I did leave it open for a while till it stopped shrinking and I also clicked on "minimize mem usage".
FWIW the yahoo thing is still there despite the tab not being there. I did reopen that link again some minutes ago. How long do I have to wait till it goes away?
Basically what I did was open up a folder with a number of yahoo finance sites. Then open it again, and again, then close the middle bunch. then open folder, then close, repeat a few times ( I guess I kinda abused firefox a bit, but that was only for a short while). Then closed all the windows and tabs, except one. Opened new window, closed old window, go to about:memory, clicked on minimize mem button a few times. Wrote slashdot post. Then did other stuff, then recently I checked some businessweek finance pages. Then now I've closed everything except about:memory and this slashdot form.
And it looks a bit like this: 149.84 MB (100.0%) - explicit +-72.12 MB (48.13%) - js l +-44.37 MB (29.61%) - compartment([System Principal]) l l +-20.68 MB (13.80%) - gc-heap l l l +-7.51 MB (05.01%) - objects l l l +-7.31 MB (04.88%) - arena-unused l l l +-4.75 MB (03.17%) - shapes l l l +-0.96 MB (00.64%) - strings l l l +-0.15 MB (00.10%) - (3 omitted) l l +-14.09 MB (09.40%) - mjit-code l l +-3.08 MB (02.05%) - scripts l l +-2.10 MB (01.40%) - string-chars l l +-2.07 MB (01.38%) - object-slots l l +-1.72 MB (01.15%) - mjit-data l l +-0.64 MB (00.43%) - (2 omitted) l +-21.63 MB (14.44%) - gc-heap-chunk-unused l +-3.85 MB (02.57%) - compartment(atoms) l l +-2.45 MB (01.63%) - string-chars l l +-1.40 MB (00.94%) - gc-heap l l l +-1.21 MB (00.81%) - strings l l l +-0.19 MB (00.13%) - (6 omitted) l l +-0.00 MB (00.00%) - (6 omitted) l +-1.30 MB (00.87%) - (5 omitted) l +-0.97 MB (00.65%) - compartment(http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=1295.KL) l +-0.97 MB (00.65%) - (8 omitted) +-46.44 MB (30.99%) - heap-unclassified +-29.07 MB (19.40%) - storage l +-29.07 MB (19.40%) - sqlite l +-23.21 MB (15.49%) - urlclassifier3.sqlite l l +-23.13 MB (15.43%) - cache-used l l +-0.08 MB (00.06%) - (2 omitted) l +-2.44 MB (01.63%) - places.sqlite l l +-2.11 MB (01.40%) - cache-used l l +-0.34 MB (00.23%) - (2 omitted) l +-2.41 MB (01.61%) - (11 omitted) l +-1.01 MB (00.67%) - other +-0.87 MB (00.58%) - xpti-working-set +-0.85 MB (00.57%) - layout l +-0.85 MB (00.57%) - all l +-0.00 MB (00.00%) - (1 omitted) +-0.49 MB (00.33%) - (1 omitted)
Anyway as I've written this the private mem seems to have dropped a bit after I opened a few more windows and is now 259MB. The yahoo thing is still there, so maybe I've found a bug? Not sure if it's easily reproduceable.
I guess I can put up with it if it takes a long while before the minimum usage hits 400MB. But I haven't really been using Facebook much with Firefox 7.0.1 (was using Chrome for it). Maybe will try that tomorrow...
Chrome's approach is sweeping the problem under the carpet, but every now and then the carpet and everything under gets incinerated;).
p.s. Is the Content Security Policy stuff gaining traction? About 9 years ago I proposed to mozilla.security and a w3c list to create a tag for disabling active content (or some other way of doing it). Everyone was busy creating new and fancy "Go Pedal", there was no "Stop Pedal", the only way to stop was to make sure all the "Go Pedal" were disabled/escaped (even new unknown ones;) ), which I thought was insane. But nobody else really seemed interested back then.
When I say smaller government, I mean less revenue, less spending, and lower page count if the US Code is printed.
That's still obsessing over quantity, and that's still stupid.
Assume enough of you ask for it and they actually give it to you. Given their track record what will happen is they'll chop bits off the government/State and give the profitable bits to corporations owned by their cronies (I believe this happens in Russia and elsewhere). Corporations that can completely ignore the voters rather than pretend to listen and throw you a few bread and circuses from time to time. Look at the recent Slashdot article on the 147 companies in the world that control most stuff, or this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brendancoffey/2011/10/26/the-four-companies-that-control-the-147-companies-that-own-everything/ Do those look like they listen to US voters? Some of those companies may listen to their customers, but how many US voters are customers/shareholders they will pay attention to?
If that happens you'd have a small government with less revenue, less spending, lower page count in the US Code, heck lower page count in your Constitution too if enough of you ask for it. And you'd be as screwed or worse.
All the roads and highways could be private property owned by corporations - you'd have to pay for access. All the utilities too, but without any pesky Government regulation (just the way most libertarians like it). Your currency is already controlled by organization that's not quite government, so hey why not have a fully private corporation be in charge of it too with no regulation or one with "low page count".
When your dreams are granted you can vote for whoever you want and it would make even less of a difference.
Even if the crazy Libertarians took over there would be little they can do, since the government by then would be a weakling with no practical power over anything.
They can threaten the corporations but the corporations could then say: "You and whose army?". No revenue = no army.
