nope, it is also our problem if we can not reach ipv6 only resources.
Also, not having ipv6 is just the ISP being lazy, today the backbones have ipv6, big sites also have it, so it is the lazy ISP that are postponing the global ipv6 grow
AFAIK, that info is a rumor, probably spread to make wikileaks look bad
yes, they released docs with names, they said they should have been more careful, but i never saw any real news about that money, only random forum posts
Nope, this is not extortion nor blackmail, it is really trying to get a fix quickly and not letting companies screw their costumers, either by being lazy or by security agencies pressure
If a company gets the bug report and then do not do anything for one year, what wikileaks can do ? release the info before the fix or wait more? either way, it is already too much time for a security bug that is being abused and in the end the info will be public with no one protected and in the end, it will always be wikileaks fault.
better way is to agree the terms of the disclosure, putting hard limits for the fixes timelines. This pressures the company to follow the agreed timeline and release a fix. If they fulfill, everyone wins, if they fail, wikileaks can pressure for the update and depending of the reason for the delay, they can release the info without patch and report that the company failed with the agreement. this proves that wikileaks tried to follow the rules and the fault for the problem is the company.
I think this is totally logic, MS, Oracle and many other companies do not care about security or take way too long to release fixes... as as the article hints, security agencies can pressure to keep the holes open. With a agreement, everyone knows what will happen and the end user will win. Without any agreement, just sending the info to the companies, those bugs could be open for months, being exploit by unknowns and everyone losed.
Just check the security reports, most of then are fixed in a few days, so asking for a date limit is a good thing... as you also find security fixes that took way to long to be fixed
so we have: - one company that cares about the users and patch a security bug as fast as it can. - another that knows about a hole, but as it being used by some security agency, they do nothing for months, so that those agencies can still exploit the bugs (and who knows who else is also abusing the holes) until the agency have another zero day hole and the company can finally fix that bug, while still keeping other bugs "open"
Security fixes delays is not about "regressions", is about how companies work, how important security is for them and the real interest in fixing the problems.
The are bugs that are hard to fix and may create regressions, but most of then are simple missing checks or bad code that be fixed in a few days. half a year delay like MS sometimes do are other problems...
Notice that RAID cards are recommended to store cached writes, not to build RAID arrays. You can replace that with UPS WITH CONTROLLED SHUTDOWN, so you have time to flush caches.
Just because something works, that doesn't mean that it is safe, that you do not hit internal bugs due not being developed to work that way and that will perform well
Lets listen to a guy that really understand ZFS and built a 71TB NAS with it:
From the page above: "If your NAS is attached to a UPS, this is not much of a risk, you can perform a controlled shutdown before the batteries run out of power."
So read this and understand, if you have a ZFS system without raid backed battery or UPS with controlled shutdown, you risk data
"The absolute minimum RAM for a viable ZFS setup is 4 GB but there is not a lot of headroom for ZFS here. ZFS is quite memory hungry because it uses RAM as a buffer so it can perform operations like checksums and reorder all I/O to be sequential."
So this excludes most low end systems and most desktop for zfs
"ZFS was never designed for consumer hardware, it was destined to be used on server hardware using ECC memory. "
The format is resilient, as DVD-R(W) may have scratches and have CRC in metadata... sadly it do not have CRC in data, as the DVD reader/physical format also have some recovery info, so UDF didn't add it directly.
It is still a good format, being a ISO, it should have a long life and be read for a long time. Of course, for HDs, i would bet that mechanical problems will probably be a problem sooner.
