Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Fixed a 14-Year-Old Bug In Firefox, Now Adblock Plus Uses Less Memory
An anonymous reader writes: Mozilla launched Firefox 41 yesterday. Today, Adblock Plus confirmed the update "massively improves" the memory usage of its Firefox add-on. This particular memory issue was brought up in May 2014 by Mozilla and by Adblock Plus. But one of the bugs that contributed to the problem was actually first reported on Bugzilla in April 2001 (bug 77999).
When you can use ublock Origin, which uses even less ram.
Now I can not only block the Kardashians but also Donald Trump and Taylor Swift.
When will they fix the bug that's slowly turning Firefox into a crappy clone of Chrome?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Using Firefox has become like that relationship that used to be perfect and then out of nowhere your partner starts cheating on you and each time swears its going to be the last time.
And you keep falling for it.
"I'm a humble person really,
I'm actually much greater than I think I am"
Firefox 41 also removed the New Tab URL preference (browser.newtab.url), telling people to use a third-party extension instead.
The reason? Malware can change the setting. Full stop. That's it. So, because someone's computer is already compromised, and that malware changed a Firefox preference (alongside doing things like, you know, running a keylogger), Mozilla decided to cause headache and grief for everyone else. And to top it all off, if you want to continue to configure the new tab URL, you should use an extension written by some random guy.
I just don't understand the mentality. Choosing the default URL for a new tab seems like such an obvious feature, yet it's getting ripped out too, like so many others that Gavin Sharp has pissed on. Fuck Mozilla.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Ah. An AdBlock thread without APK is like a outhouse without the stink.
AFAICT it's not a bug, more of a feature request.
The problem was that style sheets were not being shared between pages, even if they were identical. So AdBlockPro had a copy of its style sheets shared in each tab. Apparently it uses a large style sheet?
So this change allowed for some de-duplication.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I thought Firefox didn't have any memory issues? That was the party line from Mozilla for so long.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
On behalf of all other AC's I apologize for this piece of unintelligible tripe.
I realize we do not have a very good reputation, but this is below even our standards. And that includes goatse, GNAA and even DICE editing standards.
Again, on behalf of all AC's, our sincerest apologies.
Here comes Slashdot's resident spammer to tell us why browser extensions are bad, but some bullshit software he wrote (which just rides the coattails of other people) is good.
Notice he never addresses how advertising companies spin up new servers day in and day out, but no operating system's implementation of /etc/hosts will support wildcards on a domain. Blocking foo.adserver.com is useless when they create bar.adserver.com and baz.adserver.com an hour from now. Instead, he will ad-hominem attack anyone mentioning this.
Notice he never addresses the fact that advertising companies have begun serving their ads directly from IP addresses, bypassing DNS altogether. Instead, he will ad-hominem attack anyone mentioning this.
Notice he never addresses the fact that browser extensions can recognize and block certain DOM elements no matter where they come from, whereas a hosts file is completely incapable of assisting in this manner. Instead, he will ad-hominem attack anyone mentioning this.
Also, that is actually nonsensical as a DNS BL is something you are added to that the other person uses, you can't get by it by using a hosts file on either end (as a hosts file isn't anything like a DNS BL).
But that is ok, when you bring up problems with his hosts files, it is nothing but ad hominem and "I totally showed you up" when he did nothing of the sort.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
So you would slow down your router instead of your browser? The router that's used for more than webpages? The router that has less horsepower than your computer?
DNS Blocking isn't the same thing as DNS BL, stop backpedaling.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Well, way to go Firefox! Right on top of things! But I thought Firefox has been saying for years it has no memory issues? So is this a 14 year old issue that really isn't an issue that now has been fixed? Got it.
I would buy into that argument more if Firefox actually released all the memory from tabs when you were done doing using them.
Coincidentally i just happen to have 100 tabs open, spread across 9 windows, and Firefox is currently consuming 2,871,288 K of private memory.
Close one window with 8 (graphically dense tabs). Wait 30 seconds. Now down to 2,802,295 K.
Close a window with 15 tabs of webcomics. Wait 30 seconds. Now down to 2,717,452 K
I won't bore with you with the rest of the details. Continue closing windows, then tabs, until this post is the only tab left. Still using 1,979,024 K!
