Firefox 15 Released: Silent Updates, Compressed Textures, Add-on Memory Leak Fix

Mozilla released Firefox 15 today, and it brings a number of interesting changes. First, the browser is finally switching to a "silent" update model, like Chrome. (No doubt in answer to endless complaints about their rapid release cycle.) In addition, Mozilla says they have "now plugged the main cause of memory leaks in Firefox add-ons." Add-ons commonly hold extra copies of sites in memory when they don't need to, and the browser now has a mechanism to detect this and reclaim the memory. Another significant improvement is the addition of native support for compressed textures in WebGL, which is a boost for high-res 3D gaming. Here are release notes for the desktop and mobile versions.

Comments

Yeah for Memory Leak fix

[alphax45]

Installing it now; let's hope it works! Oh and FIRST! :)

DOM inspector

[Kethinov]

Anyone else not able to see live updates to the DOM with the developer tools?

Try this:

1. Right click on the Firefox start page (about:home) around the empty area left of the Firefox logo -> Inspect element.

2. <div id="topSection"> should be selected.

3. Open Tools -> Web Developer -> Web console.

4. Type: document.getElementById('topSection').className = 'hello';

5. Notice the view of the DOM below does not update to reflect the new className you've added.

Additionally, there doesn't seem to be a way to manually edit HTML elements (add attributes, add new HTML, etc) using the DOM inspector like you can in WebKit browsers.

Is this a bug / missing feature or am I doing it wrong?

Re:DOM inspector

[royallthefourth]

They've got to save memory somehow, you know!

Re:DOM inspector

[TheNinjaroach]

Sounds like the DOM Inspector on IE8, completely useless for dynamic content. As an added bonus, I don't think I've ever used it without a crash.

Re:DOM inspector

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a refresh button in IE's DOM inspector making it slightly less useless.

Re:DOM inspector

[sapgau]

Why not use Firebug?

Re:DOM inspector

[thetoadwarrior]

The Firefox dom inspector is a bit shit. I doubt it's a live view unlike Firebug. In fact they shouldn't have bothered and spoke to the firebug guys about integrating it into Firefox.

Re:DOM inspector

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Use Firebug.

Re:DOM inspector

[aztracker1]

Agreed, firebug has been so useful for so very long, it'd be better to just ensure that it keeps working, why bloat the browser for those very few that would need firebug? for that matter, most of the devs in question on Mozilla probably use firebug, so didn't see/notice the shortcomings of the new tool(s).

Re:DOM inspector

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Firebug lives up to its name. Especially the last syllable.

Flash freezing

[Myria]

Did they fix Flash freezing all the time, or is that Adobe's fault?

Re:Flash freezing

[Pieroxy]

Did they fix Flash freezing all the time, or is that Adobe's fault?

It's Adobe. It's like Acrobat Reader, it freezes everything sometimes. That's life.

Re:Flash freezing

[sl4shd0rk]

"Fixing" Flash properly is beyond the capability of mere mortals.

Re:Flash freezing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fixing" Flash properly is beyond the capability of mere mortals.

The only way to fix Flash is to not install it.

Re:Flash freezing

[MagusSlurpy]

Flashblock fixes the problem with Flash freezing. If I could marry it, I would.

Re:Flash freezing

[Urza9814]

That's an Adobe issue, though I haven't seen any problems with it since Flash 11.

Re:Flash freezing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably your fault. I haven't had any issues.

Re:Flash freezing

[Tough Love]

Did they fix Flash freezing all the time, or is that Adobe's fault?

Adobe fixed it by end-of-lifing Flash. Thanks Adobe.

Re:Flash freezing

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the Adobe knowledgebase or many other online sites. Disable Flash's latest-and-greatest ProtectedMode in the .cfg file will fix the freeze.

Re:Flash freezing

[fm6]

I get Flash freezes in Chrome too.

Re:Flash freezing

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod insightful not funny.

I just wish Google would live up to the promise of making the internet better and stop using Flash on YouTube. WTF is up with that? "We're gonna do it" and then they fucking never do... assholes! Fucking someone save us from Adobe already. Flash really is the worst possible way to play a video.

ffmbeg+aalib really is better.
* can do full screen without lagging? check
* can go for longer than 10 secs without crashing? check
* can use system codecs? check
* cross platform? check
What's not to like?

Re:Flash freezing

[Anonymous Coward]

How about flash takes away my scrolling ability whenever I watch an embedded video.

So annoying when your scroll wheel gets disabled!

Re:Flash freezing

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, WOPR.

Re:Flash freezing

[Gavagai80]

There's http://www.youtube.com/html5 but it explains that basically nothing works yet.

Re:Flash freezing

[Anonymous Coward]

You people really overstate how bad flash is for video. I have to wonder what computers you're running on to have fullscreen video constant lagging, crashes every 10 seconds. And system codecs? Is that really a good thing? Back to the days of needing to install system codecs before videos on various websites will work?

Re:Flash freezing

[LordLimecat]

I think they fixed that with a very recent release-- I was getting constant crashes and freezes before the update a couple of days ago. Try restarting chrome to get it if you havent recently.

Re:Flash freezing

[fm6]

Yeah, now that you mention it, it hasn't been a problem recently. Total pain when it was happening though.

Re:Flash freezing

[fahrbot-bot]

"Fixing" Flash properly is beyond the capability of mere mortals.

The only way to fix Flash is to not install it.

Nuke it from orbit...

Re:Flash freezing

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet Chuck Norris could.

Re:Flash freezing

[nebulus4]

How about just go to about:config and set plugins.click_to_play to true to enable opt-ins plugins. I think Mozilla added it in Firefox 14. You can whitelist sites too (Page Info -> Permissions). And they're working on adding the ability to only enable plugins of a specific runtime (Flash, Java, Silverlight, etc).

Re:Flash freezing

[MagusSlurpy]

I didn't realize they'd added that option - I'll have to give it a whirl!

Re:Flash freezing

[nebulus4]

Release target seems to be Firefox 16, according to their wiki page. I had a few issues with a couple of sites in Firefox 15, I haven't tried nightly, but mostly it's working fine.

Re:Flash freezing

[Waccoon]

Not Adobe's fault. Firefox keeps freezing on my machine with all plugins and extensions disabled. I just have to keep surfing image and scripting-heavy sites (like DeviantArt) and once memory usage gets into the 300 MB range, the pauses become noticeable. If you can push memory usage into the 600 MB range, the pauses get so long they're unbearable. A huge history or the number of tabs makes no difference. The length of the pauses are directly proportional to how much memory Firefox is using. BTW, I use Process Explorer to gauge memory usage.

There are two things I don't understand about the Firefox community. First, why people keep yelling at plug-ins for the pauses and memory problems, because that's not where the issues are (reminds me of the MacOS days when everything that went wrong on a Mac was obviously the fault of system extensions). Second, I don't get how people can keep 50+ tabs open and use Firefox for days. I do a cold start of Firefox every day, and after 15 minutes of surfing without any tabs, memory usage gets up to 300+ MB and the pauses start to show up. I usually restart Firefox every 15-30 minutes.

Re:Flash freezing

[RocketRabbit]

Pretty much every computer already comes with these codecs you god damned idiot.

SILENT updates?

[courcoul]

Last thing I need is for an idiot in some far and distant place to think it fun to roll out a new version and trigger an update on all my computers that may render all the corporate apps unusable. No, thank you. FF joins Chrome in the sandboxed "use only if indispensable" bin.

Re:SILENT updates?

[gweihir]

Indeed. Automatic updates are already a very bad idea. Making them silent is the hight of stupidity.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, turn it off?

If your managing multiple computers, PLEASE tell me you know how to turn these sorts of features off.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Kethinov]

It's a default, not a mandate. If it doesn't benefit you, like it benefits the vast majority of Firefox users, then turn it off, FFS.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Pieroxy]

You know you can disable that on Chrome, right? It's not even complicated. Here is a guide for the administrators.

I'm sure you can also disable it on Firefox as well.

There's no need to put them in the bin at all, at least not for that reason.

Re:SILENT updates?

[wonkey_monkey]

If only there was some way of disabling automatic updates. Oh wait, there is, problem solved.

Re:SILENT updates?

[sinij]

Not only corporate. I have dedicated banking machine running Chrome (decision was made back when it was the only major browser using sand boxing) that is only used couple times a month. Silent updates majorly bog it down. Yes, if I cared enough I'd find a way to block it.

Can someone tell me what the difference between Firefox and Chrome these days? I want my supported 3.6 back.

Re:SILENT updates?

[lister king of smeg]

you could always use their extended release version that is supported for one year.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/

Re:SILENT updates?

[CimmerianX]

Just turn them off. Same thing we do with Window Servers. Download updated but let me choose when to install them.

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/tutorials/disable-silent-updates-in-firefox/

Re:SILENT updates?

[characterZer0]

If you are managing multiple computers, PLEASE tell me the end users do not have write access to the browser executables in the first place.

Re:SILENT updates?

[linebackn]

Last thing I need is for an idiot in some far and distant place to think it fun to roll out a new version and trigger an update on all my computers that may render all the corporate apps unusable.

And that is why you should download and install the Firefox Extended Support Release: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/all.html instead of their version-of-the-month.

Hopefully future ESR releases will remain able to manage updates.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's a dedicated banking machine, and you "don't care enough" I really hope it's your own company or personal banking you're talking about (i.e. the scope of potential damage is yourself, and you're not actually getting paid to do IT).

Re:SILENT updates?

[rwven]

Chrome has been doing them since, like, forever. I think it's fantastic, personally. I dont want the browser to nag me when it's time to update. Just do it...

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm ready to blackhole mozilla's domain on my DNS because 3.6 keeps updating to the new craptastic versions, without asking me anything.

If I wanted to update, I would. I don't. Leave me alone.

Re:SILENT updates?

[jmorris42]

Yea, that is kinda lame. But it won't bother me because all of the Linux versions gut all of the auto update crap, even the new version available nags.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Cro Magnon]

Until an update breaks something, and you don't even know Chrome is what updated.

Re:SILENT updates?

[sinij]

No, it is my personal banking, and I "don't care enough" to disable security feature - auto-update of Chrome because while I see it as unnecessary and inconvenient in my usecase, it is not detrimental to security to keep it on.

While I might not actively remember security benefit, I do remember inconvenience of waiting for it to update. Blame human psychology.

Decision process is following: Inconvenience of slow Chrome startups due to updating Vs. Inconvenience with disabling it and remembering to keep track of necessary updates.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Obfuscant]

Chrome has been doing them since, like, forever. I think it's fantastic, personally. I dont want the browser to nag me when it's time to update. Just do it...

You probably also don't have 100 computer semi-literates using Chrome for mission critical applications that will all call you at the same time when those mission critical apps stop working.

Automatic updates are fine for people who don't care if the program stops working for some unexplained reason, or who can either debug the problem themselves or put off finding a solution until they have some free time. Or for people who make a living off of debugging other people's computer problems.

Automatic updates are dangerous for high reliability systems, mission critical applications, or anything that is supposed to run unattended. Anyone who has worked in IT for any length of time will have memories of when some program decided to update itself and made itself fail. (E.g., "Firefox has detected that the following plugins are incompatible with the current version and disabled them:")

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need a guide to do it, it is complicated...

Re:SILENT updates?

[webheaded]

If needing a small guide on how to do something makes it "complicated" then you shouldn't be an IT administrator.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

For FF 15, it's as simple as deselecting the optional update service during installation. Furthermore, you can choose how to update through Options > Advanced > Updates.

Re:SILENT updates?

[dayton967]

to disable just change app.update.silent to false, in about:config

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome has been doing them since, like, forever. I think it's fantastic, personally. I dont want the browser to nag me when it's time to update. Just do it...

2008. Chrome has been doing them since 2008. That's not forever. In fact, there are programs I've deliberately avoided updating since 2008. Because that's the point where updates to things I don't care about starting breaking things I do care about.

Re:SILENT updates?

[thetoadwarrior]

You don't have to have it but it's sensible that is the default rather than letting everyone stay stuck on some ancient version. If someone wants to be completely backwards and live with something that's going out of date then let them choose to do that and enable it but for the others that don't care or want it to update itself, upgrade them

Re:SILENT updates?

[thetoadwarrior]

But I just want half to story so I have something I can bitch about.

Re:SILENT updates?

[thetoadwarrior]

3.6 was shit. Take the rose-tinted glasses off.

Re:SILENT updates?

[sinij]

Perhaps, but was long-lasting shit and by the end of it I developed acquired taste.

I guess I have a lot of inertia.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably also don't have 100 computer semi-literates using Chrome for mission critical applications that will all call you at the same time when those mission critical apps stop working.

If it weren't for the fact that you are almost certainly developing your critical apps wrongly, then you'd have a point. All my critical apps work without being specific to any particular browser. And by that I mean that I actually send the same shit to every browser. When you stop developing for specific browsers it's amazing how stable and robust your code gets.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last thing I need is for an idiot in some far and distant place to think it fun to roll out a new version and trigger an update on all my computers that may render all the corporate apps unusable. No, thank you. FF joins Chrome in the sandboxed "use only if indispensable" bin.

Considering that these updates often fix security issues, not updating may mean a hacker can destroy your business.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome has been doing them since, like, forever. I think it's fantastic, personally. I dont want the browser to nag me when it's time to update. Just do it...

You probably also don't have 100 computer semi-literates using Chrome for mission critical applications that will all call you at the same time when those mission critical apps stop working.

Automatic updates are fine for people who don't care if the program stops working for some unexplained reason, or who can either debug the problem themselves or put off finding a solution until they have some free time. Or for people who make a living off of debugging other people's computer problems.

Automatic updates are dangerous for high reliability systems, mission critical applications, or anything that is supposed to run unattended. Anyone who has worked in IT for any length of time will have memories of when some program decided to update itself and made itself fail. (E.g., "Firefox has detected that the following plugins are incompatible with the current version and disabled them:")

I guess this is why my company still used IE6 until earlier this year. 1 app we needed required it, and every other app suffered for it. I probably lost hundreds of productions hours because of waiting for things to load in IE6 that ended up just not working after 2-3 minutes. Now we're 'finally' on IE8, and I've installed portable Chrome for my own use, if something doesn't work in Chrome I'll fallback on the IT sanctioned IE8.

Re:SILENT updates?

[hobarrera]

The auto-updating is windows-only, and even there, you could just disable it (by unchecking a checkbox).

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I use a OS that has a log of all updates. (AC because I modded)

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're stupid. You could have easily just clicked "custom", then unchecked "install maintenance service" instead of dropping Firefox. And there are ways, though far less simple, to do the same in Chrome, unless they've broken them lately.

Seriously, do people even bother doing a 5 second search query before they open their fat, entitled mouths anymore?

Re:SILENT updates?

[msimm]

Then, as a admin: about:config app.update.auto = false

Re:SILENT updates?

[flimflammer]

It's easy enough to find out.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Darinbob]

So will this be an option that I can turn off? I've noticed several tools lately that want to default to automatic updates, and each time they'll present a window of choices (automatic, notify only, disable) and each time the automatic update option is chosen as the default. This can be a huge vector for malware of course (by this I mean yahoo or google toolbars being installed without your permissions).