other than UDF, ZFS and BTRFS both have CRC and should be resilient and the format is set and should not change. but there are other formats with CRC, check the wikipedia for more options
Finally, probably the format that you store the files is also important, a solid RAR or TAR may cause problems in the future than compressing each file with gzip. Probably the best option is store the files using par, as it was created to permit access to the files even if several blocks can't be read. some backup tools support this, directly , as DAR or but, or indirectly, as backuppc (search ArchivePar) on the archive step
Whatever you do, a followup of this in one year (or more) is a good idea, as the theory and real life may be different things:)
ZFS was build to be run on big server, with lot of ram, with battery protected raids. On whatever OS it runs, it tried to use lot more resources than other Filesystems, specially if you enable dedupe and compression. It is a good filesystem, but lot of people think that it is a good general filesystem for all users, where it is not. It can be used, but it is not light, it works best in dedicated fileservers
you are talking about the nvidia closed source driver. If you like it, great for you! i had bugs in the past, you can not freely switch kernel and xorg and nvidia controls your machine and how you use the gpu
AMD closed source are the same, but with the less quality drivers (but amdgpu pro improved things)
But what we are talking is about OPEN SOURCE drivers. AMD open source driver is becoming great, it already outperform the closed source in several tests, is in the kernel and mesa Intel only have open drivers nVidia do not have open drivers, but a team of developers build the nouveau driver for the nvidia cards... feature sake is mostly at same level as the AMD drivers, but they have several limitations, the biggest are the firmware (possible now solved, until they release more cards) and the lack of GPU dynamic frequency on newer cards. you can manually push the freq up and down for some(?) GPUs, but it is annoying and not sure if you can reach even the closed source frequencies.
many people do not care about close/open source, but they are also many people that do care about this. Without open source, you would have most of the software you have today
that excuse may sort of work in some parts of the GPU (but not to all, most of the hardware is totally theirs!)... but fails totally in the chipset and ethernet!
and where that blocks then from releasing a firmware for open source? The firmware is exactly the same, just have a signature that the nouveau team can use to load it... it takes 5 minutes to do that, yet they take years to release signed firmware.
you know that AMD (and intel) fully support open source drivers, right? they have no problem with that, GPL is not the problem.
but again, no one is asking then to build open source drivers! just release the damn specs! how the info to change the GPU frequency is a problem because of the GPL? or even because of IP protection?
fine, support their closed source drivers... what we want is some info, specs for their hardware, so open source community can build open drivers. Also, if they have signed firmware for the closed source drivers, why can't they released signed firmware for the open source drivers and force people to wait years just to use the cards with some open source drivers (even if incomplete and slow)
It is our choice after all, but they want to remove from us that choice by not helping with even the basic info
you do not know what you are talking about. To start Linus was not even referring the GPU drivers, but all the other nvidia hardware (mostly chipset and ethernet), that all other companies support without any problem, most of then directly.
Protect IP! how other companies protect their IP by releasing specs for the hardware? or releasing firmware that can be used by open drivers. nvidia only now released signed firmware to allow a shit-load of cards to even run, after years of the release!
and it is not just GPU, they are even worst in their chipset and network card. There is almost no ethernet chip that do not support linux, yet nvidia released a broken semi-closed source driver, refused to answer even most basic questions to allow a open source driver to run.
Sorry, nvidia may have good cards and good closed GPU drivers, but it is a shitty company for open source. If they do not release even basic info about what registers we can used, they are just being stupid or evil. there is no IP in that information
Almost everything you have open source in nvidia hardware was reverse engineering or trial and error. So yes, f*ck you nvidia!
User level kernel API is stable and do not change (unless there is a very good reason for that, like security problems) driver API changes, having layers of APIs make the kernel hard to maintain and slower, just check the traditional unix systems, with several historic layers all around, sometime just for one driver. Also, the nvidia chipset and network code they released was very bad, how would a stable API help here? you have to rewrite it, but for that, you need to know what that binary blobs in the code are really doing... did they tell anything? nope
Again, as linus reported, nvidia was the worst company to work with when building open drivers. Even broadcom helps more!
yahoo as search engine is one of their way to earn money, they have to pay everyone! just like you install add-on, you just swap the search engine for whatever you like.
I do not know about mac, but on linux, if i press the customization, i the can right click on the menu bar and select it to always show, no need a add on for that. They hide the status and menu bars so smaller screens have more space for web pages. Not everyone have high end computers with big screens, and metrics show that both status bar and menu bars are mostly unused. I too restored the status bar in the past, but i finally agree that is not needed. My menu bar is still always visible!
