Slashdot Mirror


Why We Love Firefox, and Why We Hate It

An anonymous reader sends this quote from Conceivably Tech: "Admit it. You are in a love-hate relationship with Firefox. Either Mozilla gets Firefox right and you are jumping up and down, or Mozilla screws up and you threaten to ditch the browser in favor Chrome. Mozilla's passionate user base keeps Firefox dangling between constant ups and downs, which is a good thing, as long as Mozilla is going up. Unfortunately, that is not the case right now. Mozilla's market share has been slipping again at a significant pace. There has been some discussion and finger-pointing, and it seems that the rapid release process has to take the blame this time. Are we right to blame the rapid release process?" What do you find most annoying or gratifying about Firefox these days?

38 of 665 comments (clear)

  1. Forced Upgrades? by schwit1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is not rapid release unless Mozilla is forcing upgrades upon users.

    1. Re:Forced Upgrades? by Nemyst · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny thing is, most people who ditch Firefox move on to Chrome, which has a rapid release cycle with automatic and hidden updates.

    2. Re:Forced Upgrades? by ClioCJS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The main difference being that those updates don't tend to kill your plugins like they do in firefox.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    3. Re:Forced Upgrades? by McDutchie · · Score: 5, Informative

      Firefox fixed that problem ages ago.

    4. Re:Forced Upgrades? by ClioCJS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't fixed when I left for Chrome about 6 months ago. I guess I'm not sure how long "ages" is for you.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    5. Re:Forced Upgrades? by equex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure the word 'age' in IT measures the time from when someone switched from something to something else and then notifying you about it. Some sort of temporal penis length.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    6. Re:Forced Upgrades? by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Plus, Chrome's UI seems more set in stone. Firefox's did seem that way until some time after Google introduced their competing product, but then Mozilla thought it would be a brilliant idea to fuck with the UI to the point where not only the interface but now the release cycle tries to mimic Chrome as closely as possible. Mozilla's browser still feels like it's in a constant, never-ending state of flux, and Mozilla is still trying fucking with the UI, making me dread every new "version" of Firefox that is released.

      Although I didn't really care for Chrome's interface to begin with (and still don't), at least it's stable and not in a constant state of change, so I've been contemplating switching to it. The problem is, I will be missing out on a lot of things I'm used to, especially many of Firefox's extensions.

      Now we've got Google's Chrome which is catching up on the deal-breaking extensions it still somewhat lacks but seemingly faster at handling javascript-heavy pages, and Mozilla's Chrome wannabe tripping all over itself to be even more like the real thing. AdBlock Plus is now working (as a testing release) for Chrome, so that's one major thing not holding me back any longer. I have no idea what the status of NoScript on Chrome is, but that's the other major thing holding me back.

      I also don't like how in Chrome to access the bookmarks menu you have to click a button all the way over to the right, makes a mess when you start going through your nested menus having to move the mouse right, left, right just to navigate, but oh well... Mozilla has done a hell of a lot to make their browser a miserable pain in the ass to work with while making it probably more bloated than the Mozilla Suite before it (its whole reason for existence to begin with), so they're even.

      As Chrome continues to improve and Mozilla's morphing rip-off continues to struggle with its identity by copying Chrome poorly, I imagine a time that I might switch completely. Never would've expected to say this back when Firefox was itself, after all, I hated the Chrome layout. But now... that's all changed. Now I'm just waiting for a good time to jump ship, when it's good and ready.

    7. Re:Forced Upgrades? by ThePhilips · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you even know Chrome updated?

      No I didn't. That's kind of the point.

      It's so feature-poor that frankly I do not think anybody can notice anything.

      I think the Google's R&D could even take a sabbatical and let a cron job running in the background, bumping major/minor version numbers randomly and pushing them to users. And I'm pretty sure no soul would suspect anything for a very very long time.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    8. Re:Forced Upgrades? by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>Silent and forced updating like Chrome does really is the best way to keep the web moving forward

      You like programs that update without telling you? Not me. Too many times things break after an update. How many times have we read on /. about an antivirus program or browser updating, and suddenly the program never loads. Or worse: The PC won't boot because it's hosed. NOT telling the user about an update is the obnoxious part.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    9. Re:Forced Upgrades? by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why Firefox now has LTS. It sits at version 10 for about two years, and then upgrades to 18. That way you can have a stable browser and not worry about broken plugins. In this respect FF is better than Chrome.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    10. Re:Forced Upgrades? by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 5, Informative

      Plus, Chrome's UI seems more set in stone. Firefox's did seem that way until some time after Google introduced their competing product, but then Mozilla thought it would be a brilliant idea to fuck with the UI to the point where not only the interface but now the release cycle tries to mimic Chrome as closely as possible. Mozilla's browser still feels like it's in a constant, never-ending state of flux, and Mozilla is still trying fucking with the UI, making me dread every new "version" of Firefox that is released.