Here's the snag. If I upgrade to find out if it has this option I will be unable to downgrade. There is no downgrade for Firefox. I'd have to restore from a backup.

Remember some of these Firefox releases have been duds. I think it was Firefox 12 or 13 that was just so slow and buggy that I had to revert to an older version. (of course someone will pipe in and claim that it worked perfectly for them and that I must be a troll)

Re:SILENT updates?

[thetoadwarrior]

I don't get that. It's not like browsers are a self contained application, like Photoshop, where you can easily get by on Photoshop 6 for years past it's last support date.

A web browsers sole purpose is to display content and content that is always updating. Forgetting the issue of web apps, html, css and js are updating.

And browsers are now a free application. It's not something you can charge money for and then reasonably be expected to spend time back porting new things to old versions. Netscape tried that and Microsoft killed off any chance of selling a browser. So I just can't see how anyone can expect money and resources being wasted on supporting a version of the browser very few people even use.

Perhaps if you donate a million to them they'll consider it but until then I think people just need to realise it doesn't make sense to stay on an old browser. Especially one that was leaky and just is not up to the job rendering a lot of popular sites (including this one).

Re:SILENT updates?

[Darinbob]

Yes, Chrome has been doing this for a long time. However that does not negate the assertion that doing this is the height of stupidity.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

I run firefox 3.6 because IE doesn't work with UltraVNC for me. It is the only reason I use firefox which is a complete pile of shit. I have a theory that Microsoft infiltrated firefox and destroyed it (it worked too hehe).

You can turn off updates in 3.6.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent informative.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Chrome not IE. If an update makes your corporate apps unusable you need to fire your devs.

If an IE update makes your corporate apps unusable you need to fire your Windows Server Admins for being stupid enough to run IE corporate-wide.

Re:SILENT updates?

[LordLimecat]

Last thing I need is for an idiot in some far and distant place to think it fun to roll out a new version and trigger an update on all my computers that may render all the corporate apps unusable.

As always and as with Chrome, there are mechanisms for blocking the update if you really need to.

For everyone else, this is probably the best feature to be added in a very long time. The silent updates are why I recommended Chrome everywhere; expecting the user to care or respond to update requests was asinine. In a world where a bad google search can very easily lead to a drive-by-malware site, automatic patches to fix 0-days is a really really good idea. MOST of the viruses I see are on machines where either the brower or plugins were out of date.

Re:SILENT updates?

[LordLimecat]

I take it you never go on the frontlines to deal with the rampant malware problem on the internet.

If this is an issue for you, do your reasearch and turn on the flags to block updates. From the current firefox version:
FirefoxButton-->Options; Advanced, Update; Click "Never Check for updates (not recommended: security risk)", and uncheck "use a background service to install updates".

According to Resource Monitor, this changes a setting in your profile's prefs.js, which if I had to guess would be these two:

user_pref("app.update.auto", false);
user_pref("app.update.enabled", false);

There, 3 minutes of research and I found out how to block this company wide (you can push a prefs.js to the firefox install directory and it becomes globally enforced; Im not taking the time to find out where that is). Push it from GPO, youre all set.

Honestly, the knee-jerk, "I refuse to research the options for myself" reactions from slashdot get old sometimes.

Re:SILENT updates?

[LordLimecat]

Then you turn off automatic updates. Honestly, I prefer that youtube or something breaks for all of 2 days once a year, versus having to worry about malware doing a driveby exploit. But to each his own, I suppose.

Re:SILENT updates?

[rwven]

That's precisely what I meant by "forever." Chrome was launched in 2008...and it's been doing it its whole life. Forever.

Re:SILENT updates?

[LordLimecat]

Automatic updates are dangerous for high reliability systems, mission critical applications, or anything that is supposed to run unattended.

....Which is why in those situations you set the preference to disable auto-updates, and push that out via GPO.

Seriously guys this isnt rocket science.

Re:SILENT updates?

[LordLimecat]

FYI: The updates are now done by the Mozilla Updater Service (or whatever its called), which runs with SYSTEM rights. In most cases this is brilliant, as it lets the program update without the program itself ever having admin. In all other cases, you can turn it off.

Re:SILENT updates?

[LordLimecat]

You could also use the extensive GPO ADM templates that chrome has, if that sort of thing floats your boat.

Re:SILENT updates?

[LordLimecat]

auto-update of Chrome because while I see it as unnecessary and inconvenient in my usecase, it is not detrimental to security to keep it on.

You might not be aware of this, but like every piece of software ever written-- with the possible exception of Hello World-- Chrome has had numerous security flaws, and has fixed them via updates.

Turning off updates makes you quite vulnerable indeed, and all the more so because those Chrome updates also update Flash and the built in PDF reader which are extensively targetted by malware.

TL;DR- enjoy your botnet.

Re:SILENT updates?

[SEE]

I want my supported 3.6 back.

Grab the Firefox 10 Extended Support Release and revert to the 3.6 look-and-feel.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome for mission critical applications

Why the hell do your "mission critical applications" have ANYTHING to do with a web browser?

Computing: You're Doing It Wrong.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Nick Nethercote]

There's an option to turn it off. This is Firefox, which always has options for that sort of thing, unlike some other browsers.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't be building "mission critical applications" around a web browser. That's your first problem.

Re:SILENT updates?

[chromaexcursion]

Strangely enough, the people who really know better are give an option. On the Nightly channel I'm prompted when an update is available, though it does nag me when I say no. That said, I get an update almost every day.... I've had these "new" features for a few months.

Re:SILENT updates?

[cheesybagel]

Yes it can be turned off.

Re:SILENT updates?

[sinij]

Now explain to me why dedicated machine only used for banking would need to keep flash, PDF reader and vulnerabilities fixed on next-day kind of schedule? Now let me assure, I don't bank with Nigerian princes, so twice a year cumulative security update seems reasonable to me.

You might disagree with me, but it is undeniable that silent updates attempt to take away freedom of such choice as to when to upgrade away from me.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they _can_ fix it, if they are doing so during work hours then they are wasting company resources.

At home, I run Gentoo with a lot of package masking disabled, resulting in most packages being beta versions (or even nightly sometimes). At work, I use the most stable configuration I can think of on the machines I administrate myself. Whenever there is an update, I have already had a well tested configuration of that program running at home for days or weeks, and thanks to SSH reconfiguration is done in a matter of seconds.

This is especially useful with Firefox, as Mozilla for some reason believes that all about:config settings (including those related to Big Brother) should be reset to the defaults every single release.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

then why won't you use Firefox ESR ?

Re:SILENT updates?

[LordLimecat]

Now explain to me why dedicated machine only used for banking would need to keep flash, PDF reader and vulnerabilities fixed on next-day kind of schedule? Now let me assure, I don't bank with Nigerian princes, so twice a year cumulative security update seems reasonable to me.

Because you dont know what will happen on your banks website. Every day you connect to it, you are blindly trusting that their security has not been compromised in any way-- that they have NO user-generated content (forums, questions, reviews), that NO website hacks have taken place, that no ads or third-party websites are referenced on their site, etc.

If ANY of those are not the case, you open the door to immediate rooting. One hidden embeeded flash is enough to root a machine with out of date plugins; at that point the only question is if it was a userland rooting, or a system-wide rooting (hopefully you dont run as admin).

Whatever you thought you had learned about internet security is woefully out of date. You simply cannot trust that any website you visit, ever, is safe. You need to run as non admin, remove any unnecessary plugins, and update those that are necessary. If this is a bank-only site, I recommend you turn off all plugins in about:plugins. Thats just the friendly advice of a person who does this stuff for a living; you are, of course, free to ignore it.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Replying as anonymous not to blow previous mods: go to Tools => Options => Advanced => Update and select "Check for updates, but let me choose whether to install them" or even "Never check for updates" if you don't want the silent updates.

It seems to me that any remotely technical person can handle such level of configuration. And naive users will leave the default silent update, which will be safer for all (an owned PC can make trouble for others, not only the owner).

Re:SILENT updates?

[Xest]

I have Firefox installed on my home and work PCs, last time they auto-updated despite them having always had exactly the same configuration options set, the UI changed different on both.

They're identical versions according to Help -> About, they're running on the same OS, which has the same UI settings set, and as I say, they even have the same settings set themselves.

Yet on my work PC, the back button is a big round circle, and the next button is invisible until it's active, though greys out once it's appeared and is irrelevant. On my home PC the back buttons are identically sized, square, and always visible.

If Mozilla can't even keep the UI consistent between different systems with identical configuration when they update them silently then I don't have much confidence in their auto-update process.

You're right, silent-update is an awful change. More so if you're trying to deal with web site development and the version changes on you part way through and causes a rendering change such that you mistake the sudden change as an obscure bug in your code.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like a highly obvious, easily discovered way to disable auto-updates.

This must be FOSS' famous attention to ease of use and usability I've heard about.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Xest]

The point is with something like IE you would be able to do it with your existing management tools (i.e. group policies).

If it's more complicated then it's not that an IT admin can't do it, but why should they do it when the tools that come bundled with the OS do it better?

If the FOSS community wants to beat Microsoft, it needs to do better than Microsoft, not worse. I've seen many shops stick to using the likes of IE for exactly this reason.

Re:SILENT updates?

[aled]

Silent updates you say? I don't remember hearing about them... ;-)

Re:SILENT updates?

[gweihir]

As long as you are not doing anything important, that is fine. But basically, silent automatic updates turn the software into a service instead. That means you have zero autonomity and always need the service provider to be on the ball. If they drop it, you are dependent on them to fix it. It can break at surprising times in surprising ways with no warning.

Now, of course that is what Google wants and hence Chrome would have this. As long as Google lives, Chrome will work well and Google makes all their money from services. There are quite a few people though that do not use Chrome for these reasons. But Firefox is a different kind of bird and I think the Firefox people do neither understand what they have done now, nor can they support the implicit promises they have made by that step.

Re:SILENT updates?

[gweihir]

Your take is wrong. And you have not thought his through. What you are entirely miss is that silent updates push new vulnerabilities to everybody fast. For run-of-the-mill fixes, it may indeed be a good idea. But get it wrong, and it allows for a global melt-down of every firefox installation (and likely the attached systems).

It also means that Firefox cannot be used for anything that needs to work anymore. Sure, initially you can just turn the automated silent updates off. But in the long term, unless they manage to roll-out updates specifically for those not using automated updates, it means no updates anymore. Not good.

This does not even take into account that the mechanism is basically a backdoor into the system that is not under user control (except for those that are advanced users). Just imagine what will happen if somebody manages to break into the update mechanism and abuse it. For many intents and purposes, Firefox now needs to be seen as malware.

Re:SILENT updates?

[deergomoo]

Automatic updates are only bad in corporations, where it matters much more if something goes even slightly wrong. They are a brilliant idea for home use, given that your average user cannot be counted on to update anything at all.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohh, so you don't have a bank account witht those cool flash animations? You should try them, they look very cool and modern.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Security vs stability is always a game of compromises, any administrator can tell you this, and don't kid yourself - administrators know there often are vulnerable applications in production, but upgrading those applications sometimes breaks existing infrastructure. So we isolate them to safe networks or firewall them off whenever possible. Some systems are so critical that production quite literally stops dead in it's tracks if they cease to work, and the bigger the company is the more money is at stake when these everything stops.

Consider this scenario: I used to work at Ericsson in the AXE division. Each machine built is worth triple the amount of what you make in an entire year (or waaaay more, depending on what you are building/testing). On the production floor, at any given time, there might be 20 or so of these extremely expensive machines in their last stage of testing before they are shipped out to the customer. You are the technician responsible for the network and you've spotted a security bug in the version of PHP that runs the web-frontend we all use to record the final details (serialnumbers etc.) about these machines before they're shipped out, but in your zeal to fix security bugs you patched PHP and now all of a sudden it no longer works. THAT my friend, is what you're dealing with. You do the math, how much money do you suppose is at stake, and who do you think they'll blame? We're talking millions of $$. Not only will the 20+ guys testing these machines tear you a new one, but you also have about 5 bosses waiting in line to do the same.

These production lines might have graveyard shifts and can be active 24/7 so there is no "safe" period for you to test your PHP update, and there's no way for you to know for certain that it'll have no negative effects during load even though it seems to work fine on your test rig (assuming you are even allowed to have one). Of course, in this scenario it isn't really your fault, you didn't design the system with a single point of failure because it was already there when you started your job. And security bugs should be fixed, we all know that, but when you think about what's at stake.. get the picture?

Re:SILENT updates?

[LordLimecat]

I take it you never do windows updates or use repositories. Those are, to use your terminology, "basically backdoors".

Re:SILENT updates?

[Cro Magnon]

I'm not worried about breaking youtube. I'm worried about breaking that web-based accounting package that the boss uses all the time.

Re:SILENT updates?

[sinij]

All well-meaning advice is appreciated.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Lennie]

Maybe what you need for your business is Firefox Extended Support Release ?:

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/

Re:SILENT updates?

[Lennie]

4 words:
Firefox Extended Support Release

Re:SILENT updates?

[LordLimecat]

That being the case I would advise you a little further: We are no longer in the days of "twice a year updates". Hackers get paid probably several times what you make in a year to keep their exploits up to date, on a daily schedule. Every day Norton, McAfee, and all the rest update their databases; and every day the virus writers re-compile their viruses in order to evade those definitions. Being one day out of date is now a gigantic problem-- which itself creates huge headaches for those of us who try to prevent infections.

It would astonish you just how rapidly threats emerge, are fixed, and then become old. You will see phishing emails with links to sites that are live one hour, and are taken down by enforcement teams the next; and threats which actively try to determine if you are reverse-engineering them and block those attempts. The level of efficiency and sophistication we are dealing with on both the White- and Black-hat sides would amaze you.

Thats why I get a little riled up about the idea that twice-annual updates are enough. Its not because someone not in the biz SHOULD know better; its because you NEED to know better if progress will ever be made. The beautiful thing about this recent trend of "update often, update silent" is that it goes a long way towards taking the burden off of the end user to need to know ANY of this, and allows the IT staff to make that decision with less hassle. We can choose to do nothing-- and in that case Mozilla's sane defaults will keep a large number of users from being horribly vulnerable; or we can block the update, in which case we presumably are taking the onus on ourselves to maintain an update schedule. In either case, it is a net win in the fight against malware, botnets, and spam.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, I have to work with a number of appliances that provide web-based interfaces that are particularly picky about the browser they talk to. I have no idea why they do this, as none of the UIs provide anything that couldn't be implemented with browser-agnostic, basic html tags. (I have a rant about this but I'm holding it back.)

Chrome never works with these appliances, and Firefox stopped working after one of it's many update cycles. That leaves me with IE. So I have IE to talk to these stupid boxes, and Chrome to browse the web. I haven't bothered to install Firefox since I got a new PC.

Re:SILENT updates?

[sinij]

Interesting read.

This reminds me of an old SF idea that true AI would emerge from escalation of spam bots vs. spam filters. Thankfully I haven't seen spam in a long while, all it took is selling my privacy down the google river.