I do agree that they added some trash, but again, it is just some way to get some money without selling the user base
>Dump the new API, then you won't have layers upon layers, just the one that works. Not one option! Again, multi-process, restrict add-on usage of internal code and servo integration will force the API to change! that or firefox will stop... but then, nothing stops you of using one old firefox version or using pale moon.
Add-on right now can mess with firefox internal and make it leak memory, crash and steal data it should not even have access. They are dangerous! Mozilla tries to review all add-ons. but there are too many, malware can be hidden in code and only major bug may be found in the review. Also, both API will exist in parallel and the way to "encourage" add-on to migrate to the new API is saying that they will end by year end
About performance, it is not only javascript, the all GUI, web, network, images share the same process. Firefox feal laggy due to that, specially compared with webkit browsers. And again, even if many people do not like javascript webapps (myself included) and prefer plain html pages and native apps, they will not stop existing, quite the opposite, all those java and flash apps will be migrated to javascript heavy pages, many native apps will be migrated to webapps (so they can cash a subscription and more agile developer model). There is nothing you, me or mozilla can do about it. Just look at the speed that gmail took the web and the birth of many heavy webapps in the web, how every site used jquery and/or other js frameworks, even if they do not really need it!
Finally, between flash or java and javascript heavy webapps, i prefer the latest! without it, the web would be full of flash and java, a truly horrible place!
>Doesn't a fast browser with fewer addons basically describe Google Chrome?
Browsers are all the "same", with little different details. Those details are the key firefox is the open standard champion , flexible, open and protects your privacy. Sync is also a killer feature for many people chrome is big, open, but tracks you and is not as flexible as firefox (google totally controls it) chromium track you less, but still tracks you, or will be several missing features. It is open, but google still mostly controls it edge is closed, tracks you, is little flexible and tries to pull a new IE (lock you up in closed standards, hidden agenda). It also miss some w3c features. It is not cross-platform safari is closed, not flexible at all, miss many w3c features (simply because they refuse to do it, hidden agenda) and tried to push their closed and patented formats, it is also not really cross-platform (no one really use it in windows)
>Why don't you just switch to that if speed trumps customization for you?
Please notice that firefox is not killing add-on or customization, most of the currently working add-ons will be redone. Most add-on are not happy mostly because they will need to redo it and the more limited API (but needed for security reasons)
>I haven't seen a lot of people complaining about speed for any browser.
firefox single process was "slow", but not in the sense of page load speed, but in small hiccups and lack of smooth operation in certain areas... one heavy tab affects the all browser, locks and crashes in one tab lock and crash all tabs. Multi-process was set to solve most of this, with rust/servo being the final fix. Most people report that chrome is faster because it starts fast and each tab (mostly) is a different process, so switching tab is always smooth and heavy tabs do not really lock the other ones in different process. Firefox single process design with javascript heavy pages do not scale and with time, with more javascript, this is getting worse...all the small problems make user prefer webkit browsers
Also, chrome for a couple of tabs is ok, but eats lot of cpu, uses lot of ram with many tabs. Firefox in the past was the worst in resource usage, but now is chrome! Firefox can scale to many tab without using so much resources. Multi-process is helping more in that too.
Firefox also do not track you, quite the opposite, they are adding several tracking protection to the browser
Because current add-on design do not work with multi-process!!
They are not ending the add-on, they must be migrated to the new API. Sadly many add-on are abandoned and will not be migrated. Others will not be allowed to do some functions, almost all of then must be rewritten. But the current add-on have fatal flaws and are doomed sooner or later.
There are several problems with the current^WOLD add-on layer 1- Old add-on have too much access to the firefox internals (security, memory leaks and performance problems) 2- Old add-ons do not know how to work with multi-process and mozilla had to simulate a pool+lock for then to work (big lock, performance problems) 3- Migrating code from Servo to Geko would break many add-on unless there are many compatibility layers (performance and code maintenance problems)
Solutions: 1-They could swap unsafe parts slowly and break many add-on on each release, forcing a slow and never ending add-on update cycle. It is much easier to just swap the API and warn that everyone must rewrite. 2-Add-ons need to be fixed or else the browser will not really use the multi-process well and worse, may be even slower because of the big lock. If they remove the compatilbity layer, add-on stop working, but postponing the removal will keep the browser slower too and the add-on may never be updated (multi-process is already a several years project and all add-ons where flagged to be updated, but many are just abandoned). So wait more is not a solution, they need to be rewrite 3-No one wants layers over layers, it is a maintenance hell, specially because the add-on have access to almost everything. Migrating to a simpler API make mozilla job much easier, firefox safer. Add-on will have to be rebuild and developers need to learn a new API. They will also be unable to do some things they can right now, but on the good side, it will much easier to port add-on between chrome and firefox and the add-on can be run in separated process, so bad add-on will be easier to stop and control.
