That depends on your definition of "large company", but I would agree with that. Opera is developed by a company which exists almost exclusively to develop that browser, so they may have an advantage also. They might not have a lot of resources, but all of them are devoted to one thing. It looks like they have around 750 employees, but I would imagine several of those are involved in sales and administration.
Maybe your alleged memory usage and memory leaks come from extensions or plugins.
That doesn't really matter though if you only use Firefox because of the extensions. The only reason I run Firefox is so that I can use Firebug when I'm developing. If I see it taking up 800MB of memory, it doesn't really matter to me whether that's Firefox, or Firebug, or an issue in the Firefox extension architecture, etc. The leak is still there, it's not going to get fixed by everyone blaming someone else.
V8 has gone about as far as it can go with its current approach. Google needs to start exploring alternative approaches to improve V8 further.
I agree, do you think they're not going to do that? I don't think they're going to let their Javascript engine of all things become stale. Mozilla has made impressive gains, but they started so much higher and still have a lot of work to do.
In a few areas, yes, and only because they could benefit from the many years of experience gathered in the development of web browsers.
Well.. that's kind of like saying that the only reason they're ahead is because they have more and better programmers. In the top 5 browsers, Firefox's Javascript engine is fighting with IE for 4th place.
It's probably just the case that Mozilla has focused on things other than Javascript, where Google has a very real need for a browser that can handle large Javascript applications quickly. The two orgs just have different priorities, but I do think that Google is working very quickly, maybe even quicker than any other browser vendor. The IE team has shown a lot of good work lately, but it's taken a really long time, and Opera seems to work at a pretty good pace. Safari doesn't often include very many new features, but the base technologies are certainly improving.
That's an interesting demonstration, but the topic under discussion is Javascript performance, not HTML5 rendering speed. Considering YouTube's usage of HTML5, I think it's likely that Google will begin investing more into the HTML5 development side of Chrome than they have in the past, and seek to gain the same type of performance increases that they have achieved with V8. I would, however, like to see a version of that test with each browser running individually in fullscreen or maximized. It may be the case that the CPU is at 100% usage and that IE and Firefox are more effective at getting CPU time than Chrome and Opera.
No. I mean in a couple of months Mozilla's JavaScript engine will likely match Google's. In several months Mozilla's engine may have surpassed Google's.
Are you assuming that Google is going to stop developing Chrome, that Mozilla is going to manage to reverse the trend and significantly outperform Google, or that we have reached the pinnacle of Javascript engines with V8 and no further development is possible?
But according to Wikipedia, it was first released in September 2008. It took until January *2010* for them to implement a freakin' extension system.
To be fair, the time between Phoenix 0.1 and Firefox 1.0, when the extension system was implemented, was 25 months, longer than the 16 months it took Google.
No, I think its more accurate to say Chrome has just had a lot further to go, and so their pace of development looks impressive when compared to an established project like Firefox.
The impressive part is that Chrome has managed already to beat Firefox in several areas, even though Firefox has a head start of 6 years and has been actively developed for all 8 of its years.
JaegerMonkey is making steady progress in improving performance and in a couple of months or so will likely be on par with Nitro and V8.
You mean, in several months Mozilla will be approaching the level that Google is at now. It's become pretty clear that Google is able to develop Chrome much faster than Mozilla is able to develop Firefox.
Also, Opera is faster than Mozilla as well, I'd like to see it included on that chart to compare with the others. Maybe even IE9, if it doesn't skew the Y-scale too much.
Just tried right before this post with a browser I don't use Facebook on, with a couple email addresses for users from a forum that I admin. It most definitely showed real names for the people, although not pictures. Could be that none of them have pictures. It took 3 failed logins and then a captcha before it showed the name.
I don't think it matters if the original suit holds any water. It's a John Doe so there is nobody there to contest it.
Right, but what judge would even allow that suit? I'm assuming here that step 1 in a lawsuit is essentially to charge people with a crime, and then to show evidence that they are guilty. If the mere possibility of evidence doesn't even exist, how are they even allowed to sue?
What about the issue of time though? You're suing people for doing something at an event that hasn't even taken place yet. How are they even allowed to file that suit? I understand not having a specific target for the suit, but how can you sue someone for doing something in the future?
Existing software probably contributes approximately nothing to the decision. It's the hardware they are interested in, once the platform is decided then they can figure out how to either port existing applications or write new ones. That decision comes after the hardware decision, not before it.
