up-to date browser.

      Blame Apple, a software project I'm involved with is only supporting 10.6 and higher because that's what Apple is only supporting now. Compiling against older platform SDKs is messy, since the binaries produced LLVM-GCC causes the system either to lock up or kernel panic. While using non-standard GCC in the development environment causes some unexplained issues, not withstanding excessive time delays in resolving things from frameworks. I wouldn't be surprised if Mozilla are running into similar problems.

      Then again, Apple users know what to expect from Apple and from applications that run on OS X, so, they really have no excuse, it's not like OS X doesn't have a history of these things.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  69. Breaking News: We will have news about news soon! by recrudescence · · Score: 1

    In related news, our news agency predicts news of incoming news on this topic sometime in the future! We're not sure exactly when, but now that we've started the rumour about news, you can expect to hear more news about this news in the near future, while this rumour spreads enough to start becoming news.

  70. another reason for Chrome's growth - TV ads by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

    I've seen a lot of TV ads recently pushing Chrome. That has to have made at least a little difference for many people who would've never considered Chrome before seeing a TV commercial for it, which probably actually adds credibility to the product.

    OTOH, I've never once seen a TV ad for Firefox. FF's growth was all about word of mouth. (It doesn't help that FF's recent word of mouth has NOT been positive - including what's in the comments here - but that's another story.)

    If Firefox had the same number of TV ads, it would probably still be adding new users, despite the core user backlash against the FF changes.

  71. Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I just quickly looked up Germany, France and the US.
    In France and the US Firefox is having a lonely battle with IE while in Germany Firefox is at ~50% with IE in a _distant_ second position.

    Where are all those Chrome users coming from?
    Also why the hell would anyone use Chrome? At least use Chromium, people. Google actually IS evil. It's a data mining advertising company.
    C'mon...

    1. Re:Where? by BZ · · Score: 2

      > Where are all those Chrome users coming from?

      Try checking stats for South America....

      Or if you want to be somewhat depressed about the whole thing, try China or South Korea. ;)

  72. Awesome bar by Soupster · · Score: 1

    I use Chrome and Firefox equally. I love Chrome's speed, but one thing I've noticed is that the message history / auto complete is far superior in Firefox (I believe they called it an 'awesome' bar). E.g. if I press 's' and slashdot.org pops up automatically. Firefox's system for this is really really good, I almost never have to use bookmarks now. But Chrome is entirely reliant on bookmarks. Once Google fixes that I will probably permanently switch to Chrome.

  73. Re:Deja vu by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

    It'll be interesting to see if the same thing happens in a few years with IE.

    Do you mean Chrome?

    --
    All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
  74. I.E. Rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All hail I.E..

  75. I use both by gomoX · · Score: 1

    Chrome for mostly everything, and Firefox to access intranet sites with self-signed SSL certificates because to this day and age I can't tell Chromium on Linux to accept a friggin' self-signed certificate and stop prompting me every single time I access the site. No, adding the certificate to my trusted list at the OS level doesn't work.

    --
    My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
  76. broken chrome by Bent+Spoke · · Score: 1

    I have used chrome as my primary browser for about a year. However, for anything
    like purchases, banking or important stuff, I have to switch to Firefox.
    Chrome is just broken, more often than not.

  77. The only problem that I have with Chrome is ... by thirdwikidotorg · · Score: 1

    The only problem that I have with Chrome is ... that you can't actually print via the print tab very well. That is unless you have [ insert other open source pdf application here ] Nitro pdf which can print out a decent copy after you've made a pdf for filing.

  78. Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The experimental Adblock for Chrome now blocks video ads and does a better job than the previous version. That was the only thing keeping me on Firefox.

  79. When did Firefox become the whipping boy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either Firefox sucks because it doesn't do enough or Firefox sucks because it's nebulously "bloated". Firefox's versioning is a hilarious joke, but Chrome's is totally awesome. Firefox needs to go back to its roots, and Firefox needs to stop removing features. What?

    A lot of people seem to be angry without knowing what they're actually angry about. I don't know what happened here to make the masses suddenly froth aimlessly over Google and against Mozilla, but it's getting kind of ridiculous, and it sucks to see a genuine open source company be the target of nerd rage. Hell, Slashdot usually roots for the open source alternative even when it barely works.

    More on subject: it's worth note that Chrome hasn't really been taking market share from Firefox. Firefox hasn't had a significant drop since Chrome came on the scene; it just plateaued. So this represents a bigger chunk taken out of IE (and, to some extent, Safari) rather than infighting between "alternatives", which is pretty great imo.

  80. chrome is fast by h3adjum · · Score: 1

    Wow that was fast!! I thought it'd take longer for such news to come.

  81. SeaMonkey for me by Rexdude · · Score: 1

    I have been on SeaMonkey for the last 2 years and haven't really looked back. I've put on the classic skin for Netscape like nostalgia, and running as an internet suite with mail,news, browser,IRC and HTML editor in one package it still doesn't gobble as much RAM as Firefox.
    And after the new crazy versioning process of Firefox, the SM developers have stuck to the more sensible subversioning, 2.4.x or 2.5 as of now.
    I like how I can click a mailto link in the browser and have it pop up a new mail window, or click a link in a mail to have it immediately open in a browser tab. It's very well made, and for those who want to use the Gecko engine this is a saner alternative to Firefox.

    --
    "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
  82. Did Google send Asa Dotzler a cake... by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    ... for helping them achieve this?

  83. And how are they counting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How are they counting, when so many Abdroid devices running chrome block users from choosing any other browser...?