The other 99 tabs were apparently just a little it's over 9000 K each, but this last tab is holding on to almost 2 GB of memory with a death grip
The incentive to close extraneous tabs and windows is pretty minuscule when it doesn't actually gain me that much. So instead i open as many tabs as i feel like, then just close everything and start over when either Firefox or the PC starts getting sluggish.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
After a few hours of use with, say, ~10 tabs open, Firefox 40.0.3 leaks memory until it's using 2.6G of RAM, at which point it randomly stops loading images, gets very, very laggy, and freezes for ~30 seconds at a time.
I hope this fixes that (I fail to see how it could make it any worse, frankly).
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
And then close Firefox, open it again, with this post as the only tab. 349,349 K. Opening up a second tab takes it to 357,096 K.
So when you start Firefox has a base footprint of about 340 K + 8K per tab. (Depending on the contents of the page of course.) If it could actually _stay_ like that and recover memory properly when i close tabs then i wouldn't complain. Instead however there was about 1.6 GB of crap stuck in memory before i closed the program completely.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Such as? Please show a link to a bug that was reported 30 years ago and not fixed.
There have been a number of good examples in Windows; for instance there has been a WMF bug for years, fixed in pretty much every version of Windows only to come back again. There's also equivalents of Bash ShellShock, and others. And really, if you want a link just search the /. archives as they've been mentioned in the last year or two as well.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
I actually ENJOY watching these troll worms flail all over, blowing all their modpoints (& I just run them dry of them eventually via my UNLIMITED posting abilities here, unlike other ac posters).
So you you put some effort into being a spammer (boast about it in fact) and you admit that you like disrupting the normal functioning of this site.
Did you ever ask yourself, "are these the actions of a happy, fulfilled person who has a meaningful life?" You're a pest and you like being a pest. The irony? You have done more to give your hosts program a bad name than anything anyone else could have possibly said.
Get on topic. Do something useful like apk has in his program. You can't prove his points on hosts wrong either. I suppose I for one expect too much from you slashdot trolls. You don't possess the skills to do either one, so go away troll, shoo. I think it's hilarious how apk makes you fools go nuts but you never ever prove him validly technically wrong. Not ever.
That's the amazing thing about APK and his bootlicking myrmidons (like you). You just can't actually respond to what someone is saying. You read what they said, but you lack the argumentation skill to actually rebut it. Being childish, that causes you to feel like you really don't like that person. Unable to meaingfully respond and filled with your vitriol, all you can do is hand-wave, call names, and change the subject.
If (for some strange reason) I wanted to, I could do that, too. What I couldn't do is act that way, and then convince myself that I am right and the other guy is a big dummy. That is a true masterwork of functional self-deception.
You're welcome. I think it's funny when apk makes trolls go nuts when they can't prove him wrong.
If by "go nuts" you mean laugh at how pathetic apk is, then yes, you've driven us stark raving mad. Of course "troll" is "anyone who doesn't agree with apk".
DNS Blocking isn't the same thing as DNS BL, stop backpedaling.
APK and his myrmidon supporters don't backpedal. Backpedaling when it's obvious you are wrong requires honesty, integrity, and a concern for what the truth is. It also requires the courage to admit fault and the grace to want to.
Expecting APK and his myrmidons to do that is like expecting a cockroach to appreciate opera. It's far beyond their reach.
I dumped FF the moment they decided to start jamming ads in, and included plugins that I'll never use as part of the feature set. Compared to Palemoon or Waterfox, Firefox has a lot of problems and they seem to be killing themselves.
Om, nomnomnom...
I closed Firefox, opened it again, with that post in one tab and this reply in another. 174,192K. I wonder why the difference is so big.
Viewing HTML5 video seems to make Firefox's memory usage grow fast and, more importantly, stay high even days after the video tabs have been closed.
Hosts files won't work in Windows 10
That's been squashed.
Use DD-WRT on your router, install auto daily blocklist update. Now no devices on network including mobile devices will never see any ads.
Any idea why it took them so long?
If you send me an email, and my mail server is using a DNSBL, my server will get a response such as 127.0.0.5, this would indicate that you send spam (true...), and therefore my email server would drop the email you sent. Please explain how your hosts file will get around DNSBL now, as it isn't something under your control.
The last digit in the response usually corresponds to the reason that the mail server was blacklisted in some of the DNSBL providers. The RFC calls for the reason to be in a TXT field though.
If you don't believe me, do a Google search for DNSBL and see what it returns, it surely won't return what you are saying.
If Slashdot's mail server used a DNSBL, you would never even know your email was refused, it would not reach timothy, he wouldn't even know you had sent an email. Your hosts file will never get around it.
11.) Get you by dnsbl
This is a false statement. If you meant it to say DNS Blocking, than change it to that in your future spam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?