Kind of a tradeoff between having a phone that is better sealed
It doesn't matter how well the device itself is sealed when it is contained inside a hardened waterproof case. You don't think they're just going to stick a retail phone in their pocket, do you? The lack of a swappable battery is a major strike against the iPhone that would take a lot to overcome. It comes down to safety in the field in how soldiers need to be able to do things quickly. They can't be dicking around with a charger when it's possible to just swap out a battery and be done with it. The military has a lot of electronic equipment, and all of the equipment taken into the field uses replaceable batteries, not chargers. They don't walk around at night carrying a charger for their night vision.
And of course you can use a charging case or external charger to refill as needed. Which takes the same space as your external battery...
Right. Why just swap a battery and be done with it when you can plug in to a really big battery and let it sit there for an hour? These soldiers don't have much to do in the field, let's not make their job too easy.
This whole thread is ridiculous. You think the military is going to issue a soldier 2 iPhones? This is your solution? What other pieces of military equipment do soldiers carry more than one of? Do they walk around with 2 helmets in case the first one gets damaged? No, they don't, they make a helmet that is resistant to damage.
Several years ago I was working on a software project for the Air Force, and the target platform was a certain Dell PDA. We got a few PDAs to help with development. The PDAs arrived with hardshell cases that completely encase the device and can be opened when needed, and contained space for things like additional memory cards and batteries. It adds weight, it adds size, and it makes the whole system less likely to get damaged or destroyed.
That is what the military is going to do. They aren't going to send someone out with two fragile pieces of hardware when they could send them out with one hardened piece. If a soldier can't swap out an iPhone's battery in the field, then that's a major shortcoming. That requires that at least one soldier in the unit carries around a charging station, which complicates the entire process and also adds another point of failure.
The military has laptops that can be driven over with a tank, you think they're going to send soldiers out with a communications device that is not self-maintainable? When a combat pilot needs to bail out of a plane, they are carrying with them a single hardened encrypted rescue radio with several batteries, and they count on that device to save their life.
Check out cnn, fox, msnbc, boing, consumerist, the times, etc. Now check out the BBC, slayradio, or other english sites outside of the US. SINGLE_FUCKEN_SPACED after all punctuation.
Actually, BBC appears quite fond of separating sentences with a line break. Other than that, web browsers render 2 spaces as 1 space. Even if they hit the space bar twice, it's still going to display in the browser as a single space. The only place online you would see two spaces in a row is if they used a non-breaking space character or if the text is in a preformatted tag.
You know what else you notice when you read "shit" on the internet? Terrible grammar, poor spelling, words like "u", "r", "ur", "lol", spelling contractions like "can't" without an apostrophe, leaving hyphens out of things like "double-spaced", etc. The shit on the internet isn't exactly a bastion of good writing practice. There's no reason we should treat language and writing as it exists online as the official version of what is considered correct, especially when there are technical reasons to explain how things like whitespace get displayed by a browser.
Or maybe I'm just a douche bag, right? Sort of like how it's cool to be dumb, and all the smart people suck?
I mentioned that criticism for Apple devices is not technical, but centered around user experience.
Everything Apple does is driven by providing a superior user experience, at any cost, even at the cost of openness.
No, everything Apple does is driven by providing their user experience. That does not mean that the user experience they perceive as superior is in fact better than competitors. I have zero complaints about the "user experience" with my Android device, in fact I get a lot of value out of it (just like you said). Apple is trying the one-size-fits-all user experience model, again, and that may work for some (many) people, but sure as hell not everyone.
If you want an example, assume my company wants to develop a mobile application to complement our paid application, where every customer who purchases the paid application also gets the mobile application, but we don't want people who have not paid for the full application to have the mobile one. How do we distribute this mobile application to our customers? Do we put it on the public App Store and say that you are only allowed to download this free app if you've paid for our other non-mobile one?
Openness doesn't really matter that much to normal, average, non-technical users
See my other reply in this thread about openness. The consumer doesn't care about openness, the developers and manufacturers do. That's why a new Android device comes out every few months, because the developers and vendors are able to do that, because the platform is open.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends on your definition of "large company", but I would agree with that. Opera is developed by a company which exists almost exclusively to develop that browser, so they may have an advantage also. They might not have a lot of resources, but all of them are devoted to one thing. It looks like they have around 750 employees, but I would imagine several of those are involved in sales and administration.
Maybe your alleged memory usage and memory leaks come from extensions or plugins.