If the voters haven't been using their brains and ballots well, I doubt they'd do a good job voting with bullets either.
And that's why Centos is actually good for Redhat in some ways.
Centos is the free Redhat Enterprise Linux that people use or try instead of using Debian or other distros. Without Centos, more people would just use other distros.
Because Centos is not Redhat, if there are problems with the OS, Redhat can easily say "It's not our product, we don't support it". Many PHBs will prefer to hand Redhat money to cover their butts to avoid this happening. It's usually not their money after all.
This CIO doesn't care, so the submitter should discreetly[1] get everything in writing (so he/she doesn't get blamed later for not buying support - even though it might not have made a difference;) ), and just get on with it.
[1] In many work environments it might be suboptimal if you get stuff in writing but kick up a big fuss in the process.
Every time a worker leaves the Federal Payroll to become a private-sector Federal Contractor, the President and Congress can claim to be reducing the size of government. They publicize the fact that âoe1990 total government employment⦠was 5.23 million,â which fell to âoe2.84 million in 2009.â
There you go, here's what happens when you voters keep asking for small government. That's why I've said time and time again, the problem is not quantity. It's quality. It's not the quantity of Government that matters so much as the quality.
You can have these jokers reducing the size of Government to near zero, but if everything is done by such contractors, it makes no difference or it's even worse.
Private Corporations don't even have to pretend to listen to the voters. The Government does, hence this "small government initiative".
I'm using Windows XP SP3. The task manager's "Mem Usage" column appears to be the same as process explorer's "Working Set" column.
Here's another one from today: Firefox 7.0.1 after opening and closing many tabs, then closing everything except one window. Opening a new window, having about:memory, closing the other window.
I'm not too clear on what's "explicit" usage, heap-committed and heap-used numbers, and what shows up in Process Explorer. To me what actually counts is whatever that would make the computer start to swap- even if the rest are small/tiny. That's the main thing right? As far as I understand Private Bytes cannot be used by other apps, so if that keeps going up, the computer will start running out of memory.
Process explorer says: Peak Private bytes = 674MB Private bytes=239MB Working Set = 247MB Virtual Size =631MB
Task manager says: Mem Usage: 247MB VM Size= 239MB Threads = 36
Mozilla says: 135.57 MB (100.0%) - explicit +-67.89 MB (50.08%) - js l +-38.87 MB (28.67%) - compartment([System Principal]) l l +-19.02 MB (14.03%) - gc-heap l l l +-6.92 MB (05.10%) - arena-unused l l l +-6.85 MB (05.05%) - objects l l l +-4.18 MB (03.08%) - shapes l l l +-0.94 MB (00.70%) - strings l l l +-0.14 MB (00.10%) - (3 omitted) l l +-11.21 MB (08.27%) - mjit-code l l +-2.91 MB (02.15%) - scripts l l +-2.02 MB (01.49%) - string-chars l l +-1.87 MB (01.38%) - object-slots l l +-1.59 MB (01.17%) - mjit-data l l +-0.24 MB (00.18%) - (2 omitted) l +-23.54 MB (17.36%) - gc-heap-chunk-unused l +-3.50 MB (02.58%) - compartment(atoms) l l +-2.10 MB (01.55%) - string-chars l l +-1.40 MB (01.03%) - gc-heap l l l +-1.18 MB (00.87%) - strings l l l +-0.22 MB (00.16%) - (6 omitted) l l +-0.00 MB (00.00%) - (6 omitted) l +-0.89 MB (00.66%) - compartment(http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=1295.KL) l l +-0.89 MB (00.66%) - (8 omitted) l +-0.73 MB (00.54%) - gc-heap-chunk-admin l +-0.36 MB (00.26%) - (4 omitted) +-37.88 MB (27.94%) - heap-unclassified +-28.04 MB (20.68%) - storage l +-28.04 MB (20.68%) - sqlite l +-22.68 MB (16.73%) - urlclassifier3.sqlite l l +-22.59 MB (16.67%) - cache-used l l +-0.08 MB (00.06%) - (2 omitted) l +-2.37 MB (01.75%) - (11 omitted) l +-2.02 MB (01.49%) - places.sqlite l l +-1.73 MB (01.27%) - cache-used l l +-0.30 MB (00.22%) - (2 omitted) l +-0.96 MB (00.71%) - other +-0.89 MB (00.66%) - (2 omitted) +-0.87 MB (00.64%) - xpti-working-set
So Is it correct to say that Mozilla (even 7.0.1) often can't return some of the unused private bytes, and that can keep growing as the user opens and closes stuff?
There are many users who hardly ever shutdown their computers (just suspend/hibernate) and even their browsers. But over time they might still close and reopen some browser windows.
I suspect that's why despite Chrome being a fatter (and possibly leakier) browser, such users may think Firefox is worse in practice. From what I see, with Chrome opening and closing some windows/tabs usually frees up all the memory involved - the process just goes away returning the memory to the OS (and letting the geniuses in charge of the OS take care of fragmentation - not the browser's problem anymore;) ). This appears to be true for IE as well (I haven't looked really closely - hardly ever use it:) ).
The current Firefox approach may require you all to also do what the OS bunch are doing or trying to do: e.g. http://kerneltrap.org/memory
Yes, coz two computers don't change the world much. Two billion computers do.