Re:SILENT updates?

[sinij]

Point I was trying to make is that until we centralized and aggregated spam-fighting, the problem of not getting spam looked unresolvable. I still remember my e-mailbox from late 90s...

Re:SILENT updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are managing multiple computers, PLEASE tell me the end users do not have write access to the browser executables in the first place.

I don't know why this was marked as insightful. Chrome installs to the user's appdata folder, locally, which they always have full control of.

Re:SILENT updates?

[webheaded]

How precisely do they integrate non-Microsoft programs with Microsoft management tools? That's just laziness really. Someone doesn't want to have to do it because they can't do it all from one place. I mean I understand it, but that isn't really a proper excuse is it? You can't expect other companies make their programs integrate with Microsoft's management tools.

Maybe some companies do, I dunno. I don't even know what would be involved in that (fees, huge pain in the ass to integrate, require Microsoft's permission, etc etc). Hell maybe you can find a way to make it work with their tools if you used a little bit of ingenuity.

Re:SILENT updates?

[denbesten]

The downside, of course, is the admin who turns it off and then never updates. Eventually, malware catches up to the vulnerabilities that have not been fixed in the now obsolete version. Since the version is uniformly applied across your organization, the infection spreads like wildfire. Been there, mopped up after that mess.

The thing I have long wished for is a setting to delay automatic updates for 24-48 hours on the PCs belonging to users who do not make good guinea pigs. That way, automatic updates can be left on to save our bacon, but we have a fighting chance of blocking a bad update.

Also, this is a much easier problem in the world of web broswers because there is a possibility of putting up a "use firefox till chrome is fixed" announcement. OS patches are a bigger concern because one generally does not have a ready alternative.

Re:SILENT updates?

[Xest]

"How precisely do they integrate non-Microsoft programs with Microsoft management tools?

Easily, Microsoft provides a plethora of tools and APIs to do exactly this.

"That's just laziness really. Someone doesn't want to have to do it because they can't do it all from one place. I mean I understand it, but that isn't really a proper excuse is it?"

Possibly not, but sadly people are lazy. Though you might argue it's not simply laziness but about cost and efficiency. I used to work on a network of over 5,000 systems, wanting to do it all from one place was less about laziness and more about spending only a few minutes of your time configuring something on every single system rather than the best part of a year. It is these big networks that make an impact on browser uptake too - it doesn't matter if 20 small companies with 10 PCs switch to Firefox, it's when the 5,000, and 10,000 computer networks switch that matters, and you need centralised management to do that.

"You can't expect other companies make their programs integrate with Microsoft's management tools."

Why? It's the de-facto standard for the vast majority of business networks across the globe. Not supporting that is just silly.

"Maybe some companies do, I dunno."

Most do, anti-virus vendors are an obvious example, they pretty much all have an enterprise offering that integrates directly into existing tools.

"I don't even know what would be involved in that (fees, huge pain in the ass to integrate, require Microsoft's permission, etc etc)."

None of this, all the required tools are available freely and no permission needed. Microsoft's active directory is designed to be extensible from the outset in this manner.

Re:SILENT updates?

[webheaded]

Touche. This is a well reasoned argument and I can see your point of view. I still think it's not a huge deal to deal with those settings when need be and I'm sure you can find ways if you're clever to do it with Microsoft's tools.

My work does it and they never want to do shit with our computers (biiig company). I'm actually amazed that we have Firefox...I think they just deployed it with some .ini files that set things the way they want (proxy settings, disable updates, disable addons, etc). I guess we'll see how that works with the silent updates. :)

Upgrades wipe out my login cookies!

[jimwelch]

Every time Firefox upgrades, it wipes out my login cookies. It forces me to re-login to my sites. Is there a way to turn this dictator off?

Re:Upgrades wipe out my login cookies!

[gweihir]

Install Opera instead. There is a very small number of sites with problems, most work just fine.

Re:Upgrades wipe out my login cookies!

[jimwelch]

Maybe it is one of my add-ons: BeefTaco?

Re:Upgrades wipe out my login cookies!

[Troy Roberts]

No doubt, you have "Clear history when Firefox closes" checked on the options Privacy tab.

Re:Upgrades wipe out my login cookies!

[jimwelch]

Nope! I just verified it is "firefox will remember history"

Re:Upgrades wipe out my login cookies!

[thetoadwarrior]

It's never done that for me on Windows,Mac or Linux.

Re:Upgrades wipe out my login cookies!

[Anonymous Coward]

Some sites do that; some others don't. I suspect it's a server issue.

Re:Upgrades wipe out my login cookies!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you try the Reset Firefox button in about:support? You do have to be careful, because you will loose extensions and some other information, but it should preserve your passwords and cookies. Get the details here:

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix-most-problems

Re:Upgrades wipe out my login cookies!

[denbesten]

FF15 just auto-installed on my machine. When I clicked relaunch, it re-logged into my sites, including those which do not survive quitting the browser (e.g. those that use session cookies). So, it is possible for it to work right.

If the failing site is publicly accessible (e.g. slashdot), it might be helpful to submit a report into bugzilla.

Next...

[indre1]

Hope they fix the running process error before going any further, it's the next most annoying thing after WinRAR's evaluation period!

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-already-running-not-responding

I don't take this as a solution:
If Firefox did not shut down normally when you last used it, Firefox might still be running in the background, even though it is not visible. Restart your computer to see if the problem goes away.

Re:Next...

[sapgau]

Or kill it from the Task Manager.

Or wait until your disk drive light dies down...

Re:Next...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about learning to use task manager for a change? Or 7zip for that matter? You know that you OUGHT TO PAY for using trialware like WinRar further past evaluation, right? (not justifying the annoying FF bug tho, even tho I havent ran into it for versions now)

Re:Next...

[indre1]

Or kill it from the Task Manager.

Or wait until your disk drive light dies down...

So it's normal that when stopping your car engine for a minute, you have to go open up the bonnet and turn some large crank or wait until the engine cools down to restart the engine?
I'm just saying that most other Windows applications have managed to bypass this nonsense...

Re:Next...

[Hatta]

Why are you using WinRar when 7zip exists?

Re:Next...

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's normal that when stopping your car engine for a minute, you have to go open up the bonnet and turn some large crank or wait until the engine cools down to restart the engine?

Only if you drive a Ford.

Re:Next...

[Anonymous Coward]

WinRar is nigger free code, whereas 7zip was developed by negroes for negroes.

Re:Next...

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I gotta ask, if you can time-travel from the '80s when that was still a joke, why did you choose to come to the year 2012?

Re:Next...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Mozilla could just fix their shitty program. Name any other major piece of software that requires you to kill it from the task manager after already properly shutting it down.

Re:Next...

[Waccoon]

What's really fun is that on the rare occasion when this happens, the browser uses 100% of one of my CPU cores. Obviously, this is some sort of endless loop or race condition.

I always know when Firefox doesn't shut down properly, because when I close the browser, my CPU fan spins up. Oops -- gotta Ctrl-Alt-Del again.

Re:Next...

[aled]

Why are you using WinRar when 7zip exists?

Why anyone is still using the RAR format is beyond me.

Re:Next...

[higuita]

for those in stuck in the last decade, 7z and xz are the most powerful (common) compressions today.

if you need compression ratio, use then, if you need compatibility, use the plain old .zip (and tar.gz)

Where is 64-bit version?

[Spy Handler]

It's been what, six years since 64-bit OSes became norm? Why can't Firefox devs make a 64-bit version?

32-bit Firefox runs like crap on Win7. I use this ajax grid in my pages, and it runs smooth as glass on XP. The same page viewed on Win7 Firefox is slow and jerky. There's something wrong with the way Firefox renders javascript when running under a 64-bit OS.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

That grid runs fine for me on 64-bit.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Pieroxy]

What is wrong with that grid on your FF? It runs smoothly on my 64 bit Linux on Firefox.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can test that in a nightly build right now. You can also follow the progress of official 64-bit Firefox on Windows.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Water Fox. Google it.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[CritterNYC]

Something is wrong with your computer. That grid works perfectly fine in 32-bit Firefox.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[daremonai]

They do make 64-bit versions for Windows and Linux as part of the nightly builds. There are also a couple of projects which make "optimized" versions of some of these - Pale Moon (palemoon.org) and Waterfox (waterfoxproject.org).

The biggest issue with the 64-bit versions is that they only run 64-bit plugins, unless you use something like nspluginwrapper (nspluginwrapper.org).

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[robmv]

try disabling hardware acceleration on the preferences panel, if it works ok try to update your video drivers, I had problems with old buggy drivers on some pages

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Spy Handler]

That grid runs fine for me on 64-bit.

The demo only has a few lines. Once the grid gets to 50 lines or so, it gets very jerky while scrolling up and down on Win7. On XP it's very smooth even with a thousand lines.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Spy Handler]

I made a static page version of my grid - see here - it contains >50 lines.

If you view this in Firefox on XP, it's super smooth. If you're running 64-bit version of Win7 and use Firefox (32-bit) to view, its very jerky and slow while scrolling up and down.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Spy Handler]

Try this on your 64-bit Linux: grid containing >50 lines

Try scrolling up and down. On XP, it's super smooth. On 64-bit version of Win7 and Firefox (32-bit), its very jerky and slow when scrolling.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Pieroxy]

Perfectly smooth on my 64bit Linux and Firefox as well as SeaMonkey. Something's awry on your system I think.

How can you tell your FF is 32 bit? Are they all?

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Spy Handler]

All Firefox releases are 32-bit (unless you got the nightly test version).

If it runs fine on your 64-bit Linux then I guess it might be a Win7-specific problem. I've tried it on three different Win7 systems and they all do the same thing.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[aitan]

I tested with Firefox (actually Aurora) in Win7 64 bits and I don't notice any problem. So maybe it's a problem with the drivers of your graphic card?

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this on your 64-bit Linux:

No problem here, 64-bit Gentoo with FF10. Scrolls smoothly and I can even scroll it faster than I can discern data.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Win7 firefox 14.0.1 64-bit, scrolls smooth whether I drag the scrollbar or click in the trough.
Mint12 firefox 14.0.1 64-bit pretty much the same, maybe slightly more fluid when dragging the scrollbar compared to Win7.

The Win7 page took noticeably longer to load though.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest issue with the 64-bit versions is that they only run 64-bit plugins, unless you use something like nspluginwrapper (nspluginwrapper.org).

That is out of date information. The 64-bit builds (Waterfox & Pal Moon) are compatible with all standard 32-bit extensions.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfectly smooth on my 64 bit Ubuntu 12.04 w/ 2.5 GHz Core2 Duo & Nvidia GeForce 9400. (AC because I modded)

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just checked with 64-bit FF10.0.6 on 64-bit Linux. Nice and smooth here!

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll also chime in on this... I just tested using that grid and everything is perfectly smooth for me in Firefox on win7 64 bit.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

It's fairly smooth to me, although I can tell that it's not as smooth as it should be. I ran Firebug's profiler on this, Win 7 x64, 32-bit FF 15, this is an approx 2 second scroll using a mouse drag on the scroll thumb:

Function Calls Percent Own Time Time Avg Min Max File anonymous 50 38.89% 2.017ms 2.773ms 0.055ms 0.026ms 0.536ms dhtmlxgrid.js (line 60) anonymous 31 24.16% 1.253ms 2.039ms 0.066ms 0.031ms 0.264ms dhtmlxgrid.js (line 443) anonymous 81 14.04% 0.728ms 1.018ms 0.013ms 0.003ms 0.041ms dhtmlxcommon.js (line 891) anonymous 50 8.1% 0.42ms 0.42ms 0.008ms 0.006ms 0.015ms dhtmlxgrid.js (line 63) anonymous 50 5.65% 0.293ms 3.066ms 0.061ms 0.028ms 0.604ms dhtmlxgrid.js (line 287) anonymous 31 4.88% 0.253ms 0.29ms 0.009ms 0.005ms 0.027ms dhtmlxcommon.js (line 902) anonymous 32 2.85% 0.148ms 0.148ms 0.005ms 0.001ms 0.044ms dhtmlxgrid.js (line 287) anonymous 31 0.71% 0.037ms 0.037ms 0.001ms 0ms 0.002ms style.html (line 46) anonymous 1 0.39% 0.02ms 0.082ms 0.082ms 0.082ms 0.082ms dhtmlxgrid.js (line 287) anonymous 1 0.35% 0.018ms 0.062ms 0.062ms 0.062ms 0.062ms dhtmlxgrid.js (line 104)

If you copy/paste that code block, it'll be formatted into readable columns. Compare it with your own run, see what the difference is.

From a quick look, the majority of the time seems to be spent in some janky event system that involves string concatenation and lowercasing for every event fire. Bleugh. I like the end result, it's an impressive grid, and I'm sure they had their reasons, but man working in JS can be awful.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Aww, copy and paste doesn't preserve formatting when not in preview. Man. Preview should follow the same code path as a post!

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am running the 64-bit version of Firefox (obviously on a 64-bit OS) and it handles that grid fine. My machine is pretty low-end and at least three years old with a crappy onboard Intel graphics card. It sounds to me like A) you don't know what you're talking about and B) there is something wrong with your Win7 machine.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[davidshewitt]

I've been running 64-bit firefox on Linux for years and I've had no issue with plugins. I've run both packaged installations (when I ran Ubuntu) and stand-alone (unzipped from the .tar.bz2 file) installations. Neither have had problems with addons.

davidshewitt@DSH-Computer:~$ file /opt/firefox/firefox
/opt/firefox/firefox: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, stripped

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[IntlHarvester]

I've seen Firefox rendering issues that weren't even specific to an OS, it turned out to be video card related or something. Try disabling FF's hardware acceleration options and see if makes any difference.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. Win7 64-bits and it works fine. I have an XP computer also, and I tried it there and cannot tell a difference between XP and 7.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fairly fast for me, only scrolling very very quickly up and down causes it to stutter a tad.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using Firefox 15 on Windows 7 64-bit and it works very smooth, for me whether scrolling with mouse wheel, scroll bar arrows or madly sliding the scroll bar around.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[chromaexcursion]

Nightly stopped supporting 64 bit versions over a month ago. I know, I was on the 64 bit version in nightly specifically because of 64 bit support. It never gave the performance increase hoped for. Frankly, a lot of 64 bit apps don't perform any better than their 32 bit versions. SSSSSHHH, don't tell the marketing guys! 64 vs. 32 is mostly a lot of hype.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[vrt3]

64-bit version of Win7 here, with Firefox 14.01. Scrolls smoothly.

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Anonymous Coward]

six years? six? really?

I was using a 64-bit operating system since the late '90s. Before then it was a 32-bit OS with a 64-bit filesystem, IIRC, but by the next release the whole thing was 64-bit. Solaris FTW! (before it turned all red and evil that is)

Re:Where is 64-bit version?

[Lennie]

It could be a problem with Firefox hardware acceleration and your graphics card/driver.

At the end of the about:support page there is a 'Graphics'-heading which tells you what you have and if it is enabled.