That doesn't really matter though if you only use Firefox because of the extensions. The only reason I run Firefox is so that I can use Firebug when I'm developing. If I see it taking up 800MB of memory, it doesn't really matter to me whether that's Firefox, or Firebug, or an issue in the Firefox extension architecture, etc. The leak is still there, it's not going to get fixed by everyone blaming someone else.
That may be true, I haven't looked at IE9 numbers in a while and I don't yet have a machine that can run it.
V8 has gone about as far as it can go with its current approach. Google needs to start exploring alternative approaches to improve V8 further.
I agree, do you think they're not going to do that? I don't think they're going to let their Javascript engine of all things become stale. Mozilla has made impressive gains, but they started so much higher and still have a lot of work to do.
In a few areas, yes, and only because they could benefit from the many years of experience gathered in the development of web browsers.
Well.. that's kind of like saying that the only reason they're ahead is because they have more and better programmers. In the top 5 browsers, Firefox's Javascript engine is fighting with IE for 4th place.
It's probably just the case that Mozilla has focused on things other than Javascript, where Google has a very real need for a browser that can handle large Javascript applications quickly. The two orgs just have different priorities, but I do think that Google is working very quickly, maybe even quicker than any other browser vendor. The IE team has shown a lot of good work lately, but it's taken a really long time, and Opera seems to work at a pretty good pace. Safari doesn't often include very many new features, but the base technologies are certainly improving.
That's an interesting demonstration, but the topic under discussion is Javascript performance, not HTML5 rendering speed. Considering YouTube's usage of HTML5, I think it's likely that Google will begin investing more into the HTML5 development side of Chrome than they have in the past, and seek to gain the same type of performance increases that they have achieved with V8. I would, however, like to see a version of that test with each browser running individually in fullscreen or maximized. It may be the case that the CPU is at 100% usage and that IE and Firefox are more effective at getting CPU time than Chrome and Opera.
No. I mean in a couple of months Mozilla's JavaScript engine will likely match Google's. In several months Mozilla's engine may have surpassed Google's.
Are you assuming that Google is going to stop developing Chrome, that Mozilla is going to manage to reverse the trend and significantly outperform Google, or that we have reached the pinnacle of Javascript engines with V8 and no further development is possible?
But according to Wikipedia, it was first released in September 2008. It took until January *2010* for them to implement a freakin' extension system.
To be fair, the time between Phoenix 0.1 and Firefox 1.0, when the extension system was implemented, was 25 months, longer than the 16 months it took Google.
No, I think its more accurate to say Chrome has just had a lot further to go, and so their pace of development looks impressive when compared to an established project like Firefox.
The impressive part is that Chrome has managed already to beat Firefox in several areas, even though Firefox has a head start of 6 years and has been actively developed for all 8 of its years.
JaegerMonkey is making steady progress in improving performance and in a couple of months or so will likely be on par with Nitro and V8.
You mean, in several months Mozilla will be approaching the level that Google is at now. It's become pretty clear that Google is able to develop Chrome much faster than Mozilla is able to develop Firefox.
Also, Opera is faster than Mozilla as well, I'd like to see it included on that chart to compare with the others. Maybe even IE9, if it doesn't skew the Y-scale too much.
It's the USPTO we're talking about, isn't it?
That's right. I mean, they're totally different. One of them was an HTML page, and this is an "eBook". That's completely different. Right?
Just tried right before this post with a browser I don't use Facebook on, with a couple email addresses for users from a forum that I admin. It most definitely showed real names for the people, although not pictures. Could be that none of them have pictures. It took 3 failed logins and then a captcha before it showed the name.
I don't think it matters if the original suit holds any water. It's a John Doe so there is nobody there to contest it.
Right, but what judge would even allow that suit? I'm assuming here that step 1 in a lawsuit is essentially to charge people with a crime, and then to show evidence that they are guilty. If the mere possibility of evidence doesn't even exist, how are they even allowed to sue?
What about the issue of time though? You're suing people for doing something at an event that hasn't even taken place yet. How are they even allowed to file that suit? I understand not having a specific target for the suit, but how can you sue someone for doing something in the future?
Existing software probably contributes approximately nothing to the decision. It's the hardware they are interested in, once the platform is decided then they can figure out how to either port existing applications or write new ones. That decision comes after the hardware decision, not before it.