There appear to be many great engineers. There don't appear to be very many great CEOs.
Steve Jobs may not have been a great CEO (depends on your yardstick) and he may have been an asshole, but if he was, he was an asshole with taste. Any CEO can emulate the asshole bit with ease, but most have no taste, and that's the big difference. They can't tell the difference between good and insanely great when one of their engineers/designers/artists shows stuff to them.
A crappy CEO could have 10 "great" engineers/designers, and 90+ others who are a mix of crap, passable and good; But if the CEO can't figure out who and what's great, good and crap, how will the great staff and stuff rise above the crap?
You could have great soldiers, but if the General is stupid or crazy, the soldiers may still win battles but they are going to do a lot more dying. So like it or not the CEOs are more important than mere engineers.
p.s. I'm not saying all the CEOs deserve huge salaries (in fact most don't).
OK here's what I got from about:memory (curiously repeatedly clicking on minimize memory seems to increase some memory use numbers, after the initial reduction). 111.74 MB (100.0%) - explicit +-44.45 MB (39.78%) - js l +-33.23 MB (29.74%) - compartment([System Principal]) l l +-15.13 MB (13.54%) - gc-heap l l l +-7.52 MB (06.73%) - objects l l l +-4.47 MB (04.00%) - shapes l l l +-1.98 MB (01.77%) - arena-unused l l l +-1.05 MB (00.94%) - strings l l l +-0.12 MB (00.10%) - (3 omitted) l l +-9.34 MB (08.36%) - mjit-code l l +-2.94 MB (02.63%) - scripts l l +-2.42 MB (02.16%) - string-chars l l +-1.94 MB (01.73%) - object-slots l l +-1.37 MB (01.23%) - mjit-data l l +-0.09 MB (00.08%) - (2 omitted) l +-6.65 MB (05.95%) - gc-heap-chunk-unused l +-3.33 MB (02.98%) - compartment(atoms) l l +-1.97 MB (01.77%) - string-chars l l +-1.36 MB (01.22%) - gc-heap l l l +-1.18 MB (01.05%) - strings l l l +-0.18 MB (00.16%) - (6 omitted) l l +-0.00 MB (00.00%) - (6 omitted) l +-1.24 MB (01.11%) - (7 omitted) +-37.88 MB (33.90%) - heap-unclassified +-26.91 MB (24.08%) - storage l +-26.91 MB (24.08%) - sqlite l +-21.48 MB (19.23%) - urlclassifier3.sqlite l l +-21.40 MB (19.15%) - cache-used l l +-0.08 MB (00.07%) - (2 omitted) l +-2.62 MB (02.34%) - (12 omitted) l +-1.92 MB (01.72%) - places.sqlite l l +-1.63 MB (01.46%) - cache-used l l +-0.29 MB (00.26%) - (2 omitted) l +-0.88 MB (00.79%) - other +-1.09 MB (00.98%) - layout l +-1.09 MB (00.98%) - all l +-0.00 MB (00.00%) - (1 omitted) +-0.87 MB (00.78%) - xpti-working-set +-0.53 MB (00.48%) - (1 omitted)
My point was C and Unix aren't that great. There were other options and other people working on stuff that were viable alternatives.
Yes Dennis Ritchie was one of the people who worked on Multics and Plan9, but he was not the only one, nor the key person for those. He was one of the people for Unix and C.
So in a world without Dennis Ritchie, there might not be something like Unix and C (which aren't that great), but there would be other stuff, and some of them superior in many ways.
But what's so great about C and Unix? There was stuff like Multics and Lisp before Unix. And Plan 9 and Smalltalk after.
Maybe progress would have been delayed for a decade, but it's hard to say that the world would be such a worse place if C and Unix weren't around.
Might even be better - from what I see there aren't that many C programmers who can safely write in C, but because of its popularity and performance they end up picking C.
That's why the world works.
on
Dennis Ritchie Day
·
· Score: 3, Informative
If we had days and events to recognize each and everyone who helped to make the world work, the world would not work.
OK I tried it. I after getting the memory usage up to 700MB by opening many tabs and windows (slashdot and some news sites), I then closed everything except one tab, opened a new window to the default Firefox start page, closed old window. After waiting a minute or two, usage went down to about 180+MB. Is it supposed to still be using 180MB? No added extensions at all.
And don't say I never upgrade my browser. I've upgraded it a few times already. Fact is it's only till Firefox 7 there's this memshrink stuff. Didn't the Mozilla bunch claim the memory problems were fixed in version 3, 3.5, 3.6, 4, 5 and version 6?
Go ahead blame me for not wanting to waste my time upgrading only to face the same problem.
Look at all the memory problems in bugzilla. Fact is it's only till Firefox 7 there's this memshrink stuff. Didn't the mozilla bunch claim it was fixed in version 3, 3.5, 3.6, 4, 5 and version 6?
So why is there the need for this memshrink stuff if they told the truth before?
Blame me for not upgrading. But I'll still blame the Mozilla devs. For the past 5 or 6 years I've tried upgrading to solve the problem every time people say they've fixed it. Each time they haven't. So given the Mozilla dev team's track record, maybe by Firefox 8 or 9 it'll really be fixed.