      The default UI yes, but if you have a customized UI, version updates will keep your customization from one release to another. I've been using this scheme for about one year on the nightly version which is automatically updated by firefox PPA channel. It also works on the current stable version.

    11. Re:Forced Upgrades? by Shining+Celebi · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is the biggest problem Mozilla has. They listen to everybody and everything, and so they can't win because surprise, people don't agree.

      People were pushing hard for Firefox to have a more minimalist UI like Chrome. Mozilla acquiesced. Then all the people who use their browser as a tool and not a lifestyle got a big surprise when the update came down the pipeline and got irritated about it.

      People are pushing hard for Firefox to update more often - this was probably legitimate, since it was taking a year plus between releases. They did. Then another group of people got irate about rapid releases.

      People were pushing hard for Firefox to reduce memory usage. Mozilla reduced Firefox's memory usage. Now people complain that Firefox is a bit slower and uses more CPU because less is cached in memory.

    12. Re:Forced Upgrades? by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is actually that Mozilla isn't forcing their updates upon users. Someone who doesn't check it "about Firefox" box in a while easily gets 6 versions behind in no time.

      Silent and forced updating like Chrome does really is the best way to keep the web moving forward without being obnoxious about it towards your users.

      This hasn't been true since version 12. In that release they added an auto-updating service that runs in the background and handles installing updates without the user's permission.

      I had Firefox 13 set to "Check for updates, but let me choose when to install" when version 14 was released. It bugged me a couple of times to install 14 and I said no each time. Then, one morning I open Firefox to see 14 has been installed, completely without permission. I checked the update settings and it was still set to "ask me". Looking at the update log showed that 14.0.1 had been installed as a "security update".

      Few things piss me off more than software doing things I've explicitly told it not to. Firefox auto-updating wouldn't be so bad if the moronic development leads would:

      • Stop dicking around with the user interface. At this point they're only changing it just to change it because they can (new toolbar buttons are just white on Aero glass? What kind of idiots are running this show again?).
      • Stop dicking around with the basics. In 14 they changed the mouse-wheel scroll timing because some dev retard though it should be "smoother". The "scroll time" was doubled, making mouse scrolling like walking through freezing molasses. Thank frak there's an about:config setting for it (general.smoothScroll.mouseWheel.durationMaxMS should be ~200), or I'd have ditched Firefox same-day.
      • Stop changing performance settings to satisfy memory "leak" morons. Just because a web browser is using 1GB of memory (on your 8GB system) doesn't mean it has a memory leak. It means that web pages are filled with images, and decoded images are big. Throwing away that memory every time you switch tabs means that all those images have to be re-decoded when you switch back. But what the hell -- now they can claim "OMG, Firefox 13 uses less memories than Chrome!!11!". Stupid.

      Just a few of the things I hate about the new Firefox system. The ONLY reason to stick with Firefox is the addons. Mozilla is betting the entire farm against the Firefox addon ecosystem -- if (or rather, as soon as) Chrome catches up, people (including a lot of "power" users) will start leaving in droves.

      Firefox has been taken over by the same kinds of people that have poisoned GNOME for years. They think dictating to users what they do and do not like and what they will and will not do is the correct way to design software. They are dead wrong, something the failure of GNOME 3 should have taught them, but just hasn't managed to sink in yet (if it ever does).

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    13. Re:Forced Upgrades? by SomePgmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't feel like it's quite so dramatic... virtually nobody even knows who Mozilla is, and even fewer have any feedback to offer on the workings of their browser. It's just that switching browsers now isn't quite the radical thing it used to be. Aside from making sure you have your bookmarks and maybe two plugins, there's little difference for most people. The days of websites being written with IE-colored glasses on are over, thank christ. I think everyone can thank Firefox (and probably Apple, a bit) for that.