To enable or disable hardware acceleration:
- to check or uncheck the box: Options -> Advanced -> General-tab: Use hardware acceleration when available

- open/close Firefox completely.

- try the ajax grid page again

Works fine for me

[Myria]

I just updated Firefox between my "Flash freezing" post above and this post here, and I didn't have to log into Slashdot again.

Re:Works fine for me

[Khopesh]

GP said

Every time Firefox upgrades, it wipes out my login cookies. It forces me to re-login to my sites. Is there a way to turn this dictator off?

I would be very surprised if there were not. Chrome lets you turn it off. I'm sure if you use Iceweasel (the Debian Firefox derivative), this wouldn't be a problem (updates are managed by apt). There are third-party efforts like IceWeasel for Windows and Porting Icecat on Mac Using Fink (IceCat is the GNU port of Firefox, sharing quite a bit (even the name, originally) with Iceweasel), but they're horribly out of date.

You said

I just updated Firefox between my "Flash freezing" post above and this post here, and I didn't have to log into Slashdot again.

Slashdot works because its cookies do not expire with the session. Any cookies that expire with the session will be expired by a browser upgrade. This is because "resuming" a crashed or otherwise saved session isn't actually resuming, it is reopening to the browser's best ability. This does not include session cookies for security reasons.

Re:Works fine for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot works because its cookies do not expire with the session. Any cookies that expire with the session will be expired by a browser upgrade. This is because "resuming" a crashed or otherwise saved session isn't actually resuming, it is reopening to the browser's best ability. This does not include session cookies for security reasons.

WRONG! I haven't tried after an upgrade, but Firefox session restore normally restores session cookies as well:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=530594

I was quite surprised to stumble across this, as our internal "administrative" web tool at work doesn't have a log out button, so everyone was assuming that closing Firefox was enough to log out (and in public locations too). I really wish Mozilla would change this behavior.

ESR Releases

[Kalak]

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/

Re:ESR Releases

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wasting your time. You could link that every time Firefox comes up on Slashdot and the trolls will still be spouting the same FUD and get +5s while your comment languishes in the land of +1 nothingness. Welcome to Slashdot where angry, ignorant, and geeky is the 90%.

Re:ESR Releases

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, the stable version.

Memory leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla says they have "now plugged the main cause of memory leaks in Firefox add-ons."
Er, the same memory leaks they assured us weren't happening or weren't their fault?

Re:Memory leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite. What do children, leftards and freetards have in common? It's always someone elses fault.

Re:Memory leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially after being caught raping children. Oh sorry, according to rms one can apparently have a consenual sexual relationship with a 5 year old and the trauma is just due to societal stigma not from the rape.

Re:Memory leaks

[fa2k]

Mozilla says they have "now plugged the main cause of memory leaks in Firefox add-ons."
Er, the same memory leaks they assured us weren't happening or weren't their fault?

Not really. They went through the core of Firefox and removed memory leaks a long time ago. Now they are fixing leaks in plugins too.

Re:Memory leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Earlier this year is a 'long time ago'?

Re:Memory leaks

[rudy_wayne]

Mozilla says they have "now plugged the main cause of memory leaks in Firefox add-ons."
Er, the same memory leaks they assured us weren't happening or weren't their fault?

I have to give them credit. The Firefox devs have quite a sense of humor.

I remember when they claimed that Firefox's excessive memory usage was a feature not a bug -- i.e., Firefox was caching pages. Which is really great except that it wasn't true.

Re:Memory leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla says they have "now plugged the main cause of memory leaks in Firefox add-ons."
Er, the same memory leaks they assured us weren't happening or weren't their fault?

I just RTFA so I'll answer that for you: "weren't their fault". In TFA they say the memory leaks aren't Mozilla's fault, but it is their problem. The plugins create the memory leaks and there's not much Mozilla can do about that. They've tried working with lots of plugin writers to clean it up and they've got them to make progress, but they can't force every developer to cooperate, and they can't force those that do cooperate to fix it 100%. So instead, they've figured out a way to forcefull rip the memory out of the hands of the plugins so they can free it up. Theoretically this could be problematic (if the plugin later wanted to use that now-gone memory), but apparently they've done it in a way that ends up not causing any problems (though we'll see what happens once everyone is using it).

Re:Memory leaks

[jensend]

In a sense, yes, they are fixing problems that weren't their fault. 3rd-party add-ons have been the cause of the most significant FF memory problems for many users, and FF 15 contains changes which should keep even badly written add-ons from leaking anywhere near as much memory as they used to.

Re:Memory leaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love firefan logic.

Firefox doesn't have memory leaks yet somehow every minor update includes "fixed memory leaks" in the change log.

Re:Memory leaks

[Johann Lau]

WTF are you talking about? You respond to shit you made up, not to the actual post.

And don't talk about logic either. This thread is filled with complete idiots, and you're one of them.

Re:Memory leaks

[Johann Lau]

"Add-ons commonly hold extra copies of sites in memory when they don't need to, and the browser now has a mechanism to detect this and reclaim the memory"

Yes, the same memory leaks that weren't their fault to begin with. They STILL fixed them. What part of this do you and the other ano-trolls not understand?

Why does FF make some people so... sore?

Re:Memory leaks

[Barefoot Monkey]

I have to give them credit. The Firefox devs have quite a sense of humor.

I remember when they claimed that Firefox's excessive memory usage was a feature not a bug -- i.e., Firefox was caching pages. Which is really great except that it wasn't true.

I remember that. It actually was all true, and not as you describe. They never said that the memory usage was "a feature, not a bug". That would be daft. They said that the enormous memory usage of one particular version wasn't caused by a memory leak as many suspected (there were several known ones at that stage, but this wasn't one of them), but rather that it was caused by a new feature that was added to that version and removed from the next (hey, let's use all the free memory as a cache pool! when apps need more memory we'll feed it to them as needed. what could go wrong?). It was a misfeature - a bad idea that worked as it was designed to.

Re:Memory leaks

[Nick Nethercote]

In practice we've found extremely few problems with "forcefully ripping" the memory away. In comparison, *many* add-ons no longer leak as a result. The cost:benefit ratio is massively favourable.

Re:Memory leaks

[fluffy99]

In a sense, yes, they are fixing problems that weren't their fault. 3rd-party add-ons have been the cause of the most significant FF memory problems for many users, and FF 15 contains changes which should keep even badly written add-ons from leaking anywhere near as much memory as they used to.

Meaning Firefox now does proper garbage collection when add-ons depart, eh? Seems like a poor design that an add-on could even be a memory and cpu hog.

Re:Memory leaks

[adolf]

(hey, let's use all the free memory as a cache pool! when apps need more memory we'll feed it to them as needed. what could go wrong?)

Sounds a lot like a relatively badass 8-core 16-thread 16GB server box I fixed awhile back, wherein Exchange was very purposefully doing exactly the same thing: The box was so slow that printer drivers on remote machines would time out with errors waiting for it to stop thrashing the swap file.

A few registry hacks later, and Exchange's usage went from "darn near everything" to a much more reasonable couple of gigabytes (which I could've pared down more, but...).

Of course, the MSFT crowd all cries that Exchange will magically release memory as-needed. Yeah, sure...

[It was for a medium-sized dentists office. It had 5 bloody email addresses, only about 2 of which ever saw any use, and that usage was very low. They were also doing some light file and printer-sharing, and that's it. There was no reason for performance on that machine to be other than absolutely stellar, except for Exchange doing what Exchange does.]

Re:Memory leaks

[Xest]

If it's their browser, and they can fix it, then it's very much their problem. It's their application hogging all the memory at the end of the day, even if the plugins are the things triggering that. People understand, but the buck has to stop with Mozilla on issues like this because it's their product and they created the plugin interface and allowed it to cause these problems.

As for your last comment, the answer is simple, people have arrogantly been told time and time again that it's not Mozilla's problem, and end-users dont want to hear that, it's Mozilla's product so it IS Mozilla's problem. People don't want to deal with arrogant devs who ignore the usersbase over things like defaulting do not track to off, stupid ideas like version number inflation, silent updating and so forth. If people hate Mozilla it's because Mozilla has become arrogant, and doesn't listen to the userbase.

This is also almost certainly why Firefox has lost a massive amount of marketshare to Chrome.

This isn't a bug tracker

[MrEricSir]

Look, I mean you probably found a bug. The thing to do is to either post on the project mailing list or file a bug report.

Posting a comment on Slashdot is unlikely to result in a solution.

Re:This isn't a bug tracker

[Anonymous Coward]

If he posts it on their bug tracker, it might get fixed, he might get a better-working product out of it, and the Firefox team would have a better browser to their names. Winners: Kethinov, the Firefox team, and anyone who uses Firefox. Losers: None.

But, if he posts it absolutely everywhere BUT their bug tracker and makes enough noise about it, zomg teh BLAGOSPHERES might think it's a chronic problem indicating a lack of fundamental testing on the Firefox team's part, giving him the attention he's so desperately whoring for as the person who broke the "news" about this "crippling bug". The Firefox team, not having a good enough bug report to analyze the problem (perhaps it's an obscure use case they didn't consider), has to rely on bits and pieces of complaints scattered around the internet, many of which are blatantly contradictory, before they can get to work. This delays the fix, which gives Kethinov more time to post it everywhere but their bug tracker (as well as numerous smug "why oh WHY have they not fixed this GLARING and OBVIOUS bug?" shots), increasing the time and amount of attention he gets, while the Firefox using public gets features later than Chrome does because too many of their developers are on internet-spanning wild goose chases to fix what would otherwise be a simple problem had a reasonable bug actually been filed. Winner: Kethinov. Losers: The Firefox team and anyone who uses Firefox.

So you see, the latter case is clearly better*, as this means Kethinov doesn't have to share his victory with anyone. Great job, Kethinov!

*: For Kethinov.

Re:This isn't a bug tracker

[Kethinov]

Uh, wow.

Since devs of major open source projects aren't fond of getting bugs filed that aren't actually bugs, all I wanted to do was confirm that the feature isn't buried somewhere I haven't located yet before filing a bug.

Next time I post something like this to Slashdot I'll include a disclaimer that goes something like "I was about to file a bug for this, but I just wanted to confirm I'm not crazy... is anyone else seeing this?" Maybe then the Slashdot condescension machine will cool its jets.

Anyway, I filed it since nobody in the thread seems to think I'm doing it wrong. Now everyone's a winner!

Re:This isn't a bug tracker

[f3rret]

Maybe then the Slashdot condescension machine will cool its jets.

Of course it wont, don't be silly.

Also: get trolled son.

Re:This isn't a bug tracker

[Xest]

Posting on Slashdot certainly wont. People have been complaining about memory leaks in Firefox for years and some of the devs have repeatedly come here and told us there aren't any.

Right, so why the fuck did they just fix one in this update?

Hopefully they're more helpful on the project mailing list/bug tracker like you suggest, but you're spot on about reporting it here being no use, as although they will see it, they'll just pretend it isn't a problem and that Firefox is flawless.

Re:This isn't a bug tracker

[BZ]

Can you point to an actual active Gecko or Firefox developer (not a fanboy, not someone who last worked on the project many years ago) saying there are no leaks?

Or are you just making up or blindy repeating the "developers told us there aren't any" thing?

Re:This isn't a bug tracker

[Xest]

No because funnily enough I don't bookmark and log every Slashdot conversation ever that may have some relevance in the future.

You're more than welcome to check through past discussions about Firefox over the last few years and see for yourself.

I suppose it's possible someone said they were a Firefox dev when answering but weren't, though that seems a little odd and unlikely.

Certainly I recall in one of the Firefox release threads dating back to perhaps the Firefox 4 release IIRC there was a big discussion about it where some dev, or claimed dev stated exactly this though.

Re:This isn't a bug tracker

[BZ]

See, that's the thing. Everyone has heard, third-hand about someone saying that they heard some dev say something.

But whenever I actually look into it, turns out someone just made it up.

And yes, I've looked through most of the past discussions about Firefox, and in fact participated in them.

So again: are you just accusing people of lying with no evidence to back it up? Not very cool, that.

High Res 3D Gaming??

[sapgau]

In my browser?

Re:High Res 3D Gaming??

[fa2k]

Oh please no! High-res 3D "punch the monkey ads" :(

Re:High Res 3D Gaming??

[Anonymous Coward]

1960s:

Computers?? On my desk?

1980s:

Video games?? On my TV?

1990s:

3D graphics?? On my computer?

2000s:

Applications?? On the web?

2010s:

Games?? On the web?

Re:High Res 3D Gaming??

[Bill Hayden]

It's more common than you think!

Re:High Res 3D Gaming??

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more likely than you think...

Re:High Res 3D Gaming??

[BZ]

Yes. Not only that, but cross-compilation of existing games to JS+WebGL. See https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/08/mozilla-and-games-pushing-the-limits-of-whats-possible/

Old story, or something new?

[Futurepower(R)]

The Firefox developers have been claiming memory leak fixes since before it was called Firefox.

Firefox is the most unstable program in common use. Open a lot of windows and tabs and see for yourself. Maybe you don't normally do that, but people who do research online often see Firefox instability.

Should software updating be a system service? Suppose you like the Firefox version you have? Should updating be a system service, as with Google's Chrome? Most people don't know how to disable system services. Some manufacturers try to stop disabling by giving their services misleading names.

These are the Google system services I see on one Windows 7 computer:

Google Update Service (gupdate)
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe" /svc

Google Update Service (gupdatem)
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Update\GoogleUpdate.exe" /medsvc

Google Updater Service
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Common\Google Updater\GoogleUpdaterService.exe"

Is Google so all-knowing that it can alone decide what should be on user's computers? Or will Google become more and more adversarial and disfunctional eventually go the way of HP and Tektronix?

I like Firefox. I think Mozilla needs a better top manager.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Urza9814]

I leave Firefox windows with dozens of tabs open for weeks and even months at a time, and haven't noticed any stability issues in a year or so...But I also don't use any add-ons except Firebug.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Stalks]

Open a lot of windows and tabs and see for yourself.

I do. Daily. 100+ tabs open is not uncommon. Firefox hasn't crashed for years. The rest of your comment is OffTopic.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Tough Love]

Firefox is the most unstable program in common use. Open a lot of windows and tabs and see for yourself. Maybe you don't normally do that, but people who do research online often see Firefox instability.

At the moment it's a tie between Firefox and Chrome on that front. I normally run both Firefox and Chrome because both of them will die after some number of days of heavy tab usage (100+ tabs). Chrome has this nasty, nasty habit of forgetting your previously open tabs with no way to recover them, if for some reason it crashes again before you hit the recover button. Which is pretty common actually, for example if you reboot a couple of times. (Embarassing bug! What's up with you smart people who totally own the Chrome project?) Furthermore, if you accidentally hit the "start" button instead of "recover" it's not game over for your Firefox tabs, you can get them back just by renaming a file, or you can archive those tabs just by copying that file if you want. If there's any way to do this in Chrome, I haven't found it. For these reasons, and also Chrome's annoying insistance on forcing you to save content to disk before opening it, Firefox is my primary browser for real work and Chrome is my throwaway browser.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Leafheart]

I leave Firefox windows with dozens of tabs open for weeks and even months at a time, and haven't noticed any stability issues in a year or so...But I also don't use any add-ons except Firebug.