Yes, i too would like to keep all the add-ons, but between a fast browser with fewer add-ons and a slow one with many outdated add-ons, i prefer the first one. You can not complain about firefox being slow and also complain about keeping old add-ons. To fix one, you need to fix the other too! and you can not delay this, market share is shrinking due firefox being slower.
They were making changes slowly, as they were mostly doing the last few years, and try to not break the add-ons, but you can not postpone a big internal change forever and now it is time to drop some old features, like NPAPI plugins and the old add-on interface
What i hope is that mozilla is now more open to some features, as some features will be blocked to add-ons, mozilla need to be more flexible on certain features. The google design model ("only allow features that at least 80% of people use") is bad for firefox, as many of the users of firefox are the 20% of excluded people in chrome
it's the only power generation, at all, that's pre-funding cleanup.. LOL! if you don't even know how much that cleanup will cost, how it is funding it! they must put some cleanup money now, because later may not be any money for that (company went bust) and the cleanup is REQUIRED due the time scale of the dangers, but you are crazy to think that money will be enough. Petrol, coal, gas, solar, water, etc may have a "half live" contamination of some years and about 100 years for the structures (maybe a little more for dams). Nuclear is thousand of years... some elements are millions of years. yes, pre-pay that because you will not rise from the dead to pay it later
Rock do not protect you from leaks ->water sheet contamination->food chain. Also due the time scale, caves can collapse or give alternative open access and spread the radioactive elements Finally, malicious usage of the waste are also on the table, as again this is a ultimate weapon that can devastate a huge area. you have to protect this wastes for thousand of years... in containers that were designed to last 100 years (and as we see, are even lasting that long!)
But if it so safe, go live near one of the waste storage.
Recycling the nuclear waste may help, but it is also expensive and still do not solve all the problem, you just get more concentrate and dangerous nuclear waste that you still have to store. Maybe later there is a way to recycle the recycled waste, who knows! One of the problems of recycling the nuclear waste is that you need to move very dangerous waste all around the countries. Accident may happen and even worse, terrorist attacks
2/3 is legal fees and other shit?! are you high?! there are requirements because this is dangerous, without then companies will sooner or later cut corners. but building a nuclear plan is huge investment due the all things needed, not because legal fees. just check how much it cost to build the protective casing in Chernobyl... there was no legal fees and it is now a full plant
True, both ways generate huge profits for the stock owners and CEO at the cost of the common people.
But all new techs have bubbles and from the thousand of companies that show up, only a few will survive and grow, all others will go bust. Those that invest need to know how to choose and what to choose. Nuclear included
another trump puppet... facts are just annoying details, that can be safely ignored, right?!! every bad things in the world (including wars, diseases and famine) are because we are not burning enough coal...the bible say that somewhere for sure!!!
WTF! buidling a nuclear plant is a HUGE investment... true that it have a long life...but you are just another one that thinks that nuclear waste do not cost any money and somebody else problem. For you and anybody that think like this, you and your family (and all future childrends) should move next to a nuclear waste storage and not leave for thousand of years
Slashdot Mirror
nope, it is also our problem if we can not reach ipv6 only resources.