      So people see Chrome ads every 30 seconds, all day, every day. It's fast and intuitive enough, and it's Google, so people use it. The only big, must-have plugins (for those who care) all exist for it. So switching isn't a big deal. Bajillions of people use Safari on iOS because it's what's on their iDevice. The sky doesn't fall in on anyone.

      The funny thing is, a few (most would say very minor) bugs in Chrome that really aggravate me have been there for well over a year now, so I started switching a few machines back to Firefox. It's not the dog it used to be and I don't mind getting updates (maybe I've been conditioned by phone apps). And who knows, maybe I'll be on something else in a year or two. I don't know, and I don't really have to care anymore. That's pretty cool.

    14. Re:Forced Upgrades? by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bad form to reply to oneself, but I forgot my favorite:

      More in the stop dicking around with the UI category, we have an idiot named Carlo Alberto Ferraris to thank for destroying standalone image viewing (when you open an image file directly, or via right-click and View Image). He was so very offended by that page having a white background that he felt it necessary to ruin a feature that's been standard in browsers for over a decade.

      This isn't just an issue of changing something for the sake of change, it's a plain stupid idea in the first place. First, a dark background when most websites and images are very light is jarring. Second, centering the image makes it harder to click on for actions like saving or copying. And third, it destroys the usability of a very common entire class of images.

      Open this image of waveforms in Firefox 13+ to see the problem. Transparent GIFs have the same issue. The solution? Yet another addon to fix stupid Firefox developer mistakes.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    15. Re:Forced Upgrades? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you are on Windows try Pale Moon which has forked away from FF as of V12 because they too grew tired of UI changes. it also has the SSE flags set at compile so its snappier than FF. if you decide instead to go to the Chrome side I'd suggest Comodo Dragon which is Chrome without the phone home.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:Forced Upgrades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hrm - sounds good but I think you mised the point. Nobody complains about a upgrade from 3.6.0 to 3.6.1 that leaves all plugins intact and just fixes bugs or adds new features. Unfortunately this is not what Mozilla is doing. Every new "major" release offers less new stuff than the previous one and to be honest, when I went from 12 to 15, I really couldn't put my finger on a single thing that the new version did better. Some things were different - but different is not better if it doesn't bring you benefits.

    17. Re:Forced Upgrades? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As far as I'm concerned, Firefox has a one-two punch that still makes it the best browser despite a series of dumb changes, like that "awesomebar" crap. But Firebug and its family of extensions are better than anything else for testing your web development, and AdBlock for Firefox has no equal, and those two pieces of functionality mean an awful lot.

      As long as these things remai true, the sites I build will always work and look best in Firefox.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    18. Re:Forced Upgrades? by Zantetsuken · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Seems like somebody should try and actually make their response to this... actually useful and constructive?

      The separate processes for each tab is EXACTLY what makes Chrome superior.

      While my desktop is a 4x core Phenom 2 w/ 4GB of RAM, my laptop that mostly sits around (as I have not needed to refresh it since I don't really need a laptop right now) is a Gateway ultra-light from 2006 - Core Solo ULV (1st gen Core series, single core, 1.3GHz) w/ 1GB of RAM.

      I have a minimalist Debian installation on it running Openbox, WICD, and Chrome - not much else, so that it keeps resources free for actually using it. Chrome runs great, the only thing that chokes it up is if I try to load anything with Flash video (Youtube, etc) and generally I can open as many tabs as I want. And when it does freeze, the browser GUI is still useable to close whatever page does have a flash video loaded.

      Firefox 3.x (that was the last time I had Firefox on that system, about 1.5 years ago?) would choke up just from loading 5 or more tabs - without flash on them. Whats worse, is that on Firefox, when it did freeze, it took the whole interface down with it. There are reasons that Firefox and everybody else is trying to play catch-up to Chrome and include process isolation.

      Also, most web-browsers tend to access web-pages - on the internet... the HDD is really only used for caching pages (and images, etc on them) locally. Why would you think that

      ...all these processes are fighting with one another to get HDD access

      need massive amounts of HDD I/O at all? And how did this even get marked "insightful"?