You are luck. I use Firefox with firebug for webdevelopment, and although I love it, I have to restart it a couple of times daily, as Firefox easily goes to 1.6GB of memory easy. And that is with 1 window open and about 10-15 tabs only. It is very much dependent on what you are using on the tab that has firebug. Let me give you an example: I'm now developing on top of JS table\tree framework, which tends to have a lot on memory. If firebug is open it starts keeping copies of a bunch of versions of this JS plugin, each taking a couple of MB of memory. So it slows to a crawl.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Martin Blank]

Having run into memory problems repeatedly for years, Firefox 15 is shockingly better at memory management. They completely change the model they used to help clean up after add-ons that don't clean up after themselves and very few of them have had to be fixed to work with it. Memory usage for me has been cut by more than half.

Mozilla also went out of its way to make the updater service run with as few rights as possible with code that revokes rights that it does not need. There were about three dozen permissions explicitly dropped when it was first developed around FF12. That number may have changed slightly but it's still a long list.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[sapgau]

Nonsense. I open literally dozens of Firefox windows with no instability at all.
Unless high memory usage is a problem in your system.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[sapgau]

Please don't tell me you are running windows with 2Gb or some low amount like that.
A development box needs tons of ram. Sounds you are in desperate need for a 64 bit system as well.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol you're so out of touch. 2gb is a low amount of memory? if you're so rich you can afford all this memory, then mail me the 1000 bucks for a new laptop asshole

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Hatta]

Crash? No. Come to a complete stop for 10 seconds while doing nothing more but scrolling? Yes.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[webheaded]

Oh hey, look, it runs great for you. Guess we can ignore everyone else now!

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

12GB costs less than 100 bucks - if you're so rich you can afford to work off of a laptop -oh wait - here's the deal - use a desktop, it's cheaper, and easier to upgrade.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Sorry but 2gb IS a low amount of memory. $60 for 4gb ddr2 or $25 for ddr3. A far cry from $1000.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[fm6]

My experience with FF is even worse than yours. I could get painful slowdowns just using the browser, without multiple windows, for an hour or two. The Windows task manager shows it using over a gigabyte. The blame has to belong to one of my plugins, but which one? I've tried selective disabling, with no luck.

I gave up on FF a few months ago. I'd resisted the move to Chrome for years (not enough plugins, too much GUI cleverness) but the aggravation of repeated slowdowns, freezes, and crashes was finally too much for me. It didn't help the FF updates included lame GUI changes that were poorly thought out and whose only merit was that they made FF look more like Chrome.

This announcement sort of tempts me. Yeah, fixes to the memory leak nonsense have been announced before, but this is the first time they've claimed to fix leaks in the plugin environment. Still, having made the painful transition to Chrome, I don't feel strongly motivated to move back.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you describe is solely due to Firebug, and it's kind of a side-effect of it's features, not truely a bug that should be resolved.

I would recommend you simply run 2 firefox sessions.

Setup firefox with 2 profiles
- keep the Default profile for your regular browsing, enable day-to-day addons like adblock, pretty theme, no firebug)
- Create a development profile, enable firebug and the like, different homepage, no adblock etc, firebug enabled

Alter the Shortcut(s) on your desktop so you have 2 firefox shortcuts, one starting with the default profile /-P default/, and the other one automatically using the developer profile (also use the no-remote commandline switch for this one).

Now you simply have 2 firefox sessions, the developer one has a seperate (boring) theme so its easy to recognise and you can reboot it whenever you feel like it. The default profile has your regular browsing tabs and you can leave this running for months (i do, never any probs). Whenever you click a hyperlink in an external application they will all open in your regular browsing session (even if that firefox wasnt running yet) due to the no-remote flag on the developer shortcut.

It might take you a few days to get used to doing your developing in the seperate browsing session, but you'll be used to it after that and you'll love it. I do web development myself aswell and use a similar setup. Some additional benefits:
- I love adblock/noscript/etc for regular browsing sessions, and now that my development is done in a seperate session (without those addons) i no longer have those weird situations where i add stuff to a site i'm working on and it doesnt show due to being adblocked.
- If you manage to do really wicked shit during development and cause a race condition or browser crash or the like (not likely for regular HTML/JS stuff, but start messing with native client, vrml, plugins or other less common parts and it can happen), your regular browsing session doesn't get affected.
- My regular profile has Google as homepage, my development profile has my current project as homepage
- I spend a lot of time everyday inside my browser (like most ppl here), so i like to tweak every little thing to my taste, having seperate profiles means my development profile can remain mostly "factory default" eliminating the chance that some weird shit i did to firefox is having an effect on the page im developing.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anomalyst]

mail me the 1000 bucks for a new laptop asshole

Your laptop has an asshole?
What's wrong with it?

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh hey, look, it works for everyone else, guess we can ignore you then!

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post seems to have lost its focus halfway through, but I have to also add my 2 cents to the stability issue. I don't understand why people always say they have problems opening lots of tabs/windows in Firefox. I find it to be just the opposite - I can open (and more importantly _leave_ open) dozens to 100+ tabs without an issue or really any slowdown at all. On the other hand, Chrome can choke with as little as a dozen tabs.

This has been my experience on numerous systems, on all three major OS platforms, and with every version of Firefox since 3.x or so (whenever they launched the session restore feature). In addition, Firefox is the only browser I trust: IE is tied way too heavily to Microsoft, Google is beginning to scare me more everyday, and Safari has usability issues though it includes some powerful tools as well.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[zlives]

I would recommend an endoscopy for your old laptop asshole.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully you have filed a bug about the issue you see.
First test if FF15 fixes the issue (it does fix *a lot* of addon related memory leaks), but if not please file a bug.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Core

Re:Old story, or something new?

[ezakimak]

Sounds like it has a case of memoroids!

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox is the most unstable program in common use. Open a lot of windows and tabs and see for yourself.

The "count tabs" command in Ubiquity claims I currently have 735 tabs. I've had over 300 tabs on average for the past 9-12 months, and I'm not running into stability problems or even the long delays others have mentioned.

I use Debian (testing), which is currently distributing Firefox 10 (ESR). I don't run many addons, though; mostly NoScript and Flashblock. Maybe the problem isn't Firefox, it's your choice of addons or OS.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[fisted]

I'm sorry but 2gb is plenty of memory. It only seems low because of the damn bloatware you're used to.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're stupid like you? Yes. Please link to your bug report or get the fuck out. Either A. You don't have a genuine problem or B. You don't care enough to do anything about it. Why should anyone care about your problem?

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox crashes randomly when I play Youtube videos.
IE does not.

I don't think they will ever fix that for me, since I am still running windows XP.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[hairyfeet]

The nice thing about browsers friend? Is you do have choices. I personally prefer the Comodo Dragon, which is based on Chromium and doesn't have all the Google phone home junk. For those that wish to try it here you go. And for those that prefer the Gecko engine or have FF extensions you are loathe to let go of? Well guess what, the Comodo guys just came out with their own version of FF called IceDragon, try it here.

Oh and since we get lets of calls of shilling here just FYI, don't know anybody at Comodo, never worked at Comodo or got so much as a bumper sticker from Comodo, just a guy that used their free antivirus and decided to see what other free stuff they had and found a ton of cool free software being offered.

But that's the nice thing we have now folks, we have a wealth of choice. Don't like either of those? There is SWIron, Kmeleon, Safari, Opera, hell I could make a list half a page long just of browsers. If you don't like the way the FF devs are doing things, and personally I think trying to throw another mobile OS into an already crowded as hell field is just nuts, then vote with your feet and choose one of the multitude of different browsers out there. Hell they are free, try a dozen and see which one fits you best.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[thetoadwarrior]

Firefox has certainly improved for me. More so with the rapid release cycle. 15 so far is looking pretty good. But I'm still waiting on it to show up for Ubuntu. But my Mac and Windows machines are up to date.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[rcuhljr]

My local development database CentOs VM with a stripped down dataset is larger than your plenty of memory.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[slacka]

Yes, exactly! The high memory usage comes from firebug. If you really have so little memory, then you'll be much better off running 2 separate instances of Firefox. In both my own testing and Tom's latest browser Firefox turn out on top with the lowest memory footprint.
http://www.tomshardware.com/gallery/memoryusage3wbgp11,0101-343668-0-2-3-1-png-.html

Best 40 tab - Firefox 794 MB
Worst 40 tab - Chrome 1449 MB

Chrome used almost twice the memory as Firefox.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

It leaks memory and other stuff!

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox is the most unstable program in common use. Open a lot of windows and tabs and see for yourself. Maybe you don't normally do that, but people who do research online often see Firefox instability.

I almost always have no less than 10 tabs open, and more often than not have multiple tab groups across multiple windows. Firefox crashes maybe once or twice a month for me, even though I use it almost every day.

I have a hypothesis that everyone screaming "memory leaks" either doesn't understand what a memory leak is, or is using a plugin that is causing the leak. I've left Firefox open for weeks at a time, yet it never consumes any more or less memory without opening or closing another tab.

The only real gripe I have with Firefox is the same gripe I have with all other tabbed browsers. The damn tabs don't split into multiple lines of tabs forcing me to scroll through them to find the particular one I'm looking for at any given time. Tab groups were a huge step up to solving this, but still only reduced the problem.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Yeah, if it weren't for all those pesky things you want your computer to do, it would be more than enough.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Who's out of touch? I bought a brand-new laptop two years ago with 4GB of RAM for just over $600, and it was only that much because I wanted a decent video card in it.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[hairyfeet]

The problem isn't the chips, its the boards. Most boards today have only 2 slots, 4 if you are lucky. That means for a DDR2 board you are maxed at 4-8Gb of RAM (4Gb chips are nearly a hundred a pop for DDR2 so not practical) and with DDR3 you are talking 8Gb-16Gb (again the 8Gb sticks are too high to be practical) so you just aren't gonna be able to stuff that much RAM.

And an even better question is...Why the fuck should I have to? Its a damned browser, not Crysis 2. if your ass is leaking memory so bad i need a shitton of memory just to deal with the thing? Then go back to the drawing board because your browser sucks.

I'm typing this on a 1.8GHz Sempron I keep at the shop for a nettop, its got 2Gb of RAM and with a half a dozen tabs open in Comodo Dragon and a couple of programs running in the background I have nearly half my memory left. I have left this running for a week with more than a half a dozen tabs open and what happened? it was using the same amount of memory as I left. I have done the same to FF overnight and found the machine to be slapping the shit out of the paging file the next day as FF usage slowly but surely climbs over time.

So if you need a server board with 32Gb of RAM to do any real work in your browser? then people need to move to a browser that doesn't go through memory like a drunk goes through a free minibar, because a browser frankly shouldn't be sucking down RAM like that.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[hobarrera]

I tend to only close firefox when mayor updates come out on my desktop. It does eat up memory when I've lots of tabs+windows open, but I've never seen it become unstable.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[cyber-vandal]

It's funny but on another thread about how the PC is dying people are saying that a four year old PC is enough for most people. Clearly it's not enough to run Firefox.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[fisted]

And your point is what exactly? You're not going to fit the entire thing into your RAM are you?

Re:Old story, or something new?

[hairyfeet]

Its slamming the CPU friend, use something like AnVir Task Manager where you can have a little CPU and memory gauge in the taskbar and see for yourself. I was driven nuts by those "senior moments" as I called it but then by chance giveaway of the day gave away AnVir and the next time I saw FF have a senior moment i looked at the taskbar and found it had slammed the CPU into the red. They have a trial version so its not like you have to pay for it and I bet my last dollar its slamming the hell out of your CPU.

That's why I spent about a month trying different browsers, Safari and Opera and SWIron and Chrome and Kmeleon and settled on Comodo Dragon. Out of all the different ones i tested it seemed to work best for me across multiple systems while still having the features i wanted like Adblock Plus.

So get AnVir or any other taskbar CPU monitor and next time it hangs look at the gauge and see what it says, if its hanging the CPU try some different browsers and see what works best for you. Because i don't know about you but those senior moments drove me up a damned wall, it always felt like someone holding up a stop sign every so many minutes and taking me out of my groove, really irritating.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[ccguy]

Daily. 100+ tabs open is not uncommon.

That's cute. What do those tab contain? Try 4 different rutorrent windows for instance.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox has certainly improved for me. More so with the rapid release cycle. 15 so far is looking pretty good. But I'm still waiting on it to show up for Ubuntu. But my Mac and Windows machines are up to date.

Waiting for a ubuntu release is nonsense just download the tar and run it in your home directory. Hint the binary is in /firefox and can be run directly. It will even use your current flash plugin install and all your settings will be in place because they are stored in the hidden /home/~you/.mozilla directory.

You do not have to system install batshit with linux if you do not wish to do so...

Re:Old story, or something new?

[jimshatt]

Some people have a laptop asshole and some have one on the bottom.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Belial6]

http://www.frys.com/product/6992727?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG $90 for 16GB is hardly "too high to be practical". I also question many peoples claims on memory usage. My kid will load half a dozen tabs and leave them running for days at a time with no problems. Pages loaded with Flash no less, and he doesn't have the problems. My suspicion is that there is some specific, semi-common use case that leaks memory. Something like running some plugin that leaks memory.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like you're ignoring the majority who don't have a problem just because you want to cry a little, instead of bugging Mozilla with a bug report? Stop clogging up Slashdot with this nonsense, and do the right thing. Uninstall Firefox, and use another browser, so you can find something new to bitch about.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anomalyst]

Some people have a laptop asshole and some have one on the bottom.

Thus the desire to get to the bottom of things.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[LinuxIsGarbage]

I found worse than Firefox is Flash. For whatever reason on one of my computers Flash is an utter pig on any browser: Firefox, Chrome, IE. It will keep gobbling up RAM until the VM space of the flash plugin reaches 2GB, then crash. Even after every tab with flash is closed it will continue to occupy RAM. I don't understand how flash can bog a computer down so much. It chugs away at the CPU too. A 640p FLV file will purr along at 30% CPU usage on a PIII playing in VLC for crying out loud! What's going on? I've tried reinstalling browsers and Flash plug in.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is called the "User" (TM).

Re:Old story, or something new?

[labnet]

Open a lot of windows and tabs and see for yourself.

I do. Daily. 100+ tabs open is not uncommon.