As for the improvements I was talking about. it used to be Mozilla would crash if a website just sneezed at it. IMO the reason for Netscape's demise wasn't mainly Microsoft, but Netscape's crappy product itself - look at how many years it took for Mozilla to get usable. The codebase must have been pretty crap. Compare with the progress Google has made with in a much shorter space of time, basing on webkit.
Yes Google Chrome is a bigger memory hog in many cases, but it's process based, so if the windows/processes you no longer need are closed, the memory is returned to the OS. So Google Chome could be a bigger leaking pile of shit, but the real world impact is less- you close/kill the offending processes and the memory is freed up without affecting the other browser sessions.
Perhaps the high memory usage is not actually a leak, and the browser is just "working as designed". Despite that it can still be considered a problem to the users.
Here's an example (firefox 3.6.23). Yesterday I had many mozilla windows and tabs open. The browser took up 600MB. I closed everything except one one window with one tab, and opened a new tab, and closed the other tab (so there is no page to go "Back" to).
The browser process still took up 400MB. Why? Note: I am using noscript, adblock plus, treestyle tabs and certificate patrol.
I just tried it on another mozilla browser that does not have treestyle tabs (but with noscript, adblock plus and certificate patrol), on start up: 67MB. Opened up slashdot, classic discussion, opened a few large articles, got that browser process to 170+MB. Opened Google in a new window (so no cacheable "back history") . Closed everything else. Browser process drops from 170MB to 105MB. So what is the extra 30+MB for?
For people who only use Mozilla that may not be a problem since the 400MB may be buffers or cached data that Mozilla can reuse again.
But many people use other applications as well - word processors, email programs, spreadsheets, virtual machines, development environments. So if they close browser windows and the browser does not return the unnecessary memory to the operating system for use by their other applications unless they close the ENTIRE browser, to them that is a BUG.
Maybe you can have a configurable for "browser only machine" vs "Multitask machine".
No, I am not going to upgrade to your latest major version[1]. I see no proof that you guys fixed the problem. That said, mozilla has improved over the years, thanks.
[1] BTW it's pretty stupid of you guys to mess about with the version numbers for no good reason. At worst case do what the other stupid companies do: have a marketing version number (for those who care about the bullshit) and a technical version number (for those who care about the tech and truth).
But it's not increasing the attack surface at all. If it's pure javascript, the interpreter is already there anyway.
1) Depending on how it is implemented, it might be for those who use noscript;). 2) There's plenty of stuff like click jacking, session stealing etc, so if the mozilla's pdf renderer can somehow be tricked into executing arbitrary javascript of the attacker's choice, then there may be ways to pwn users.
Is there a good theory on how catalysts work, so that scientists can use it to actually design new catalysts rather than "try a whole bunch of stuff and hope one works better"?
BTW: 1) I don't see where I made a comparison to E911. 2) much of your talk about IPv6 is not really relevant to domain names and TLDs.
Hardly any user in the world is going to type IPv6 addresses.They're going to type domain names. So if they want to figure out what is available in a particular room/hall/building, what is the way for them to do so without forced HTTP/DNS packet redirection and other hack jobs?
For identifying nearby hosts with names, the.local TLD already exists.
Which Internet standards document or similar says that.local is a TLD reserved for such use? As far as I know.local is not reserved after so many years.
And because of all the messiness, it's probably best to reserve.local for "local legacy" use (mDNS etc), and start over with.here OR some other tld for a proper "reserved for official local use" TLD, which could resolve to standard local use IPv6 and IPv4 addresses as you suggest.
The firefox extensions I usually use are: 1) Noscript 2) Adblock Plus 3) TreeStyleTabs (there's also tabkit, but somehow prefer the way TST works - e.g. easy to close parent+child tabs) 4) Certificate Patrol 5) British English Dictionary;)
I sometimes do use Firebug and Firecookie too.
I don't find a need to switch- I run both if I have to;). Plus I even run multiple instances of Firefox (process started with a different user account -not sure if you can do that with Chrome).
I find Firebug often makes firefox use up tons of memory. But I still use it sometimes in combination with Firecookie - with it I can modify cookies to test stuff - not just delete them, AND do it with the browser still running, sessions open etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I did leave it open for a while till it stopped shrinking and I also clicked on "minimize mem usage".
FWIW the yahoo thing is still there despite the tab not being there. I did reopen that link again some minutes ago. How long do I have to wait till it goes away?
Basically what I did was open up a folder with a number of yahoo finance sites. Then open it again, and again, then close the middle bunch. then open folder, then close, repeat a few times ( I guess I kinda abused firefox a bit, but that was only for a short while). Then closed all the windows and tabs, except one. Opened new window, closed old window, go to about:memory, clicked on minimize mem button a few times. Wrote slashdot post. Then did other stuff, then recently I checked some businessweek finance pages. Then now I've closed everything except about:memory and this slashdot form.