      I see so many comments on articles about Chrome (not just on this one article either) about "I'm not going to switch just to jump on the Chrome bandwagon!" - its not about jumping on any bandwagon, its that at the moment (and for the past few years now) Chrome really is a better experience.

    19. Re:Forced Upgrades? by jlebar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are on Windows try Pale Moon [palemoon.org] which has forked away from FF as of V12 because they too grew tired of UI changes.

      Firefox is currently at version 14. If you're using Firefox 12, you're using software with known security vulnerabilities.

      It's not clear to me that the Pale Moon guys have actually forked Firefox at version 12; it may just be that they haven't upgraded to the latest version yet. But I seriously doubt that Pale Moon has backported every security fix from FF13 and FF14, and if not, it's insecure.

      If you don't like the possibility of getting UI changes every six weeks, use Firefox ESR, or, for that matter, use IE. But you're not doing yourself any favors by running an insecure web browser.

      it also has the SSE flags set at compile so its snappier than FF

      I can't find the benchmarks on the Pale Moon site anymore, but I looked at them some time ago, and didn't observe that it offered any significant performance improvements. I doubt you'll be able to observe a performance difference due to anything other than the placebo effect.

    20. Re:Forced Upgrades? by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      Noooo it is NOT having "security vulnerabilities" because the Pale Moon devs are fixing holes and porting patches themselves so that is not a problem, and they have already said in their forum they are sticking with the V12 UI because they don't like what the Moz roadmap looks like. Isn't that the point of FOSS? If you don't like the direction you can fork? Well that is what they did, they forked.

      And you can make any "placebo" claims that you want, I've seen with my own eyes the difference on an Athlon X2 I keep at the shop. FF is a little piggy core hog while Pale Moon isn't slamming the shit out of the cores. Most likely that is because PM is using the SSE flags so its using the parts of the core that FF never touches, but in any case FF sucks major ass on older chips like Pentium Ds and Athlon X2s while PM is snappy.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    21. Re:Forced Upgrades? by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 4, Informative

      Firefox version history.

      Note that the 3.6.x lineage continues to receive updates to fix security holes and improve stability. The most recent was March 13, 2012.

      The download is here.

      Install it, set the appropriate update options, and enjoy.

      Best of all, I have yet to encounter an extension that doesn't work with it.

      The trick is to disable extension version checking.

      Most extensions will work fine, even when Firefox says they won't (based on the extension target version number not matching your Firefox version).

  2. Flash by Naatach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know it's Adobe's fail, but Flash is still everywhere. When the browser locks up on Flash sites, it is annoying.

    --
    There may be no "I" in team, but there's also no "F" in way.
    1. Re:Flash by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Kill 'plugin-container.exe' if you're using Firefox. You have to reload the page to get flash working, but the rest of Firefox is unaffected.

  3. So called "UI developers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I used Mozilla back when Mozilla was a browser.

    Then Phoenix came along, and I started using that. Much more lightweight. At some point it got renamed to Firebird. Later on, it became Firefox. All was well. It was a great browser.

    Then at some point in the past, I dunno, 3 years, these UI people (who probably know fuckall about software engineering) got their grubby fingers into the project and started rearranging the entire user interface. A user interface that had looked THE EXACT SAME FOR THE BETTER PART OF A DECADE.

    Then I entered this painful stage of Firefox use, where every time I'd upgrade it, I'd have to fuck around trying to get it to look and act like the browser I'd been using for years. Eventually I realized that they were trying to make it look like Chrome. Then it started wanting me to upgrade it every week. Fuck that. I use a browser to do work, I know for a lot of people the browser is mostly a toy. But I need my tools to be stable, reliable, and behave consistently and predictably.

    So I switched to Chrome. Haven't looked back.

    1. Re:So called "UI developers" by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try SeaMonkey, the old Mozilla suite. It's stable, no frequent updates, no GUI changes every 2 weeks, and actually uses less memory than Firefox. The Firefox UI devs are obviously pretty god damn bad.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  4. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't love or hate Firefox. I just appreciate it for what it's done, what it's represented, and the fact that it's STILL relevant and sharping the web, even in the face of gigantic corporations like Google, Apple, and Microsoft trying to wring the web in their own directions.

    As a browser, it's just one of the good ones.. which is exactly the way I like it. I like having multiple good browsers available, in case one of them can't do something. And Firefox is the all-rounder that does what I need it to when all the cooler new browsers fail.