Also, not having ipv6 is just the ISP being lazy, today the backbones have ipv6, big sites also have it, so it is the lazy ISP that are postponing the global ipv6 grow
AFAIK, that info is a rumor, probably spread to make wikileaks look bad
yes, they released docs with names, they said they should have been more careful, but i never saw any real news about that money, only random forum posts
Nope, this is not extortion nor blackmail, it is really trying to get a fix quickly and not letting companies screw their costumers, either by being lazy or by security agencies pressure
If a company gets the bug report and then do not do anything for one year, what wikileaks can do ? release the info before the fix or wait more? either way, it is already too much time for a security bug that is being abused and in the end the info will be public with no one protected and in the end, it will always be wikileaks fault.
better way is to agree the terms of the disclosure, putting hard limits for the fixes timelines. This pressures the company to follow the agreed timeline and release a fix. If they fulfill, everyone wins, if they fail, wikileaks can pressure for the update and depending of the reason for the delay, they can release the info without patch and report that the company failed with the agreement. this proves that wikileaks tried to follow the rules and the fault for the problem is the company.
I think this is totally logic, MS, Oracle and many other companies do not care about security or take way too long to release fixes... as as the article hints, security agencies can pressure to keep the holes open. With a agreement, everyone knows what will happen and the end user will win. Without any agreement, just sending the info to the companies, those bugs could be open for months, being exploit by unknowns and everyone losed.
Just check the security reports, most of then are fixed in a few days, so asking for a date limit is a good thing... as you also find security fixes that took way to long to be fixed
what?!
so we have:
- one company that cares about the users and patch a security bug as fast as it can.
- another that knows about a hole, but as it being used by some security agency, they do nothing for months, so that those agencies can still exploit the bugs (and who knows who else is also abusing the holes) until the agency have another zero day hole and the company can finally fix that bug, while still keeping other bugs "open"
Security fixes delays is not about "regressions", is about how companies work, how important security is for them and the real interest in fixing the problems.
The are bugs that are hard to fix and may create regressions, but most of then are simple missing checks or bad code that be fixed in a few days. half a year delay like MS sometimes do are other problems...
So your password is 140Mandak262Jamuna ... now i just need to find your username!!
Notice that RAID cards are recommended to store cached writes, not to build RAID arrays. You can replace that with UPS WITH CONTROLLED SHUTDOWN, so you have time to flush caches.
Just because something works, that doesn't mean that it is safe, that you do not hit internal bugs due not being developed to work that way and that will perform well
Lets listen to a guy that really understand ZFS and built a 71TB NAS with it:
http://louwrentius.com/please-...
How many desktop hardware you have with ECC? mostly only AMD and even that, not all motherboards and CPUs
http://louwrentius.com/things-...
From the page above:
"If your NAS is attached to a UPS, this is not much of a risk, you can perform a controlled shutdown before the batteries run out of power."
So read this and understand, if you have a ZFS system without raid backed battery or UPS with controlled shutdown, you risk data
"The absolute minimum RAM for a viable ZFS setup is 4 GB but there is not a lot of headroom for ZFS here. ZFS is quite memory hungry because it uses RAM as a buffer so it can perform operations like checksums and reorder all I/O to be sequential."
So this excludes most low end systems and most desktop for zfs
"ZFS was never designed for consumer hardware, it was destined to be used on server hardware using ECC memory. "
Another url, just for fun:
http://louwrentius.com/should-...
UDF is the RW format for dvd-rw and can be used on HDs in all modern OS (it requires format version 2.01)
The format is resilient, as DVD-R(W) may have scratches and have CRC in metadata... sadly it do not have CRC in data, as the DVD reader/physical format also have some recovery info, so UDF didn't add it directly.
It is still a good format, being a ISO, it should have a long life and be read for a long time. Of course, for HDs, i would bet that mechanical problems will probably be a problem sooner.
other than UDF, ZFS and BTRFS both have CRC and should be resilient and the format is set and should not change. but there are other formats with CRC, check the wikipedia for more options
Finally, probably the format that you store the files is also important, a solid RAR or TAR may cause problems in the future than compressing each file with gzip. Probably the best option is store the files using par, as it was created to permit access to the files even if several blocks can't be read. some backup tools support this, directly , as DAR or but, or indirectly, as backuppc (search ArchivePar) on the archive step
Whatever you do, a followup of this in one year (or more) is a good idea, as the theory and real life may be different things :)
ZFS was build to be run on big server, with lot of ram, with battery protected raids. On whatever OS it runs, it tried to use lot more resources than other Filesystems, specially if you enable dedupe and compression. It is a good filesystem, but lot of people think that it is a good general filesystem for all users, where it is not. It can be used, but it is not light, it works best in dedicated fileservers
dillo is very fast and it have a GUI also... it do not have javascript, but that is a feature for many people!