And it looks a bit like this:
149.84 MB (100.0%) - explicit
+-72.12 MB (48.13%) - js
l +-44.37 MB (29.61%) - compartment([System Principal])
l l +-20.68 MB (13.80%) - gc-heap
l l l +-7.51 MB (05.01%) - objects
l l l +-7.31 MB (04.88%) - arena-unused
l l l +-4.75 MB (03.17%) - shapes
l l l +-0.96 MB (00.64%) - strings
l l l +-0.15 MB (00.10%) - (3 omitted)
l l +-14.09 MB (09.40%) - mjit-code
l l +-3.08 MB (02.05%) - scripts
l l +-2.10 MB (01.40%) - string-chars
l l +-2.07 MB (01.38%) - object-slots
l l +-1.72 MB (01.15%) - mjit-data
l l +-0.64 MB (00.43%) - (2 omitted)
l +-21.63 MB (14.44%) - gc-heap-chunk-unused
l +-3.85 MB (02.57%) - compartment(atoms)
l l +-2.45 MB (01.63%) - string-chars
l l +-1.40 MB (00.94%) - gc-heap
l l l +-1.21 MB (00.81%) - strings
l l l +-0.19 MB (00.13%) - (6 omitted)
l l +-0.00 MB (00.00%) - (6 omitted)
l +-1.30 MB (00.87%) - (5 omitted)
l +-0.97 MB (00.65%) - compartment(http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=1295.KL)
l +-0.97 MB (00.65%) - (8 omitted)
+-46.44 MB (30.99%) - heap-unclassified
+-29.07 MB (19.40%) - storage
l +-29.07 MB (19.40%) - sqlite
l +-23.21 MB (15.49%) - urlclassifier3.sqlite
l l +-23.13 MB (15.43%) - cache-used
l l +-0.08 MB (00.06%) - (2 omitted)
l +-2.44 MB (01.63%) - places.sqlite
l l +-2.11 MB (01.40%) - cache-used
l l +-0.34 MB (00.23%) - (2 omitted)
l +-2.41 MB (01.61%) - (11 omitted)
l +-1.01 MB (00.67%) - other
+-0.87 MB (00.58%) - xpti-working-set
+-0.85 MB (00.57%) - layout
l +-0.85 MB (00.57%) - all
l +-0.00 MB (00.00%) - (1 omitted)
+-0.49 MB (00.33%) - (1 omitted)
Other Measurements
608.74 MB - vsize
291.18 MB - heap-unused
269.96 MB - resident
261.20 MB - private
214.35 MB - heap-committed
134.82 MB - heap-used
45.00 MB - js-gc-heap
2.24 MB - heap-dirty
0.57 MB - gfx-surface-win32
0.00 MB - canvas-2d-pixel-bytes
0.00 MB - gfx-d2d-surfacecache
0.00 MB - gfx-d2d-surfacevram
0.00 MB - gfx-surface-image
Anyway as I've written this the private mem seems to have dropped a bit after I opened a few more windows and is now 259MB. The yahoo thing is still there, so maybe I've found a bug? Not sure if it's easily reproduceable.
I guess I can put up with it if it takes a long while before the minimum usage hits 400MB. But I haven't really been using Facebook much with Firefox 7.0.1 (was using Chrome for it). Maybe will try that tomorrow...
Chrome's approach is sweeping the problem under the carpet, but every now and then the carpet and everything under gets incinerated ;).
p.s. Is the Content Security Policy stuff gaining traction? About 9 years ago I proposed to mozilla.security and a w3c list to create a tag for disabling active content (or some other way of doing it). Everyone was busy creating new and fancy "Go Pedal", there was no "Stop Pedal", the only way to stop was to make sure all the "Go Pedal" were disabled/escaped (even new unknown ones ;) ), which I thought was insane. But nobody else really seemed interested back then.
When I say smaller government, I mean less revenue, less spending, and lower page count if the US Code is printed.
That's still obsessing over quantity, and that's still stupid.
Assume enough of you ask for it and they actually give it to you. Given their track record what will happen is they'll chop bits off the government/State and give the profitable bits to corporations owned by their cronies (I believe this happens in Russia and elsewhere). Corporations that can completely ignore the voters rather than pretend to listen and throw you a few bread and circuses from time to time. Look at the recent Slashdot article on the 147 companies in the world that control most stuff, or this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brendancoffey/2011/10/26/the-four-companies-that-control-the-147-companies-that-own-everything/
Do those look like they listen to US voters? Some of those companies may listen to their customers, but how many US voters are customers/shareholders they will pay attention to?
If that happens you'd have a small government with less revenue, less spending, lower page count in the US Code, heck lower page count in your Constitution too if enough of you ask for it. And you'd be as screwed or worse.
All the roads and highways could be private property owned by corporations - you'd have to pay for access. All the utilities too, but without any pesky Government regulation (just the way most libertarians like it). Your currency is already controlled by organization that's not quite government, so hey why not have a fully private corporation be in charge of it too with no regulation or one with "low page count".
When your dreams are granted you can vote for whoever you want and it would make even less of a difference.
Even if the crazy Libertarians took over there would be little they can do, since the government by then would be a weakling with no practical power over anything.
They can threaten the corporations but the corporations could then say: "You and whose army?". No revenue = no army.
If the voters haven't been using their brains and ballots well, I doubt they'd do a good job voting with bullets either.
And that's why Centos is actually good for Redhat in some ways.
;) ), and just get on with it.
Centos is the free Redhat Enterprise Linux that people use or try instead of using Debian or other distros. Without Centos, more people would just use other distros.
Because Centos is not Redhat, if there are problems with the OS, Redhat can easily say "It's not our product, we don't support it". Many PHBs will prefer to hand Redhat money to cover their butts to avoid this happening. It's usually not their money after all.
This CIO doesn't care, so the submitter should discreetly[1] get everything in writing (so he/she doesn't get blamed later for not buying support - even though it might not have made a difference
[1] In many work environments it might be suboptimal if you get stuff in writing but kick up a big fuss in the process.