Kind of a tradeoff between having a phone that is better sealed
It doesn't matter how well the device itself is sealed when it is contained inside a hardened waterproof case. You don't think they're just going to stick a retail phone in their pocket, do you? The lack of a swappable battery is a major strike against the iPhone that would take a lot to overcome. It comes down to safety in the field in how soldiers need to be able to do things quickly. They can't be dicking around with a charger when it's possible to just swap out a battery and be done with it. The military has a lot of electronic equipment, and all of the equipment taken into the field uses replaceable batteries, not chargers. They don't walk around at night carrying a charger for their night vision.
And of course you can use a charging case or external charger to refill as needed. Which takes the same space as your external battery...
Right. Why just swap a battery and be done with it when you can plug in to a really big battery and let it sit there for an hour? These soldiers don't have much to do in the field, let's not make their job too easy.
This whole thread is ridiculous. You think the military is going to issue a soldier 2 iPhones? This is your solution? What other pieces of military equipment do soldiers carry more than one of? Do they walk around with 2 helmets in case the first one gets damaged? No, they don't, they make a helmet that is resistant to damage.
Several years ago I was working on a software project for the Air Force, and the target platform was a certain Dell PDA. We got a few PDAs to help with development. The PDAs arrived with hardshell cases that completely encase the device and can be opened when needed, and contained space for things like additional memory cards and batteries. It adds weight, it adds size, and it makes the whole system less likely to get damaged or destroyed.
That is what the military is going to do. They aren't going to send someone out with two fragile pieces of hardware when they could send them out with one hardened piece. If a soldier can't swap out an iPhone's battery in the field, then that's a major shortcoming. That requires that at least one soldier in the unit carries around a charging station, which complicates the entire process and also adds another point of failure.
The military has laptops that can be driven over with a tank, you think they're going to send soldiers out with a communications device that is not self-maintainable? When a combat pilot needs to bail out of a plane, they are carrying with them a single hardened encrypted rescue radio with several batteries, and they count on that device to save their life.
Eh? Safari logs Javascript errors to an OS error log?
The idea of this is sick...
Seriously. This Weiner sounds like a real dick.
Check out cnn, fox, msnbc, boing, consumerist, the times, etc. Now check out the BBC, slayradio, or other english sites outside of the US. SINGLE_FUCKEN_SPACED after all punctuation.
Actually, BBC appears quite fond of separating sentences with a line break. Other than that, web browsers render 2 spaces as 1 space. Even if they hit the space bar twice, it's still going to display in the browser as a single space. The only place online you would see two spaces in a row is if they used a non-breaking space character or if the text is in a preformatted tag.
You're saying that it's correct to need to edit your document when you change the font? How does that make any sense?
Notice when you read shit on the internet
You know what else you notice when you read "shit" on the internet? Terrible grammar, poor spelling, words like "u", "r", "ur", "lol", spelling contractions like "can't" without an apostrophe, leaving hyphens out of things like "double-spaced", etc. The shit on the internet isn't exactly a bastion of good writing practice. There's no reason we should treat language and writing as it exists online as the official version of what is considered correct, especially when there are technical reasons to explain how things like whitespace get displayed by a browser.
Or maybe I'm just a douche bag, right? Sort of like how it's cool to be dumb, and all the smart people suck?
sigh..
"phones running Android" vs "phones running iPhone OS"
Why does this need to be explained?
Also, it's bizarre to be comparing an OS to one device.
Why is it bizarre to compare "phones running Android" to "phones from Apple"?
I mentioned that criticism for Apple devices is not technical, but centered around user experience.
Everything Apple does is driven by providing a superior user experience, at any cost, even at the cost of openness.
No, everything Apple does is driven by providing their user experience. That does not mean that the user experience they perceive as superior is in fact better than competitors. I have zero complaints about the "user experience" with my Android device, in fact I get a lot of value out of it (just like you said). Apple is trying the one-size-fits-all user experience model, again, and that may work for some (many) people, but sure as hell not everyone.
If you want an example, assume my company wants to develop a mobile application to complement our paid application, where every customer who purchases the paid application also gets the mobile application, but we don't want people who have not paid for the full application to have the mobile one. How do we distribute this mobile application to our customers? Do we put it on the public App Store and say that you are only allowed to download this free app if you've paid for our other non-mobile one?
Openness doesn't really matter that much to normal, average, non-technical users
See my other reply in this thread about openness. The consumer doesn't care about openness, the developers and manufacturers do. That's why a new Android device comes out every few months, because the developers and vendors are able to do that, because the platform is open.