Do you use the treetab plugin? One reason I ditched Chrome was the removal of side tabbing.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Darinbob]

I definitely can get bad performance with Firefox when leaving it open for weeks at a time with many tabs. Just killed and restarted it today when it stopped working right. So you're right that it didn't crash but it did stop behaving properly and it sped up tremendously after being restarted.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Artifakt]

I just found out I'm running 15. (Kubuntu, some experimental repositories enabled, and I still do most of my updating by 'sudo apt-get' on the command line, so I genuinely didn't know - I thought I was still on FF 13 until I looked just now). You can go more bleeding edge with the buntus, for example for Kubuntu, try adding "ppa:kubuntu-ppa/backports" to your repository list, and the others should be someting similar. If you want the absolute latest, your best bet is to learn enough about repositories to add new ones to the standard lists and then let a modern graphical app manager take care of it for you - I'm just old fashioned I guess, but you can generally have the absolute latest and shiniest pretty damned fast if you want to bother.
  I suspect FF 15 will be the default available in the October Ubuntu/Ku/Xu/Edu/Myth etc. cycle. For me, firefox was running OK 6 months ago, it still seems to run OK in the new iteration, and so I guess I'll have even fewer memory hog issues with it from now on, but i'm at over 60 days continuous uptime as is, and that was a reboot for a new kernel, so how will I really know? I'm very happy for all of you that the new version helps.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[TheDarkMaster]

Are you mad or stupid? I can do TONs of things in development with 2GB or less.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[QQBoss]

If your laptop can't handle more than 2 GB of RAM, it is so old that any $300 notebook that can handle 8 GB or more of RAM (and probably comes with 4 GB) will outperform it in every performance metric. And I just got 8 GB of low voltage DDR3-1600 cas 9 SO-DIMMS from newegg for $48. And if your DEVELOPMENT box isn't making you enough money to justify spending either of those two numbers, get out of the development business, because it should easily be paying for something 4x more expensive.

If you aren't doing development, then don't worry about it.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Crash? No. Come to a complete stop for 10 seconds while doing nothing more but scrolling? Yes.

My recent experience has been that if you kill the adobe flash process when this happens, Firefox magically jumps back to life.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[hairyfeet]

First of all that is the higher specc'd gamer memory, a lot of borards simply won't run that, and $10 less than $100 is still close enough to be in the "not practical" and also ignores the fact that DDR3 only took off in the last year and a half so many boards that are still doing great are DDR2 which is insane for anything larger than 2Gb. Finally you'll also have to figure an OS upgrade into that, since most machines come with Home which supports a MAX of 16Gb including VRAM, so you won't be able to use around 1.2Gb of that until you spend the $140 to upgrade to pro.

But I've seen FF slap swap like a pimp slapping his ho enough times to know there is something wrong there. I have left Dragon, Chrome, Opera, Safari, and Kmeleon open for days at a time and when I come back they are using the same amount of RAM they were when I left, not so with FF. Not running any rare or bizarre extensions either, just the standard ABP and NoScript that everyone here always says to run.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[VanGarrett]

I dunno, I've got only 2GB of RAM in my machine, and it does just fine. That's not to say I don't notice the lack, but I can watch a movie on one monitor while playing a modern game on the other, without either suffering significantly. I think that 2GB is the absolute minimum I'd build a computer with.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking idiot. When Firefox starts hitting 1.5GB+, the whole fucking program drags to a crawl and intermittently just hangs every 20-30 seconds. It's not about having too little RAM, Firefox fucks up long before ever reaching anything in a modern PC.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[sootman]

> At the moment it's a tie between Firefox and Chrome on that front.
> I normally run both Firefox and Chrome because both of them will
> die after some number of days of heavy tab usage (100+ tabs).

Oh good, I thought it was just me. When Safari gets past 100 tabs (I read a lot of sites with a lot of links (like Slashdot), open new tabs, shrink them, and then MAYBE I get around to reading them someday) it starts to bog down badly. After many days or a few weeks, it can get to the point where it runs fine for a while, but if I come back to it after another intensive task (Photoshop, watching a video, etc.) it'll just grind and grind and grind on the disk. It might take 5-10 minutes to recover. (Then I break down, take some time, and close tabs.) I was wondering if I should switch. Glad to hear I don't have to. :-)

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Nick Nethercote]

Try it. Check out the user feedback near the bottom of https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2012/07/19/firefox-15-plugs-the-add-on-leaks/ -- people have experienced greatly reduced memory consumption, faster painting and scrolling, and fewer pauses.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[fm6]

Sigh. I've already installed the update, but I feel no motivation at all to take it for a spin. I've gotten used to Chrome's quirks and limitations, and don't have a lot of incentive to go back. Now, if this had happened just a couple months ago.

But I didn't. And jeez, it took them 7 years to fix a really basic bug. To heck with it.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[cheesybagel]

Gah. I have 4GB of RAM on my Core 2 Duo and there have been two process shrinks since. It should be possible to get 16GB of RAM for the same price I bought my 4GB by now. Which makes sense considering the other poster showed you can buy it for less than $100 USD. Not that a browser should use a lot of memory. But then again I use Firefox and I do not notice any memory issues.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[cheesybagel]

His laptop is probably an iPaq or something else where the memory is soldered to the main board and everything is glued together inside the case. Not even a genius can upgrade his laptop memory!

Re:Old story, or something new?

[cheesybagel]

s/iPad/iPad

Uhmmmm...

Re:Old story, or something new?

[cheesybagel]

It's not as bad ever since they put the plugins in a separate process ages ago. I can't stand Chrome or other WebKit browsers scrolling. I use the mouse wheel all the time and it is seriously not smooth.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Best 40 tab - Firefox 794 MB

Now leave it sitting like that for a week. Try it with 1 tab even. Firefox is buggy as hell.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, I'd hate to see what happens when it crashes and initiates a memory dump

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just scratch all that and use Chrome, whose debugger is awesome and doesn't suffer from any of those problems.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[mikael_j]

Well, in production environments you might very well want to keep your entire database in RAM for performance reasons, and thus you might want to do the same thing on your development machine.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Mana Mana]

> leave this running for months (i do,

? Not to pick yo out, but, why do you? Every other post some d00d will say the same, but, you know what, why? I don't let anything running for long periods. Well, save two things that I always "hack" to clean up after it's "leaks;" my dog, my refrigerator O! and and my alarm clock. Dasit.

Everything else is just turned off, sometime, soon, not later, why? Leave. It. Running. This whole machismo scheisse reminds me of uptime---Who The Fuck Cares---real men upgrade---often---even OBSD needs it. It speaks for itself. But hey, keep spouting, at least one homey out there will see this and laugh in agreement.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[adolf]

My daily-use laptop has a 1.83GHz Pentium-M with a couple of megs of cache. It only supports 2GB of DDR2. It's got a modem (that I do actually use from time to time), 802.11a/b/g, and a 1920x1200 display, integrated Bluetooth, and a video card that does just fine with whatever I throw at it.

So I went looking at walmart.com, home of the modern cheap-shit namebrand computer. They have a $298 Compaq with an AMD E300 which is only just marginally faster with its two cores (the old single-core Pentium-M will run single-threaded apps faster). It has no modem mentioned, no Bluetooth, no 802.11a (and thus no 5.7GHz radio at all), and certainly doesn't have a 1920x1200 display. It does have a bigger hard drive, but whoopdie-do: Mine's only half-full after more than half a decade of slogging.

For $300, it sure doesn't seem like an upgrade at all... even if it can support more RAM.

I'm sure I can find a suitable upgrade for more money, but one that outperforms my old 2GB-max machine "in every performance metric" for $300? It doesn't look that way.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[hairyfeet]

Funny but Dragon has always been smooth as butter for me, but remember there is other browsers based on Gecko, Pale Moon and IceDragon just to name two.

And they can waste mod points all they want but not 15 minutes after i first posted about FF's senior moments being CPU slams I updated it to 15, what happened? By the third tab I saw senior moments, especially when browsing through my bookmarks. Seriously WTF? Slamming the CPU to 100% just going through the bookmarks? I have the exact same bookmarks in Dragon and I can slide through the list all day, never a senior moment, not one. I even tried killing the extensions and it STILL had senior moments.

As it is I'll still be handing Dragon out to customers, because I can't recommend FF on anything less than a 3GHz multicore, and certainly not on laptops. All those CPU slams just kills battery life , I get nearly an hour more on my EEE netbook by sticking with Dragon over FF.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

It kind of bugs me how, despite not using any "web apps", my browser is consistently the most memory hungry of all the applications I have open these days. Although memory is cheap (if you have a good enough board), I'm not entirely fond of this trend, and hope this increased focus on reducing memory usage keeps things sane for a while. Just have to hope websites don't start demanding more resources as well.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[QQBoss]

Crud, I lost a good reply to you by accidentally hitting the back button on my mouse.

Probably was tl:dr and too lazy to type it all out again so: a Pentium-M@1.83 GHz would be a 2004-era Dothan. If you think, just because it has a higher clock frequency than the 2011-era E300@1.3 GHz, it is faster than the E300 even on single threaded apps, you haven't spent enough time learning/understanding computer architecture (To approach the E300, you need a 2007/8-era Conroe-L).

Nor should you probably need to, but if I had to guess you probably aren't doing paying code development work on that machine, either, which was what this thread was talking about- not using 56K modems.

(keep your eyes open for an Asus Aspire V5-531 on sale, I got mine for $302 including sales tax in Texas. Performance-wise, it does destroy a Dothan-class CPU in every meaningful benchmark, single or multi-threaded, but I have to admit I would kill for 1920x1200 at times and that isn't going to happen at the $300 mark, you are right)

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I've wanted to drill my laptop a new asshole many times.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[higuita]

Pauses/lockups for a few seconds are DNS problems...

the dns resolver blocks the GUI and there is one open bug for that and its being worked on to remove this old limitation.

the most common way to show up the bug is using a proxy.pac (or similar) file where it needs to resolve a site (or a rDNS) to find what proxy should use. This causes frequent lockups when the remote dns is slow or not operational.
in normal browsing and some plugins, might also show up this, when trying to use a slow DNS server (or slow NS for that domain)

please search the bugzilla for the dns resolve problems if you want to track the issue. but again, this is one old bug and its finally being worked on

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs designed it, put his soul into it.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Lennie]

They actually fixed, many, many of these bugs.

This isn't just one bug, they fixed in this one release.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Lennie]

Not sure why, but in my case the Ubuntu machine at home got the Firefox 15 release even before the Windows machine at work.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[cavebison]

I've been using the Memory Fox addon for the past several months, and it has worked great. Reclaims memory like.. a really good memory reclaiming thing.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[cavebison]

Thank you for this! Never occurred to me to use a separate profile for dev work.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[fm6]

It seems to me that a memory leak that causes the application to slow down, freeze, and crash is pretty basic. And yet it took them 7 years to fix it. That's pretty unimpressive.

If they had fixed this bug just a few months earlier, I wouldn't have gotten terminally frustrated and switched to Chrome — this year. But given the flaky history of Firefox, I suspect something would have driven me away eventually.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[thetoadwarrior]

True but I was on my way to bed and knew it'd show up the time I woke up so why not just install it with the other updates I ignored earlier this week?

Re:Old story, or something new?

[thetoadwarrior]

At least some of the mirrors are regional so FF is probably in one of those and annoying I suspect the GB mirror got the new files at the end of the day or my net connection was being funny.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[rcuhljr]

The VM's ram footprint is larger than the amount of memory he listed.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[box4831]

s/iPad/iPad

Uhmmmm...

s/s\/iPad\/iPad/s\/iPaq\/iPad/

Re:Old story, or something new?

[adolf]

No, I do not think that. I could care less about clock speed, and it is not a factor in my comparison.

I think that because they benchmark rather similarly with the E300 being only somewhat faster, but relying on two cores to accomplish this, that my old box will indeed be faster for single-threaded tasks.

If you think differently, you haven't spent enough time using multi-processor computers with single-threaded applications.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, I'd hate to see what happens when it crashes and initiates a memory dump

BS OD

Re:Old story, or something new?

[webheaded]

If it worked for "everyone else" then there wouldn't still be people complaining would there? I don't have problems of the same magnitude the GP had, but Firefox has run like shit in comparison to Chrome for me for quite some time. I don't know what it is and I'm not going to sit here and agonize over a memory watching app or something to try to figure it out myself. You know why? I switched to Chrome. I try Firefox out every once in a while to see what's up. This version, actually, is the first one that hasn't run like shit for me. I'm actually pretty happy.

Maybe it's the addons. Maybe not. I tested out a completely add-on free Firefox on one of my computers and it ran like complete dogshit. Not to mention the fact that what is the point of the browser if I can't use Addons? And before the argument that "it's shitty addons" comes up, Chrome has addons too and they aren't screwing up my browser like the Firefox ones apparently do.

It doesn't really matter who is to blame because when it comes down to it, I can do the same things I do in Firefox in Chrome now and Chrome doesn't run like shit. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Re:Old story, or something new?

[alexo]

Sounds serious.
Better consult a laptoproctologist.

Upgrade fail LOL

[DNS-and-BIND]

From one of the links:

"Firefox 15 prevents most memory leaks caused by add-ons, including Firebug. For many users with add-ons installed this will significantly reduce Firefoxâ(TM)s memory consumption, without requiring upgrades to those add-ons."

Yeah, how's the add-on supposed to work without upgrading - Firefox 15 breaks compatibility with all previous add-ons. And to think, the guy who wrote this probably didn't think of it at all...

Re:Upgrade fail LOL

[cyfer2000]

firefox 15 breaks no add-ons here, which one is broken at your place?

Re:Upgrade fail LOL

[DNS-and-BIND]

FF always breaks the previous version's add-ons when it upgrades. That was kind of a big deal a while back, since add-ons are what make Firefox Firefox. Did they change that, too? Too many changes to keep track of, eh?

Re:Upgrade fail LOL

[Knuckles]

FF always breaks the previous version's add-ons when it upgrades.

That's absolutely not true. Most don't break, shitty ones might. There has been a stable add-on API for ages, and Mozilla have asked add-on devs to use for nearly as long. (AC b/c I modded)

Re:Upgrade fail LOL

[DNS-and-BIND]

Huh. Well, apparently I hallucinated the "these add-ons have been disabled, please re-download them" dialog box when installing new Firefox version. Guess I picked the wrong week to quit drinking coffee.

Re:Upgrade fail LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

We must have quit drinking coffee the same week. I must have been hallucinating all those memory leaks that they fixed over and over and over and over again...

Re:Upgrade fail LOL

[BZ]

Firefox upgrades haven't broken compat with previous adons since Firefox 10 shipped back in January 2012.

Brilliant!!

[rudy_wayne]

the browser is finally switching to a "silent" update model, like Chrome. (No doubt in answer to endless complaints about their rapid release cycle.

So people have been complaining about Firefox's Rapid Release Cycle -- more correctly called Rapid Version Number Inflation -- and so Firefox's solution is to continue doing it and just not tell you about it.

Brilliant.

Re:Brilliant!!

[93 Escort Wagon]

more correctly called Rapid Version Number Inflation

More correctly called "Chrome does it so we have to do it too".

-- comment posted using Firefox 10.0.7ESR

Re:Brilliant!!

[LordLimecat]

More like "its an incredibly good reason even if a niche group doesnt like it".
The old update process for firefox was borked in the extreme.

Re:Brilliant!!

[Anonymous Coward]

the browser is finally switching to a "silent" update model, like Chrome. (No doubt in answer to endless complaints about their rapid release cycle.

So people have been complaining about Firefox's Rapid Release Cycle -- more correctly called Rapid Version Number Inflation -- and so Firefox's solution is to continue doing it and just not tell you about it.

Brilliant.