Every time a worker leaves the Federal Payroll to become a private-sector Federal Contractor, the President and Congress can claim to be reducing the size of government. They publicize the fact that âoe1990 total government employment⦠was 5.23 million,â which fell to âoe2.84 million in 2009.â
There you go, here's what happens when you voters keep asking for small government. That's why I've said time and time again, the problem is not quantity. It's quality. It's not the quantity of Government that matters so much as the quality.
You can have these jokers reducing the size of Government to near zero, but if everything is done by such contractors, it makes no difference or it's even worse.
Private Corporations don't even have to pretend to listen to the voters. The Government does, hence this "small government initiative".
I'm using Windows XP SP3. The task manager's "Mem Usage" column appears to be the same as process explorer's "Working Set" column.
Here's another one from today: Firefox 7.0.1 after opening and closing many tabs, then closing everything except one window. Opening a new window, having about:memory, closing the other window.
I'm not too clear on what's "explicit" usage, heap-committed and heap-used numbers, and what shows up in Process Explorer. To me what actually counts is whatever that would make the computer start to swap- even if the rest are small/tiny. That's the main thing right? As far as I understand Private Bytes cannot be used by other apps, so if that keeps going up, the computer will start running out of memory.
Process explorer says:
Peak Private bytes = 674MB
Private bytes=239MB
Working Set = 247MB
Virtual Size =631MB
Task manager says:
Mem Usage: 247MB
VM Size= 239MB
Threads = 36
Mozilla says:
135.57 MB (100.0%) - explicit
+-67.89 MB (50.08%) - js
l +-38.87 MB (28.67%) - compartment([System Principal])
l l +-19.02 MB (14.03%) - gc-heap
l l l +-6.92 MB (05.10%) - arena-unused
l l l +-6.85 MB (05.05%) - objects
l l l +-4.18 MB (03.08%) - shapes
l l l +-0.94 MB (00.70%) - strings
l l l +-0.14 MB (00.10%) - (3 omitted)
l l +-11.21 MB (08.27%) - mjit-code
l l +-2.91 MB (02.15%) - scripts
l l +-2.02 MB (01.49%) - string-chars
l l +-1.87 MB (01.38%) - object-slots
l l +-1.59 MB (01.17%) - mjit-data
l l +-0.24 MB (00.18%) - (2 omitted)
l +-23.54 MB (17.36%) - gc-heap-chunk-unused
l +-3.50 MB (02.58%) - compartment(atoms)
l l +-2.10 MB (01.55%) - string-chars
l l +-1.40 MB (01.03%) - gc-heap
l l l +-1.18 MB (00.87%) - strings
l l l +-0.22 MB (00.16%) - (6 omitted)
l l +-0.00 MB (00.00%) - (6 omitted)
l +-0.89 MB (00.66%) - compartment(http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=1295.KL)
l l +-0.89 MB (00.66%) - (8 omitted)
l +-0.73 MB (00.54%) - gc-heap-chunk-admin
l +-0.36 MB (00.26%) - (4 omitted)
+-37.88 MB (27.94%) - heap-unclassified
+-28.04 MB (20.68%) - storage
l +-28.04 MB (20.68%) - sqlite
l +-22.68 MB (16.73%) - urlclassifier3.sqlite
l l +-22.59 MB (16.67%) - cache-used
l l +-0.08 MB (00.06%) - (2 omitted)
l +-2.37 MB (01.75%) - (11 omitted)
l +-2.02 MB (01.49%) - places.sqlite
l l +-1.73 MB (01.27%) - cache-used
l l +-0.30 MB (00.22%) - (2 omitted)
l +-0.96 MB (00.71%) - other
+-0.89 MB (00.66%) - (2 omitted)
+-0.87 MB (00.64%) - xpti-working-set
Other Measurements
616.33 MB - vsize
319.58 MB - heap-unused
239.49 MB - resident
231.73 MB - private
188.06 MB - heap-committed
123.42 MB - heap-used
45.00 MB - js-gc-heap
1.95 MB - heap-dirty
0.68 MB - gfx-surface-win32
0.37 MB - canvas-2d-pixel-bytes
0.00 MB - gfx-d2d-surfacecache
0.00 MB - gfx-d2d-surfacevram
0.00 MB - gfx-surface-image
So Is it correct to say that Mozilla (even 7.0.1) often can't return some of the unused private bytes, and that can keep growing as the user opens and closes stuff?
There are many users who hardly ever shutdown their computers (just suspend/hibernate) and even their browsers. But over time they might still close and reopen some browser windows.
I suspect that's why despite Chrome being a fatter (and possibly leakier) browser, such users may think Firefox is worse in practice. From what I see, with Chrome opening and closing some windows/tabs usually frees up all the memory involved - the process just goes away returning the memory to the OS (and letting the geniuses in charge of the OS take care of fragmentation - not the browser's problem anymore ;) ). This appears to be true for IE as well (I haven't looked really closely - hardly ever use it :) ).
The current Firefox approach may require you all to also do what the OS bunch are doing or trying to do: e.g. http://kerneltrap.org/memory
Maybe the AIs will celebrate it in 2150 or something.
I doubt the humans ever will.
Yes, coz two computers don't change the world much. Two billion computers do.