you are talking about the nvidia closed source driver. If you like it, great for you!
i had bugs in the past, you can not freely switch kernel and xorg and nvidia controls your machine and how you use the gpu
AMD closed source are the same, but with the less quality drivers (but amdgpu pro improved things)
But what we are talking is about OPEN SOURCE drivers.
AMD open source driver is becoming great, it already outperform the closed source in several tests, is in the kernel and mesa
Intel only have open drivers
nVidia do not have open drivers, but a team of developers build the nouveau driver for the nvidia cards... feature sake is mostly at same level as the AMD drivers, but they have several limitations, the biggest are the firmware (possible now solved, until they release more cards) and the lack of GPU dynamic frequency on newer cards. you can manually push the freq up and down for some(?) GPUs, but it is annoying and not sure if you can reach even the closed source frequencies.
many people do not care about close/open source, but they are also many people that do care about this. Without open source, you would have most of the software you have today
that excuse may sort of work in some parts of the GPU (but not to all, most of the hardware is totally theirs!)... but fails totally in the chipset and ethernet!
and where that blocks then from releasing a firmware for open source? The firmware is exactly the same, just have a signature that the nouveau team can use to load it... it takes 5 minutes to do that, yet they take years to release signed firmware.
No, that excuse do not work
you know that AMD (and intel) fully support open source drivers, right?
they have no problem with that, GPL is not the problem.
but again, no one is asking then to build open source drivers! just release the damn specs! how the info to change the GPU frequency is a problem because of the GPL? or even because of IP protection?
fine, support their closed source drivers... what we want is some info, specs for their hardware, so open source community can build open drivers.
Also, if they have signed firmware for the closed source drivers, why can't they released signed firmware for the open source drivers and force people to wait years just to use the cards with some open source drivers (even if incomplete and slow)
It is our choice after all, but they want to remove from us that choice by not helping with even the basic info
you do not know what you are talking about. To start Linus was not even referring the GPU drivers, but all the other nvidia hardware (mostly chipset and ethernet), that all other companies support without any problem, most of then directly.
Protect IP! how other companies protect their IP by releasing specs for the hardware? or releasing firmware that can be used by open drivers.
nvidia only now released signed firmware to allow a shit-load of cards to even run, after years of the release!
and it is not just GPU, they are even worst in their chipset and network card. There is almost no ethernet chip that do not support linux, yet nvidia released a broken semi-closed source driver, refused to answer even most basic questions to allow a open source driver to run.
Sorry, nvidia may have good cards and good closed GPU drivers, but it is a shitty company for open source. If they do not release even basic info about what registers we can used, they are just being stupid or evil. there is no IP in that information
Almost everything you have open source in nvidia hardware was reverse engineering or trial and error. So yes, f*ck you nvidia!
User level kernel API is stable and do not change (unless there is a very good reason for that, like security problems)
driver API changes, having layers of APIs make the kernel hard to maintain and slower, just check the traditional unix systems, with several historic layers all around, sometime just for one driver. Also, the nvidia chipset and network code they released was very bad, how would a stable API help here? you have to rewrite it, but for that, you need to know what that binary blobs in the code are really doing... did they tell anything? nope
Again, as linus reported, nvidia was the worst company to work with when building open drivers. Even broadcom helps more!
No!!! not nvidia, do not support a company that do nothing to support open source drivers... as Linus say: "F*ck you Nvidia!"
AMD Ryzen CPU + AMD GPU (for using AMDGPU KMS + radeonsi mesa drivers)
full power, open source!
designers do not code! If anything, they can design new UI, but most people do not really want new UI! so yes, let then design new logos!
yahoo as search engine is one of their way to earn money, they have to pay everyone! just like you install add-on, you just swap the search engine for whatever you like.
I do not know about mac, but on linux, if i press the customization, i the can right click on the menu bar and select it to always show, no need a add on for that.