  5. My love-hate by Lord+Lode · · Score: 5, Informative

    Love: It can browse the web (yeah!). It's multiplatform. It's well maintained. It's up to date with the latest standards. The "3D View" feature in Inspect Element. The many good plugins.

    Hate: A single tab can hang the whole browser. No convenient way to view an image with the wrong MIME type in the browser anyway. Too little and dumbed down settings. No more status bar. Still no good debugging tools, and the plugin Firebug is unhandy and annoying. The weird branding thing they do that caused Archlinux to not call it Firefox but various other lame names in the past (are they for open source or what?). No more innovation (why not try things like multiple tab groups or so instead of "innovating" by removing stuff from the interface?). The Android version sometimes crashes and once made the whole phone reboot after a crash.

    I'm probably missing many things :)

  6. Why are user numbers so different? by mkraft · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This article states that Firefox's user base is shrinking by "significant" numbers and that there are more Chrome users than Firefox users.

    The following article claims Firefox's user base is growing and that there are more Firefox users than Chrome users:
    http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/08/firefox-continues-to-gain-as-internet-explorer-chrome-slide/

    How can both be right?

    1. Re:Why are user numbers so different? by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are two main webstats providers - statcounter, and Net Marketshare. TFA uses the former, Ars Technica uses the latter.

      Statcounter uses 3 million + sites; net marketshare 40,000.
      Statcounter counts total page views, net marketshare counts unique visits per site per user per day.
      Statcounter doesn't weight their stats, net marketshare does by country, using rather elderly CIA stats IIRC.

      Basically, their measurements aren't measuring the same thing. I think weighting by country is a fairly large error, especially as the CIA internet usage stats aren't exactly up to date at times; for example, they don't include substantial chinese mobile device traffic, so can rather drastically weight the stats towards desktop users - and given china is a big holdout of old versions of IE on the desktop, and the substantial size of china's population, that kind of weighting will likely show IE usage higher than it is, which does fit one of the differences. Aditionally, unique visitors is hard to measure, and can also give misleading statistics - if a work user browses a single page at work on their elderly stock IE browser (say, checks the headlines), but then catches up on the same site at home and reads a ton of pages from chrome or their ipad, net marketshare would count that as 50-50 usage between IE and chrome or safari; in reality, they're using their home browser much more, which stat counter would reflect.

      The downside of statcounter's approach is when a browser inflates their page views; for example, the chrome 'pre-fetch' default option was thought to drastically inflate its marketshare, because it was silently fetching pages in the background, most of which weren't ever viewed. Statscounter now correct for that, and it affected chrome's share by a fraction of 1%, so in the end wasn't a large factor.

      While both use plenty large enough samples to be statistically valid, they still have to be representative samples of a very diverse population of browsers and users. I can't help but think a much larger sample is more likely to be representative.

      Overall, while both measures have flaws, I think statcounters methods give a closer approximation to real usage than net marketplace does. That said, I certainly wouldn't use the data from either to two decimal places worth of accuracy on month to month drifts, as many sites (such as ars technica) do - the variation is just not measured that precisely to draw the kind of conclusions that the media often do.

      What can be said is that IE's share is steadily shrinking other than the odd blip, while chrome and firefox have been the primary beneficiaries on the desktop of that - firefox is fairly static or shrinking, chrome is growing. Whether they're neck and neck, or chrome is ahead depends upon your stats. No matter how you measure, IE is below 50%. Safari is the big beast in mobile browsing by a long way.

      Mor than that is rather hard to say with any great reliability.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  7. Admit it... by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Admit it... you hate when articles start with "admit it", as if all potential readers are of one mind. I frankly don't love Firefox, or hate it, or even think about it. Browser's are about as valuable to me as a hammer or a chair. One is pretty much like another. I'll use the one that feels most comfortable to me, and waste no further thought on it.

    1. Re:Admit it... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most importantly, going back 10 years, the fact that we CAN drop our web browser and just fire up a different vendor's browser, and have it render up web pages every bit as well is a huge improvement.

      10 years ago we were bitching that IE6 sucked, but we have no choice, people were designing to it and Netscape couldn't handle that content. Now we're complaining that Firefox has fallen behind, but there's Chrome, Safari and (if you're desparate) IE9. I assume that Microsoft, Mozilla, Google and Apple pay a lot of attention to the usage of their browser, and looking at the shift in market. They will correct issues, while we, the users, can choose the browser that works best.