They're moving towards a model with smaller, faster updates. Completely insane, am I right? They should definitely calm that down, so that we don't have to deal with the nightmare that is rapidly increasing version numbers.

Re:Brilliant!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It gets even better.

A couple of months ago, there was an article by a Firefox dev, where he admitted that trying to copy Chrome was a mistake, because while they did lose customers to Chrome, some users preferred Chrome and some preferred Firefox. Copying Chrome wasn't going to get those back who preferred Chrome, and those who preferred Firefox might as well switch to Chrome, when the choice is between Chrome and a crappy clone, rather than between Chrome and something completely different.

Admitting that something is a mistake, is only a very small step. Stopping your way down the path that was a mistake, is what really counts.

WebGL

[Chemisor]

So, does Firefox support WebGL on Linux yet?

Re:WebGL

[Anonymous Coward]

So, does Firefox support WebGL on Linux yet?

Firefox supported WebGL on Linux since Firefox 4, two years ago. There are some GL drivers that are blacklisted though, if they have security or stability problems, and Firefox will disable WebGL (of course you can change a pref to force-enable it). Otherwise, WebGL runs great on Linux in Firefox, it's what I use every day.

P.S. This release even links to a 3D first person shooter using WebGL :)

Re:WebGL

[Culture20]

Very poorly. Without the proper graphics card, it uses Mesa, and thus is clunky.

Re:WebGL

[Lennie]

Some Windows graphics systems are also blacklisted, actually the graphics performance on my Linux machine is better than my Windows machine.

Re:High RI es 3D Gaming??

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical slashdot bullshit summary.

Will it also automatically not blow up extensions?

[quixote9]

Seriously, Mozilla. Wrap your collective mind around the concept of respecting the user. You used to be really good at it. Get back to your roots.

I run LinuxMint Debian. I'm playing with Nemo on my Nokia N900. I wouldn't have a clue how to hack the kernel, but I'm also not a complete idiot. And you know what version of firefox I'm on? Five. Because I got so fracking sick of having my extensions broken and my UI messed with.

Just quit it.

The main issue I have noticed with FF seems

[gatesstillborg]

to be due to the plugin-container.exe, which turns into an extreme CPU hog over-time, showing up way-high in the (windows) CPU consuming processes. (I do tend to open a lot of tabs and generate a lot of history.) (I used to have serious memory issues as well, which were greatly improved by doubling+ up to about 4+ Gig.) Is this a related or separate issue? I don't believe I am using an inordinate amount of plugins, just the standard ones.

Re:The main issue I have noticed with FF seems

[Urza9814]

In my experience that's pretty ALWAYS Flash. Make sure yours is updated, as I haven't had many problems with that on recent versions, and maybe try Flashblock or something. Whatever they fixed might help as well, I don't really know.

Re:The main issue I have noticed with FF seems

[Urza9814]

ah crap, started with 'pretty much always Flash', then thought about it and realized it was 'ALWAYS Flash'...and ended up with 'pretty ALWAYS Flash'...my bad.

Re:The main issue I have noticed with FF seems

[sapgau]

Not to be harsh but 4Gb is the minimum required for regular use on windows machines.
Things improve with a 64bit OS as well.

Re:The main issue I have noticed with FF seems

[hairyfeet]

Not to be harsh but my nettop in the shop is maxed at 2gb and runs just fine...of course I'm running Comodo Dragon now instead of FF because after V5 it got to be too big of a memory and CPU hog for anything less than a dual core.

Seriously if you need 4Gb+ and a 64bit OS to use a fricking browser? And what's worse is you consider that normal? Then maybe the problem isn't the system, its the program. Its a browser not Far Cry II folks.

Re:The main issue I have noticed with FF seems

[Legion303]

The newest version of Flash is a crashy piece of fucking shit. Flash has always sucked, but the latest release sucks just that much more. I wish it would die a fast death.

Re:The main issue I have noticed with FF seems

[Urza9814]

Ah, I'm on Linux so that may be skewing my perspective. 9 and 10 on Linux were HORRIFIC. I have never *seen* a program become so unstable. Couldn't browse without Flashblock. The latest is just pretty obnoxious.

But yea, other than that bit, I couldn't agree with you more.

Re:The main issue I have noticed with FF seems

[aled]

Seriously if you need 4Gb+ and a 64bit OS to use a fricking browser? And what's worse is you consider that normal? Then maybe the problem isn't the system, its the program. Its a browser not Far Cry II folks.

But but it has the Internet INSIDE! If you don't give it all your memory the Internet may crash!

Re:The main issue I have noticed with FF seems

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah one person who gets it...

Drop dead startup (fairly standard OEM install 1.2gig-1.8gig) that is with nothing else open.

Sure you can 'get away with' 2gig. Want to 'run nicely' 4 gig. I have 8 because I use VM's and dev tools...

This isnt 10 years ago when XP ran 'good' with 512 meg. MS and others added another gig to 'startup'. I have seen 7 as low as 600 meg if you strip it down to bare min running.

Re:Will it also automatically not blow up extensio

[quixote9]

And I should add that I've already tried 10ESR. It's so corporate-oriented, it's a pain for regular users.

Great

[Spliffster]

It broke my Exchange plugin in Thunderbird (manual update). No company calendar for me for an unspecified time frame.

The summary missed the real headline feature!

[jensend]

The memory improvements are nice and all, but the support for the Opus audio codec will have a much bigger impact on the Web. Opus is open source, royalty-free, and superior to previous formats in latency, flexibility, and audio quality. It handles speech, music, and general audio well, and scales fluidly from a 6kbps mono narrowband VOIP bandwidth all the way up to perceptually-transparent multichannel music. It's been approved as an IETF standard and should be published as an RFC this week.

Finally having a best-of-breed standardized codec which is universally implementable without patent royalties means that HTML5 audio - especially real-time communications - can finally take off.

Firefox is the second major end-user application to add support. (The first was the foobar2k audio player.)

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[Anonymous Coward]

Audio on web pages. What are you smoking? Every web which starts audio is automatically killed by me.

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[excelsior_gr]

You weren't around in the 90ies, were you?

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[jensend]

You're perfectly welcome to continue using Lynx on your PDP-10 then. Many of the rest of us are interested in listening to audio over the internet without having to use Flash, and in having conversations over the Internet without having to use Skype etc.

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[hairyfeet]

Dude seriously? Give it up already. I was one of those that cheered and rooted for the idea of open codecs but we lost so just accept it. Trying to claim an open codec at this stage of the game still has a chance is like claiming Ron Paul can still get the nomination, it just ain't happening.

Whether you and I like it or not audio is AAC or MP3, video is H.264 and that is that. Unless you can get Apple to back it (fat fucking chance) nobody is gonna give a shit so like Vorbis and Theora and WebM its gonna be a niche also ran and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it because the people and the press are tripping over themselves in praise of the iDevices.

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[jensend]

No codec rules the market forever. You might as well have been saying "dude, mp2 rules both audio and video, give it up" fifteen years ago, or "dude, audio is MP3 and video is DIVX and that is that" nine years ago.

The MPEG cartel doesn't believe you either; they've been rushing to get new codecs together (USAC/Extended HE-AAC, H.265).

This time they were beat to the punch. Opus significantly outperforms MP3 and AAC even at their strong points, and MP3 and AAC are very poor for low-bandwidth use and zero use for low-latency communications. USAC is late to the party, high-latency, and doesn't match Opus's quality.

Opus may not totally displace MP3 and AAC for music player use, but it will gain a place there, just as AAC did, and in many of the markets it competes in- especially low-latency Internet audio- there is no well-established competitor.

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[subreality]

AAC, MP3, H.264, etc, are all high latency codecs. They're great for pre-encoded audio, but there's actually a considerable opportunity for a new codec to move in for low-latency use. Opus has a good chance to fill that niche.

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[hairyfeet]

Yeah they won't last, they'll be replaced by the next proprietary standard, most likely something based on MP4 for audio (AAC V2 perhaps?) and H.265 for video. In the low latency niche, which is just that, a small niche, then it MIGHT have a shot if it isn't buried by the trolls.

But until you can get Cupertino onboard you are pissing in the wind pal, hell the reason other "standards" replaced DivX and MP3 is because the fruit company said so. If it don't play on an iPad you are fucked buddy, simple as that. And this is from someone that never has and most likely never will own an Apple product, but I'm not blind and can see which way the wind is blowing and that's to Cupertino. MSFT will be a good little copycat and implement whatever Apple does, that covers more than 96% of the market right there.

It was a nice dream dude, but web developers fucked us raw by tripping over themselves to jump on the Apple bandwagon and now they are simply too big in media to be stopped, just give it up Chuck.

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox is the first major end-user application to add support. (Another one was the foobar2k audio player.)

FTFY

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[hairyfeet]

They can waste modpoints all they want but that doesn't change reality. The original poster was claiming that this new FOSS codec could take share from the likes of H.264, MP3, and AAC, and I rightly pointed out that was bullshit. I also pointed out that there is a low latency niche that this codec COULD fill, but he was claiming it would end up on every PMP and other consumer devices.

Now YOU know and I know that's bullshit, didn't happen with Vorbis, or Theora, or WebM, its not gonna happen here with Opus, why? Apple, simple as that. Look at how all it took was Steve Jobs saying "Flash sucks!" and the world and its dog tripped over themselves to shit on Flash and embrace HTML V5, even though its not done, doesn't work in half the uses that Flash covered, and is a resource piggy.

Hell the only reason DivX and MP3 are being replaced now is because of Cupertino, like MSFT in the 90s what Apple says is law because there are too many iPads and iPods and iPhones out there and those with the content would be shooting themselves in the face if they didn't support them.

Look I wish it were different, I really do. One place where i think proprietary really doesn't belong is the web, and I'm old enough to remember how shitty the web was when you had to deal with a dozen plugins just to surf thanks to so many proprietary codecs. But I'm not gonna poke my eyes out and drink the koolaid which is what you'd have to do to believe that Opus has a snowball's chance in hell of unseating MP3 and AAC on media players without Apple's blessing. If it won't run natively on the iPad? it won't sell, simple as that.

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[Anonymous Coward]

This! I just read it has support for both speech AND music. ( http://www.opus-codec.org/ )
Brilliant!

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[Bobtree]

The Opus site links to this great writeup explaining why 16bit/48khz audio all we'll ever need for consumer audio distribution: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[Lennie]

Unless Opus becomes a IETF and W3 standard with "Mandatory To Implement" status for any browser that wants to claim support for any of the standards involved.

If it gets that before any new codec comes to town, then the bridge will already be burned.

Re:The summary missed the real headline feature!

[hairyfeet]

Uhhh...dude? Did you miss MSFT stuffing the standards committee to get OfficeXML declared a "standard" not too long ago? And like it or not (I don't) a certain company in Cupertino is calling the shots when it comes to browsers, why? Because if it don't work on iPad you are SOL.

Look I wish things hadn't worked out this way, I really really do. The one place where i think proprietary has NO business is the web, it should all be open and standard so that anybody on anything can use this incredible resource we have here.

But I'm also not blind, and I can see which way the wind is blowing. When Apple became the largest company on the planet all the web devs saw how much crazy iMoney Apple was making and said "Damn I want some of that!" that was the end of that when it came to open standards. Look how many even here jumped on HTML V5, even though its not finished, will most likely end up with H.264 for video which is a patent nightmare, doesn't cover even half the use cases we had flash for, and sucks resources like drunks suck down free hooch, so why did everyone jump on board without a second thought? Because Apple said so, that's why.

Look its the classic "is ought" problem that has been discussed for centuries. Those that support open codecs talk about how the world OUGHT to be, when in reality the world IS controlled by two major corps, Apple and MSFT. Google found out with WebM they didn't have nearly the amount of pull they thought they had, because like it or not in the end of the day people are using a Windows box or an iPad and if they don't get on board you are boned.

Could Opus maybe find a niche in the low latency market? Sure it could, there are plenty of niches the big two aren't going after and that leaves some wiggle room. But the original poster was talking about PMPs and other portables embracing Opus over MP3 and AAC, and I'm sorry but that is delusional bullshit. The reason we have H.264 and AAC now instead of DivX and MP3? Apple. If Apple says its so then its so, if they say no then its no, simple as that. And unlike old Billy's OS Apple has their systems so locked down that if they say no then you are SOL, most won't root so you are completely out. Do I like it? Fuck no, but its reality and until something unseats the iDevices we are stuck with it.

Congratulations on increased instability

[Anonymous Coward]

So your solution to complaints about how fast you crank out updates and destabilize software that you want people to depend upon is...
Update it without asking

Congratulations, genius. You have cemented your place as my #4 browser out of 4.

How can you expect people to use your browser on a daily basis when they can't even reasonably expect the browser they launch today to be the same one they shut down yesterday?

Re:Congratulations on increased instability

[tuppe666]

So your solution to complaints about how fast you crank out updates and destabilize software that you want people to depend upon is...
Update it without asking

I have personally found Firefox to continually improve in speed; features; efficency, improved standards, and I want and desire those things. I have the proof for all these and can provide links if required.

Re:Will it also automatically not blow up extensio

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched to FF 10 using "firefox aero theme for firefox 4+" and a bunch of other things like status for ever and the like. It is close, but not quite the same. Other than things like the right click menu appearing at the head of the pointer instead of the tail (causing for me to click the wrong item for) and general reverse je ne sais quoi that make me hate it.

But just wait until the ESR switches over from 10 to 17(?). Instead of changes slowly trickling in, a bunch will change at once. I can't wait for the shitstorm as that all hits the fan again.

Re:Will it also automatically not blow up extensio

[sapgau]

Are you an IE 6 user as well?

Fast uptime good work!

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloaded in 12 seconds....untarred it in a sub directory in my /home/me/programs, made a desktop link to the firefox binary...not firefox-bin. Added the binary to the Mint menu with a simple menu edit.

CDed into ~/home/me/programs/firefox and tried ./firefox first. It came up in less than 2 seconds from command line. Am writing this as I use it.

Eat your heart out windows users as you click through all the "are you sure you want to allow this program crap"
On Linux the use and custom install of firefox is so easy even a windows sys admin might get the idea.

Silent Update?

[srobert]

I'll update to Firefox 15 when I see it in /usr/ports/www/firefox

Recover tabs when Chrome crashes

[vgerclover]

When you reopen Chrome after it has crashed, try using Ctrl+Shift+T. Most of the time, it will open the last opened window. If you keep doing it, it will keep bringing previously opened Windows/Tabs.

Self-signed certificates?

[david.given]

I've been using Chromium for years, and have been very happy with it. The final straw that made me give up on Firefox was the way it handles self-signed certificates: it gave the me choice of either not viewing the site (and therefore not getting any work done), or else going through a long and fiddly process that would add the certificate to my list of ultimately trusted root certificates. There was no option for 'as I am not doing anything which requires security right now the status of the certificate is irrelevant to me so go ahead'. As at the time I was doing a lot of research on mailing list archives, and one very common mailing list setup would redirect http to https and would install a self-signed certificate, this was actually preventing me getting work done.

Has this behaviour improved any recently?