They hide the status and menu bars so smaller screens have more space for web pages. Not everyone have high end computers with big screens, and metrics show that both status bar and menu bars are mostly unused. I too restored the status bar in the past, but i finally agree that is not needed. My menu bar is still always visible!
I do agree that they added some trash, but again, it is just some way to get some money without selling the user base
>Dump the new API, then you won't have layers upon layers, just the one that works.
Not one option! Again, multi-process, restrict add-on usage of internal code and servo integration will force the API to change! that or firefox will stop... but then, nothing stops you of using one old firefox version or using pale moon.
Add-on right now can mess with firefox internal and make it leak memory, crash and steal data it should not even have access. They are dangerous! Mozilla tries to review all add-ons. but there are too many, malware can be hidden in code and only major bug may be found in the review.
Also, both API will exist in parallel and the way to "encourage" add-on to migrate to the new API is saying that they will end by year end
About performance, it is not only javascript, the all GUI, web, network, images share the same process. Firefox feal laggy due to that, specially compared with webkit browsers. And again, even if many people do not like javascript webapps (myself included) and prefer plain html pages and native apps, they will not stop existing, quite the opposite, all those java and flash apps will be migrated to javascript heavy pages, many native apps will be migrated to webapps (so they can cash a subscription and more agile developer model). There is nothing you, me or mozilla can do about it. Just look at the speed that gmail took the web and the birth of many heavy webapps in the web, how every site used jquery and/or other js frameworks, even if they do not really need it!
Finally, between flash or java and javascript heavy webapps, i prefer the latest! without it, the web would be full of flash and java, a truly horrible place!
>Doesn't a fast browser with fewer addons basically describe Google Chrome?
Browsers are all the "same", with little different details. Those details are the key
firefox is the open standard champion , flexible, open and protects your privacy. Sync is also a killer feature for many people
chrome is big, open, but tracks you and is not as flexible as firefox (google totally controls it)
chromium track you less, but still tracks you, or will be several missing features. It is open, but google still mostly controls it
edge is closed, tracks you, is little flexible and tries to pull a new IE (lock you up in closed standards, hidden agenda). It also miss some w3c features. It is not cross-platform
safari is closed, not flexible at all, miss many w3c features (simply because they refuse to do it, hidden agenda) and tried to push their closed and patented formats, it is also not really cross-platform (no one really use it in windows)
>Why don't you just switch to that if speed trumps customization for you?
Please notice that firefox is not killing add-on or customization, most of the currently working add-ons will be redone. Most add-on are not happy mostly because they will need to redo it and the more limited API (but needed for security reasons)
>I haven't seen a lot of people complaining about speed for any browser.
firefox single process was "slow", but not in the sense of page load speed, but in small hiccups and lack of smooth operation in certain areas... one heavy tab
affects the all browser, locks and crashes in one tab lock and crash all tabs. Multi-process was set to solve most of this, with rust/servo being the final fix.
Most people report that chrome is faster because it starts fast and each tab (mostly) is a different process, so switching tab is always smooth and heavy tabs do not really lock the other ones in different process. Firefox single process design with javascript heavy pages do not scale and with time, with more javascript, this is getting worse...all the small problems make user prefer webkit browsers
Also, chrome for a couple of tabs is ok, but eats lot of cpu, uses lot of ram with many tabs. Firefox in the past was the worst in resource usage, but now is chrome!
Firefox can scale to many tab without using so much resources. Multi-process is helping more in that too.
Firefox also do not track you, quite the opposite, they are adding several tracking protection to the browser
Because current add-on design do not work with multi-process!!
They are not ending the add-on, they must be migrated to the new API. Sadly many add-on are abandoned and will not be migrated. Others will not be allowed to do some functions, almost all of then must be rewritten. But the current add-on have fatal flaws and are doomed sooner or later.