There appear to be many great engineers. There don't appear to be very many great CEOs.
Steve Jobs may not have been a great CEO (depends on your yardstick) and he may have been an asshole, but if he was, he was an asshole with taste. Any CEO can emulate the asshole bit with ease, but most have no taste, and that's the big difference. They can't tell the difference between good and insanely great when one of their engineers/designers/artists shows stuff to them.
A crappy CEO could have 10 "great" engineers/designers, and 90+ others who are a mix of crap, passable and good; But if the CEO can't figure out who and what's great, good and crap, how will the great staff and stuff rise above the crap?
You could have great soldiers, but if the General is stupid or crazy, the soldiers may still win battles but they are going to do a lot more dying. So like it or not the CEOs are more important than mere engineers.
p.s. I'm not saying all the CEOs deserve huge salaries (in fact most don't).
OK here's what I got from about:memory (curiously repeatedly clicking on minimize memory seems to increase some memory use numbers, after the initial reduction).
111.74 MB (100.0%) - explicit
+-44.45 MB (39.78%) - js
l +-33.23 MB (29.74%) - compartment([System Principal])
l l +-15.13 MB (13.54%) - gc-heap
l l l +-7.52 MB (06.73%) - objects
l l l +-4.47 MB (04.00%) - shapes
l l l +-1.98 MB (01.77%) - arena-unused
l l l +-1.05 MB (00.94%) - strings
l l l +-0.12 MB (00.10%) - (3 omitted)
l l +-9.34 MB (08.36%) - mjit-code
l l +-2.94 MB (02.63%) - scripts
l l +-2.42 MB (02.16%) - string-chars
l l +-1.94 MB (01.73%) - object-slots
l l +-1.37 MB (01.23%) - mjit-data
l l +-0.09 MB (00.08%) - (2 omitted)
l +-6.65 MB (05.95%) - gc-heap-chunk-unused
l +-3.33 MB (02.98%) - compartment(atoms)
l l +-1.97 MB (01.77%) - string-chars
l l +-1.36 MB (01.22%) - gc-heap
l l l +-1.18 MB (01.05%) - strings
l l l +-0.18 MB (00.16%) - (6 omitted)
l l +-0.00 MB (00.00%) - (6 omitted)
l +-1.24 MB (01.11%) - (7 omitted)
+-37.88 MB (33.90%) - heap-unclassified
+-26.91 MB (24.08%) - storage
l +-26.91 MB (24.08%) - sqlite
l +-21.48 MB (19.23%) - urlclassifier3.sqlite
l l +-21.40 MB (19.15%) - cache-used
l l +-0.08 MB (00.07%) - (2 omitted)
l +-2.62 MB (02.34%) - (12 omitted)
l +-1.92 MB (01.72%) - places.sqlite
l l +-1.63 MB (01.46%) - cache-used
l l +-0.29 MB (00.26%) - (2 omitted)
l +-0.88 MB (00.79%) - other
+-1.09 MB (00.98%) - layout
l +-1.09 MB (00.98%) - all
l +-0.00 MB (00.00%) - (1 omitted)
+-0.87 MB (00.78%) - xpti-working-set
+-0.53 MB (00.48%) - (1 omitted)
Other Measurements
342.00 MB - vsize
172.50 MB - resident
165.39 MB - private
127.55 MB - heap-committed
102.08 MB - heap-used
91.92 MB - heap-unused
24.00 MB - js-gc-heap
2.55 MB - heap-dirty
0.46 MB - gfx-surface-win32
0.00 MB - canvas-2d-pixel-bytes
0.00 MB - gfx-d2d-surfacecache
0.00 MB - gfx-d2d-surfacevram
0.00 MB - gfx-surface-image
(some characters replaced/deleted to get past Slashdot's lame lameness filter).
So I see the 110MB "explicit". What's using the rest? Note this is after closing everything down from a peak of 330MB.
The vsize value seems different from the windows reported VM size ( about 170MB).
My point was C and Unix aren't that great. There were other options and other people working on stuff that were viable alternatives.
Yes Dennis Ritchie was one of the people who worked on Multics and Plan9, but he was not the only one, nor the key person for those. He was one of the people for Unix and C.
So in a world without Dennis Ritchie, there might not be something like Unix and C (which aren't that great), but there would be other stuff, and some of them superior in many ways.
Observe: "Today I ate at McDonald's and paid cash" although you were home and had Chinese take-away which you paid with a card.
Giving fake data is not what this idiot is proposing though.
So your suggestion doesn't make the idiot any less of an idiot.
But what's so great about C and Unix? There was stuff like Multics and Lisp before Unix. And Plan 9 and Smalltalk after.
Maybe progress would have been delayed for a decade, but it's hard to say that the world would be such a worse place if C and Unix weren't around.
Might even be better - from what I see there aren't that many C programmers who can safely write in C, but because of its popularity and performance they end up picking C.
If we had days and events to recognize each and everyone who helped to make the world work, the world would not work.
OK I tried it. I after getting the memory usage up to 700MB by opening many tabs and windows (slashdot and some news sites), I then closed everything except one tab, opened a new window to the default Firefox start page, closed old window. After waiting a minute or two, usage went down to about 180+MB. Is it supposed to still be using 180MB? No added extensions at all.