Re:Self-signed certificates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Three or four clicks is "long and fiddly" to you? Takes 5 seconds for me unless the cert takes a while to download somehow. I guess you must have to go through dozens of self-signed certs on a daily basis?

Re:Self-signed certificates?

[ravenlord_hun]

If you use a lot of equipment that self-signs certs (HP Proliant ILO, NetApp HTTP interface for ONTAP v7, HP blade enclosure Onboard Admin etc) then yes, you meet it. A lot.

Even worse, when you change the IP of something, it will display the security breach page (yeah, the IPs were swapped, I did it myself!) and you have no way of getting around. Except doing a tedious search and deleting the cert from the firefox store yourself, manually.

And no, this behaviour has not improved at all.

Re:Self-signed certificates?

[vlueboy]

Weird. Isn't this the exact kind of thing you'd like to have some extension improve?

Re:Self-signed certificates?

[Nick Nethercote]

I'm pretty sure there's a "ignore the warning just this time" option now.

Re:Self-signed certificates?

[Anonymous Coward]

AFTER you've gone through the long tedious process.

And next time you'll again get it AFTER going through the long tedious process.

AND STILL BUGGY RSS FEED

[1800maxim]

Which they keep breaking every few releases, and it takes several more releases before it's fixed.

For example, I have Slashdot as an RSS feed. After visiting a link, the feed doesn't get updated, unless I right-click and select "Reload Live Bookmark".

The bug is filed here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=766799

Crashed != slowed down to a crawl

[1800maxim]

I have about 10 tabs open throughout the day. At the end of the day, the browser starts to slow down to the point that a restart is necessary to refresh it.

Just because it has a memory leak doesn't mean it will crash. But using more than 1 GB of memory is not really needed, especially when after a restart the memory usage goes to between 200-300 MBs. And yes, it still retains my history for each tab, which I can visit just as well by pressing the BACK button.

I don't understand the need to keep all my history cached in memory.

8.01 is the version available for mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox is a memory pig - I am typically running 15 - 20, even 30 tabs at a time, and it's typically grabbing 3+Gig of memory (flash is a massive hog, too). I can live with that, but what I can't stand are the updates. Every time I update, I lose more than I gain. I used to blindly allow firefox to apply updates, but not any more, certainly not after the bitches disabling the handy print to .pdf key functionality.

And today, when I went to check for this update mentioned here, I see that 10+ plug-ins will lose functionality if I 'upgrade' - uh, no thanks, that's not progress

Re:8.01 is the version available for mac

[tuppe666]

Firefox is a memory pig - I am typically running 15 - 20, even 30 tabs at a time, and it's typically grabbing 3+Gig of memory (flash is a massive hog, too).

From every test on the net http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-chrome-20-firefox-13-opera-12,3228-12.html memory is comparable to the other major browsers.

First Post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn! I shouldn't have switched from Opera to Firefox 15.

I just updated to 14

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on now, I just finally allowed 14 to be installed on my PC. I delay because every release now breaks something, most annoyingly it's the themes that get broken even when the UI didn't apparently change at all!

The comment subject

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not where you put the beginning of your comment.

Re:Will it also automatically not blow up extensio

[quixote9]

You must have forgotten what I said between reading my comment and your reply. The short answer (since any other kind might overtax your reading comprehension) is "No."

FF(S) 15

[Anonymous Coward]

FF15 has crashed 77 times in the last 20 mins since installing it.

Been running FF13 for awhile

[kilodelta]

And it works ok, but it has some annoy-o-glitches in it. I'm glad they addressed the memory leaks though. There were times I could watch memory just get eaten up by Firefox just going to Google. And the silent upgrade/update - no thank you!

Sloppy Code. Where are the Software Engineers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article and/or this direct post about the memory leaks: http://blog.kylehuey.com/post/21892343371/fixing-the-memory-leak

Basically it's difficult to not leak memory in a certain module of the code base. Instead of refactoring that module to make it less error prone, they added another layer to cut all references to the objects when the main module drops that object. They leave the addons to handle any exceptions they'll get from these now null references.

WTF? Have they never heard of weak references before? The module should be handing out weak references to all the addons not strong references. This is a problem with Firefox, not it's addons. Granted the addons are holding on to memory longer than Firefox prefers, but they wouldn't have been able to if Firefox was designed properly in the first place.

The article claims the fix was a "radical idea". Hell no, there are some basic CS and SE concepts lacking. This was a hack, not well designed fix.

FUBAR

[Ian McBeth]

This release is FUBAR..... Mandatory Tabs on top WTF????????? If i wanted to use #@$@#!!!%^&&@#!@! Chrome or IE I would!!!! DAMN YOU MOZILLA..

Re:FUBAR

[Anonymous Coward]

1. be smart
2. don't be a retard
3. type about:config, find browser.tabs.onTop and set it to false
4 ???
5. profit

The Most Sinister Part...

[Anonymous Coward]

The headline reads:
Firefox 15 Released: Silent Updates, Compressed Textures, Add-on Memory Leak Fix
The Related Links at the page bottom has:
12 Dead, 50 Injured at The Dark Knight Rises Showing In Colorado

Concidence? I think not...

Great! Now with randomly disabled addons / themes

[Destructo-Bot]

I haven't updated to the latest version yet because yet again the theme I prefer to use is not compatible with the latest release. When last I updated the theme I had been using made the interface a complete garbled mess and I had to restart it in safe-mode and manually purge and reinstall all my addons and themes before it would behave correctly once more. At that time at least I knew the cause as I had just accepted an update, if it does it silently it may be a bit more confusing when something either goes bonkers or just silently stops working. What I would want is for some kind of set API or backwards compatibility that themes and addons can use so that the authors don't have to update every single time FF does.

For some of us, it leaks worse than ever

[Anonymous Coward]

I was so excited when I heard about this focus on memory leakage. But I've been on the 15 beta releases and it leaks worse than 13x.

It does not matter that I close all but one window/tab. After 24 hours of light browsing, it is pushing 1.5 GB and can rarely run for more than 48 hours. I am running debian squeeze.

So what is the support path? How does this get fixed?

Re:For some of us, it leaks worse than ever

[slacka]

I was so excited when I heard about this focus on memory leakage. But I've been on the 15 beta releases and it leaks worse than 13x.

It does not matter that I close all but one window/tab. After 24 hours of light browsing, it is pushing 1.5 GB and can rarely run for more than 48 hours. So what is the support path? How does this get fixed?

First of all, if you're running on the Beta Channel, you shouldn't be asking how to submit bugs or complaining about them. But if you must, just google "firefox memshrink and bug report". There's a ton of information. I filled one out a few weeks ago for an HTML5 game. They were responsive and addressed the issue quickly.

how come

[Anonymous Coward]

People still care about firefox?

So what about the absolutely awful SSL error page?

[ravenlord_hun]

So, when are they going to do SOMETHING about that, or at least recognize the issue?

I'm absolutely tired of the Mozilla dev team making a middle finger gesture at these errors and basically saying "Well, get your certs in order!" Only, the certs we are talking about are automatically generated on devices like HP switches, HP ILO modules or NetApp filers, I can't even touch them without a serious hacking and risking breaking a pretty darn expensive piece of equipment. AND only because the FF devs have a fetish about making the CERT ISSUE page as tedious as possible.

smooth on my 64-bit linux

[Chirs]

There's the occasional very brief stutter, but on the whole it's just fine. Certainly nothing I'd complain about.

Freezes after load (Win 7 starter on Acer netbook)

[Anonymous Coward]

Subj sez it all... So far, disappointing...

Re:Will it also automatically not blow up extensio

[Anonymous Coward]

They've since updated their extension checking scheme so that their new versions don't break everybody's extensions...

It's the Damn Disk Cache System

[fast turtle]

Set it back to the old 50MB size and empty on close and you wont have the memory leak and yes it does work correctly on a Win7 system with a mear 2GB of memory that sees lots of flash (neopets/yahoo games). Hell I saw the change back in 4.0 and reset the damn thing back to 50Mb as that's all I need for temp internet files in firefox or IE

Is It Just Me

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like Mozilla keeps insisting on taking some stupid course with development, or implementing some stupid feature, and then spending the next several cycles trying to fix all the regressions that the stupidity caused. Hiding "http://" in the URL bar is a perfect example. There are dozens of bugs where this stupid idea is causing all kinds of headaches for people who just want to use their damned browser. Now Mozilla wastes cycles trying to fix all these issues instead of improving some of the bugs that have been around over a decade and have more votes than anything else.

subject

[Legion303]

"Mozilla says they have 'now plugged the main cause of memory leaks in Firefox add-ons.' "

They've been claiming something like this for 13 versions. I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:subject

[Nick Nethercote]

That's a common misconception. Fortunately I wrote https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2012/08/29/debunking-a-misconception-about-firefox-releases/ earlier today just for you.

Re:subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it wasn't for 13 versions, before the Firefox 5 version listed as the first to fix it, they were claiming that there are no leaks.

Weren't they even at some point claiming that it isn't a leak, they are just caching the entire internet to make your browsing experience faster. Well, technically the browser is faster once you get to start it again when the system has finally recovered after running completely out of memory, when the entire system has been unresponsive because of swapping for several minutes, but only when you don't factor in the waiting time and time time wasted to find those pages again that were open (before they saved open tabs).

356 tabs

[kbahey]

Last session I saved had 356 tabs in 5 windows.

Firefox worked fine with that number of tabs as soon as disabled Firebug. Before that, it chewed up so much CPU and memory as Firebug tried to debug every request made by all those AJAX calls.

Oh, and I have NoScript too, and disable javascript and flash except for a few sites.

Re:Will it also automatically not blow up extensio

[Nick Nethercote]

Extension compatibility hasn't been a problem since Firefox 10; the max version is now automatically bumped. Furthermore, Firefox 4, 5, and 6 were kind of sucky releases, esp. in terms of memory consumption. Firefox 15 is a much better browser. UI changes since 5 have been minimal. It's also not full of security holes the way older versions now are. You should try it.

Tab Mix Plus makes multi-row tabs.

[Futurepower(R)]

"The tabs don't split into multiple lines of tabs..."

Try the Tab Mix Plus extension. Choose this setting:

Tab Mix Plus > Options > Display > Tab Bar > When tabs don't fit width > Multi-row

The reason Firefox is ultra important to human development at present is that it has so many excellent extensions.

Re:Tab Mix Plus makes multi-row tabs.

[alexo]

Unfortunately, it doesn't support putting tabs on the side.

I Love Firefox

[Zoxed]

At the risk of killing my Slashdot cred: I love Firefox.
I have not noticed any memory leak problems, my 15+ Add-Ons have not broken with FF updates, I do not care what version they call it (major or minor number updates) and I can not remember when it last crashed on me.

Software Engineers?

[bussdriver]

Can somebody PLEASE find the corporate spy from microsoft working at Mozilla and get them?!

Does it update automatically?

[aled]

I'm using version Mosaic 2.0.

FF better than Chrome in some areas

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched to Chrome because it was noticeably faster than FF at the time and I was fed up with Mozilla ignoring speed improvements and those memory problems in favor of a bloated, overfeatured tank. That speed differential has narrowed however; FF quickly realized it would soon cease to exist if it didn't catch up to Chromium.

Now I miss FF bookmark tagging. This makes organizing and finding bookmarks so much better. Chrome doesn't have bookmark tags and if it did you can bet these would not be compatible with FF. Bookmark tagging doesn't seem much but it's very powerful.

Feeding the troll

[jensend]

You are totally full of crap. You didn't "point out that there is a low latency niche that this codec COULD fill," you had to have two different posters bash you over the head with that fact before you acknowledged it. I didn't claim Opus "would end up on every PMP and other consumer device" either; I talked about HTML5 use and real-time communications. Try reading and understanding before you start spouting bull.

Apple had very little to do with the rise of H.264; its very large technical superiority over DIVX and other previous codecs, its early-to-market advantage over VC-1, Theora, and VP8, its use on Blu-ray, and the appearance of a best-of-breed free encoder (x.264) all contributed a heck of a lot more than Apple. Apple has been a big factor in AAC adoption due to iTunes, but that doesn't mean they have that kind of power with any other market niche. Steve Jobs' comment about Flash didn't make any change in the Flash vs HTML5 war at all, and the impact of Apple's stance regarding Flash on iDevices has only been to slightly accelerate an existing trend.

You rant and rave about how Apple is God and then you accuse everybody else of having drunk the Koolaid? Go get your head examined.

Re:Feeding the troll

[hairyfeet]

Oh really? How about a link and I'll even be nice enough to bold it for you In the low latency niche, which is just that, a small niche, then it MIGHT have a shot if it isn't buried by the trolls There you go, I said it might have a shot if the trolls don't bury them. In case you haven't noticed patent trolls are a BIG problem with codecs, with it getting bad enough the DoJ is investigating MPEG-LA for setting up a troll group for WebM.

Stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" all you want, because H.264 was treated as just another codec, one of many codecs and containers, until Steve Jobs walked out on stage and said "No Flash, H.264!" and the crowds cheered and everyone and their dog and their dog's squeaky toy jumped right on the bandwagon. And WTF did you expect them to do? Apple makes MSFT in the 90s look like Bob's Distro, they are the largest corp on the PLANET. If you want to run on the biggest corp in the world's devices you gotta play by their rules, and that means H.264.

Re:So what about the absolutely awful SSL error pa

[Culture20]

Then verify the cert and accept it permanently. ie Get your certs in order. Do you complain about SSH yammering about changed certs too? The warning is there for a good reason.

WinRAR evaluation period

[sciencewhiz]

There's a really simple way to stop the WinRAR evaluation period notice.

Re:This isn't a bug tracker - Meow

[Anonymous Coward]

Sauce of milk to table three.

Re:So what about the absolutely awful SSL error pa

[ravenlord_hun]

The issue is, you cannot accept a cert from an IP that had a different cert accepted before. You get sec_error_reused_issuer_and_serial and that's the end of the line until you delete the previous cert. I would have no problem if I could accept the changed cert like in SSH!

Re:Will it also automatically not blow up extensio

[BZ]

It hasn't "automatically blown up" extensions since Firefox 10, back in January 2012.

Constantly breaking add-on API contracts

[glenviewjeff]

I've just about had it with Firefox. FF15's automatic update again broke at least one of my essential add-ons (Tabkit). Furthermore they have made it nearly impossible for a reasonable user to figure out how to downgrade. Mozilla's development behavior is reprehensible--it is reckless to repeatedly break API contracts with every release as they have. Their management needs to read a book on responsible API development. I am so ready to dump FF as soon as someone else develops a hierarchical tab plugin for an alternate browser.

Re:Constantly breaking add-on API contracts

[glenviewjeff]

In response to my comment, I did find this blog post which attempts to justify their behavior. To summarize, Dave is saying that essentially the entire application is the API, and to keep plugins working they would have to stop changing Firefox. I think it would behoove Mozilla to think this through a bit more carefully if it's not already too late to do so. They could (have) offered a stable guaranteed API that would not change, but still offered a volatile API (if that isn't an oxymoron). This way, add-on developers could partition their code and more easily find what might break during updates.