      This "all or nothing" mentality is absolutely insane. We see it with the tablet/smartphone market, people think there's no room for PCs anymore (as if). We're bitching about Firefox because it's fallen into momentary disarray, so it must be about to combust. No, assuming Mozilla wants to keep firefox dominant, they will fix it. It may take a couple years, but they'll fix it. In the mean time we can hop on Chrome or Safari or whatever is happening now, be happy, and this is all good.

  8. Re:Annoyances by gigaherz · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have never felt those leaks everyone seems to get, but regardless the recent (10+) versions of Firefox have been removing most of the leaks. And many of them weren't happening in the core any more, they were in poorly coded extensions.

  9. Memory hog? by overshoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't get it. Restart Firefox every few hours?

    I run mine for weeks at a stretch with seven or eight windows each with a bunch of tabs. Currently using about 840 MB.

    I have my complaints (the idiot release cycle being high on the list) but memory hogging isn't anywhere near the top.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  10. Re:Annoyances by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We've had this discussion already. FireFox developers denied there were problems, then admitted, then introduced numerous fixes. Memshrink began June 2011 and has shown progress almost every week for over a year.

    https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink

    I left it for a while, then got irritated by Chrome's anemic script-blocking (nothing is temporary). Coming back, I haven't had any problem with memory.

    Because I have script blocking, and settings are stored in a script file, it sometimes fails to restore tabs or browsing sessions if I kill it (for the sole purpose of saving tabs while I reboot or know I won't be browsing for a while). That's mostly user-error, and partly interference from a 3rd-party plugin.

  11. Re:Upgrade to Internet Explorer! by openfrog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    After years of running Firefox on Linux I finally got a job and upgraded to Internet Eplorer running on Windows.

    It's so much better! Thank you Bill!

    After years of running Firefox on Linux I finally got a job and upgraded to Safari running on OS X.

    It's so much better! Thank you Steve!

    See the alternate picture here, that could have been a reality, or that could come back? I am very grateful to Firefox, an open source/collective, and a very successful, effort to get rid of a Microsoft monopoly, and of the horrid experience that IE6 was. We have yet to appreciate the magnitude and the significance of this, even though we all think we understand it.

    For this reason, I am very loyal to Firefox and ready to be patient with minor misdirections.

    Firefox usage might have declined somewhat, but Chrome has speeded up the decline of those who think nothing of public standards, and it is a good thing, provided that Firefox remains strong.

    On the website I manage at the University of Cambridge (granted, those are pretty well educated users), Explorer, all versions confounded, is down to around 25%. I have watched the steady decline of this number month after month over the past few years, with the same contentment every time.

    Evil is not all powerful.

  12. Firefox - spiritual benefits by heretic108 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Firefox is the greatest browser, with advanced features to benefit every user at a profound spiritual level:
    * Its memory bloat teaches us to be mindful of our resources, both within the computer, and our use of our resources in everyday outer life.
    * Its slowness helps teach us patience.
    * When the whole browser freezes up from a bit of incompetent CPU-thrashing javascript code running in one tab, it teaches us to be responsible for our own coding decisions and how they affect others.
    * Its slow startup teaches us that wonderful things don't happen instantly, and that we need to lose our attachment to time

    Stay away from Chrome - it feeds the ego by promoting our addiction to instant gratification

    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
  13. Google = Surveillance, MS = Evil. What's left? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chrome installs invisible shit whenever it wants, watches and records my every move and reports its finding back to the mother ship. Anybody who accepts that kind of thing has had a virtual lobotomy.

    Internet Explorer is and always will be for people who don't mind being manipulated by a giant mega-corp currently run by a fat retard who throws chairs when he doesn't get his way.

    Opera may be great, but I've never needed to bother to try it out, and aren't you supposed to pay for it?

    Firefox runs well, it's free, it has lots of cool bits I can add to personalize it and it's not watching me. What else is there? I don't love it or hate it, but I sure do find it useful without feeling like I'm being used.

    So try this:

    "Admit it, anybody using Chrome or IE has given up thinking or having any self-respect and just does what the machine says like good little bovines."