And don't say I never upgrade my browser. I've upgraded it a few times already. Fact is it's only till Firefox 7 there's this memshrink stuff. Didn't the Mozilla bunch claim the memory problems were fixed in version 3, 3.5, 3.6, 4, 5 and version 6?
Go ahead blame me for not wanting to waste my time upgrading only to face the same problem.
Sorry can't keep track. Did I leave out some zeroes?
Don't give me that crap.
Look at all the memory problems in bugzilla. Fact is it's only till Firefox 7 there's this memshrink stuff. Didn't the mozilla bunch claim it was fixed in version 3, 3.5, 3.6, 4, 5 and version 6?
So why is there the need for this memshrink stuff if they told the truth before?
Blame me for not upgrading. But I'll still blame the Mozilla devs. For the past 5 or 6 years I've tried upgrading to solve the problem every time people say they've fixed it. Each time they haven't. So given the Mozilla dev team's track record, maybe by Firefox 8 or 9 it'll really be fixed.
As for the improvements I was talking about. it used to be Mozilla would crash if a website just sneezed at it. IMO the reason for Netscape's demise wasn't mainly Microsoft, but Netscape's crappy product itself - look at how many years it took for Mozilla to get usable. The codebase must have been pretty crap. Compare with the progress Google has made with in a much shorter space of time, basing on webkit.
Yes Google Chrome is a bigger memory hog in many cases, but it's process based, so if the windows/processes you no longer need are closed, the memory is returned to the OS. So Google Chome could be a bigger leaking pile of shit, but the real world impact is less- you close/kill the offending processes and the memory is freed up without affecting the other browser sessions.
Perhaps the high memory usage is not actually a leak, and the browser is just "working as designed". Despite that it can still be considered a problem to the users.
Here's an example (firefox 3.6.23). Yesterday I had many mozilla windows and tabs open. The browser took up 600MB. I closed everything except one one window with one tab, and opened a new tab, and closed the other tab (so there is no page to go "Back" to).
The browser process still took up 400MB. Why? Note: I am using noscript, adblock plus, treestyle tabs and certificate patrol.
I just tried it on another mozilla browser that does not have treestyle tabs (but with noscript, adblock plus and certificate patrol), on start up: 67MB. Opened up slashdot, classic discussion, opened a few large articles, got that browser process to 170+MB. Opened Google in a new window (so no cacheable "back history") . Closed everything else. Browser process drops from 170MB to 105MB. So what is the extra 30+MB for?
For people who only use Mozilla that may not be a problem since the 400MB may be buffers or cached data that Mozilla can reuse again.
But many people use other applications as well - word processors, email programs, spreadsheets, virtual machines, development environments. So if they close browser windows and the browser does not return the unnecessary memory to the operating system for use by their other applications unless they close the ENTIRE browser, to them that is a BUG.
Maybe you can have a configurable for "browser only machine" vs "Multitask machine".
No, I am not going to upgrade to your latest major version[1]. I see no proof that you guys fixed the problem. That said, mozilla has improved over the years, thanks.
[1] BTW it's pretty stupid of you guys to mess about with the version numbers for no good reason. At worst case do what the other stupid companies do: have a marketing version number (for those who care about the bullshit) and a technical version number (for those who care about the tech and truth).
But it's not increasing the attack surface at all. If it's pure javascript, the interpreter is already there anyway.
1) Depending on how it is implemented, it might be for those who use noscript ;).
2) There's plenty of stuff like click jacking, session stealing etc, so if the mozilla's pdf renderer can somehow be tricked into executing arbitrary javascript of the attacker's choice, then there may be ways to pwn users.
Run 4 flash games in firefox/chrome, leave them overnight and each might take 1GB ;).
"made the trains run on time" has actually become a special English phrase/term:
http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/trains.asp
Is there a good theory on how catalysts work, so that scientists can use it to actually design new catalysts rather than "try a whole bunch of stuff and hope one works better"?
BTW:
1) I don't see where I made a comparison to E911.
2) much of your talk about IPv6 is not really relevant to domain names and TLDs.
Hardly any user in the world is going to type IPv6 addresses.They're going to type domain names. So if they want to figure out what is available in a particular room/hall/building, what is the way for them to do so without forced HTTP/DNS packet redirection and other hack jobs?
For identifying nearby hosts with names, the .local TLD already exists.
Which Internet standards document or similar says that .local is a TLD reserved for such use? As far as I know .local is not reserved after so many years.
And because of all the messiness, it's probably best to reserve .local for "local legacy" use (mDNS etc), and start over with .here OR some other tld for a proper "reserved for official local use" TLD, which could resolve to standard local use IPv6 and IPv4 addresses as you suggest.
The firefox extensions I usually use are: ;)
;). Plus I even run multiple instances of Firefox (process started with a different user account -not sure if you can do that with Chrome).
1) Noscript
2) Adblock Plus
3) TreeStyleTabs (there's also tabkit, but somehow prefer the way TST works - e.g. easy to close parent+child tabs)
4) Certificate Patrol
5) British English Dictionary
I sometimes do use Firebug and Firecookie too.
I don't find a need to switch- I run both if I have to
I find Firebug often makes firefox use up tons of memory. But I still use it sometimes in combination with Firecookie - with it I can modify cookies to test stuff - not just delete them, AND do it with the browser still running, sessions open etc.
I prefer ctrl-f. Since I normally use the mouse with my right hand.