There are several problems with the current^WOLD add-on layer
1- Old add-on have too much access to the firefox internals (security, memory leaks and performance problems)
2- Old add-ons do not know how to work with multi-process and mozilla had to simulate a pool+lock for then to work (big lock, performance problems)
3- Migrating code from Servo to Geko would break many add-on unless there are many compatibility layers (performance and code maintenance problems)
Solutions:
1-They could swap unsafe parts slowly and break many add-on on each release, forcing a slow and never ending add-on update cycle. It is much easier to just swap the API and warn that everyone must rewrite.
2-Add-ons need to be fixed or else the browser will not really use the multi-process well and worse, may be even slower because of the big lock. If they remove the compatilbity layer, add-on stop working, but postponing the removal will keep the browser slower too and the add-on may never be updated (multi-process is already a several years project and all add-ons where flagged to be updated, but many are just abandoned). So wait more is not a solution, they need to be rewrite
3-No one wants layers over layers, it is a maintenance hell, specially because the add-on have access to almost everything. Migrating to a simpler API make mozilla job much easier, firefox safer. Add-on will have to be rebuild and developers need to learn a new API. They will also be unable to do some things they can right now, but on the good side, it will much easier to port add-on between chrome and firefox and the add-on can be run in separated process, so bad add-on will be easier to stop and control.
Yes, i too would like to keep all the add-ons, but between a fast browser with fewer add-ons and a slow one with many outdated add-ons, i prefer the first one. You can not complain about firefox being slow and also complain about keeping old add-ons. To fix one, you need to fix the other too! and you can not delay this, market share is shrinking due firefox being slower.
They were making changes slowly, as they were mostly doing the last few years, and try to not break the add-ons, but you can not postpone a big internal change forever and now it is time to drop some old features, like NPAPI plugins and the old add-on interface
What i hope is that mozilla is now more open to some features, as some features will be blocked to add-ons, mozilla need to be more flexible on certain features. The google design model ("only allow features that at least 80% of people use") is bad for firefox, as many of the users of firefox are the 20% of excluded people in chrome
it's the only power generation, at all, that's pre-funding cleanup..
LOL!
if you don't even know how much that cleanup will cost, how it is funding it!
they must put some cleanup money now, because later may not be any money for that (company went bust) and the cleanup is REQUIRED due the time scale of the dangers, but you are crazy to think that money will be enough.
Petrol, coal, gas, solar, water, etc may have a "half live" contamination of some years and about 100 years for the structures (maybe a little more for dams). Nuclear is thousand of years... some elements are millions of years. yes, pre-pay that because you will not rise from the dead to pay it later
Rock do not protect you from leaks ->water sheet contamination->food chain.
Also due the time scale, caves can collapse or give alternative open access and spread the radioactive elements
Finally, malicious usage of the waste are also on the table, as again this is a ultimate weapon that can devastate a huge area.
you have to protect this wastes for thousand of years... in containers that were designed to last 100 years (and as we see, are even lasting that long!)
But if it so safe, go live near one of the waste storage.
Recycling the nuclear waste may help, but it is also expensive and still do not solve all the problem, you just get more concentrate and dangerous nuclear waste that you still have to store. Maybe later there is a way to recycle the recycled waste, who knows!
One of the problems of recycling the nuclear waste is that you need to move very dangerous waste all around the countries. Accident may happen and even worse, terrorist attacks
2/3 is legal fees and other shit?! are you high?! there are requirements because this is dangerous, without then companies will sooner or later cut corners. but building a nuclear plan is huge investment due the all things needed, not because legal fees. just check how much it cost to build the protective casing in Chernobyl... there was no legal fees and it is now a full plant
True, both ways generate huge profits for the stock owners and CEO at the cost of the common people.
But all new techs have bubbles and from the thousand of companies that show up, only a few will survive and grow, all others will go bust. Those that invest need to know how to choose and what to choose. Nuclear included
another trump puppet... facts are just annoying details, that can be safely ignored, right?!!
every bad things in the world (including wars, diseases and famine) are because we are not burning enough coal...the bible say that somewhere for sure!!!
WTF!
buidling a nuclear plant is a HUGE investment... true that it have a long life...but you are just another one that thinks that nuclear waste do not cost any money and somebody else problem. For you and anybody that think like this, you and your family (and all future childrends) should move next to a nuclear waste storage and not leave for thousand of years