"I don't see anyone claiming that Firefox 2 doesn't leak."
What planet have you been on?
People have been calling the behaviour a feature and claiming it's not a leak for yonks. A 2 minute web search for ``firefox doesn't leak memory'' finds these immediately, for example:
My claim, and the claim before mine, is that Firefox 2 leaks. The counterclaim by the firefox fanboys, including most involved with development at the time, is that it doesn't leak.
Firefox 3 is irrelevant to that argument.
However, if behaviour has changed in Firefox 3, then it kind of supports the original claim about Firefox 2, no?
Hmmm. 2MB just got gobbled up pulling up the list of my messages, and loading the Post Comment page. I'll never see that 2MB again until Firefox is killed...
Congratulations, you've bought the lies, I hope you didn't pay too much for them.
Anything which takes memory from the system and never returns it is not a cache. Anything which keeps everything indiscriminately is not a cache. They may have intended it to be a cache, but the bodgers behind it are evidently incompetent, and not worthy of the mantle 'programmer'.
And why on earth would I be interested in the browser configuration that I've already done and which appears to be able to return 34MB to me if firefox has already leaked several hundred megabytes, and continues to leak more with every single new page that I visit.
If what is happening is an OS trick, and firefox is a userspace application that disables this trick, then why is a user-space application interfering with the running of the operating system?
Lynx isn't graphical, you want to compare it to w3m, which whilst text-based also renders images if running under X.
29490 phil 15 0 179m 87m 16m S 0.0 40.1 9:46.17 firefox-bin
8146 root 5 -10 151m 20m 2636 S 0.3 9.1 77:22.35 Xorg 29527 phil 15 0 16616 12m 4532 S 0.0 5.8 0:06.72 emacs21 29682 phil 15 0 10952 8264 2472 T 0.0 3.7 0:00.51 w3m
I kill firefox every day due to its incessant leaking. (I know they've designed it it allocate memory which doesn't get freed, but however they word it, it's still a leak.)
Maybe not the top flight journals, but I have caught a glimpse of several papers intended for publication in peer reviewed journals recently that have cited wikipedia as a source. The most amusing one had as the first entry in the references
There have been more "consumer" oriented linux distributions which will auto-mount and auto-play removable media. I forget which ones, but at least one was quite a big name one (Knoppix or Ubuntu, don't know exactly which version, but it was fairly current a year ago, IIRC). I remember doing some googling and seeing that most people running (as in behind) that distribution had no intention of changing that behaviour.
I think the FCC publish all their cases (perhaps yearly) - they do still go after people. However, it's really not the small-time hams they seem to be focussing their resources on, it's the radio stations. I guess the public are more likely to recognise interference from radio stations, so they're more often grassed up to the FCC.
How can you say that a hard disk with 3 platters or 820 cylinders is "in base 2 natively"?
What is so natively "binary" about 3 and 820 that isn't equally-natively decimal?
Are you also unfamiliar with the fact that in the comms industry, which is arguably the most universal computer technology out there, that powers of 10 are used as the multiplier, and not powers of 2. Those modems were never measuring kibibytes, they were always measuring kilobytes. ISDN B channels are 64000 bps, not 65536 bps, for example.
Exactly opposite impression I once got: I was testing some fairly pucker speakers, and one pair gave me the impression that Metallica was in the room with me. And that was from a CD, I've never had that from vinyl. I bought the other pair I was testing - it was just too spooky an impression.
"The longer a theory evades contradiction, the more accepted it becomes, "
Nope. The longer a theory evades contradiction through multiple and various attempts to demonstrate such a contradiction, the more accepted it becomes.
If it just sits there not being tested, then one gains no confidence in its verity at all.
Neither gamut is a strict subspace of the other. However, if you want to work in one of them, you generally don't want to work in the other. Different representations for different, erm, representations.
That's not pretty good - that's fantastic, compared to the one in TFI. I was going to just say "pffft! that's nothing, look at these instead" and point people to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wave_cloud.jpg instead, but actually it appears bores (why's it called that? It's not contrained, not self-supporting.) can be quite impressive too.
Re:Technically right, but...
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 1
I'm entirely sure that Oxbridge rivalry would trump any such etiquette.
I've long advocated the death by a million paper cuts.
What's one spam? Perhaps a slight annoyance, but nothing more. What's one paper cut? Perhaps a slight annoyance, but nothing more.
Right, multiply both by many many million...
Re:Technically right, but...
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 1
I once played go against one of the top-50 players in one of the top-10 go countries in the world. He gave me a handicap which flattered my beginner status, and only just managed to beat me. He indicated that I played many good moves, and obviously had a reasonable insight into several aspects of the game. I indicated that I found the whole thing a dreadful bore. It's not that I don't like abstract strategy games, far from it.
Never attempt to project your enjoyment for a hobby onto anyone else. It is _entirely_ subjective.
Are you missing this bit: """
recipients buffer
The minimum total number of recipients that must be buffered is
100 recipients. Rejection of messages (for excessive recipients)
with fewer than 100 RCPT commands is a violation of this
specification. """ which is only a couple of paragraphs above what you quoted.
You're also missing the fact that when a server rejects a message because of some issue with the recipients, it is still rejecting the message, and not "rejecting the recipient", which is a completely meaningless concept in the language of the RFC.
The problem is that your definition isn't useful to the problem in hand. In fact it quite obviously isn't even a complete definition, as it leaves undefined "useful". In order to define that, you'd start to need discussing the issues I mentioned above.
Slashdot Mirror
"I don't see anyone claiming that Firefox 2 doesn't leak."
What planet have you been on?
People have been calling the behaviour a feature and claiming it's not a leak for yonks. A 2 minute web search for ``firefox doesn't leak memory'' finds these immediately, for example:
http://internetducttape.com/2006/12/02/how-to-fix-the-firefox-memory-leak-firefox-hack/
http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2006/02/firefoxs_memory.html
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009749.html
My claim, and the claim before mine, is that Firefox 2 leaks.
The counterclaim by the firefox fanboys, including most involved with development at the time, is that it doesn't leak.
Firefox 3 is irrelevant to that argument.
However, if behaviour has changed in Firefox 3, then it kind of supports the original claim about Firefox 2, no?
Hmmm. 2MB just got gobbled up pulling up the list of my messages, and loading the Post Comment page. I'll never see that 2MB again until Firefox is killed...
Nope. It had already been stated that the growth was without bound.
Congratulations, you've bought the lies, I hope you didn't pay too much for them.
Anything which takes memory from the system and never returns it is not a cache. Anything which keeps everything indiscriminately is not a cache. They may have intended it to be a cache, but the bodgers behind it are evidently incompetent, and not worthy of the mantle 'programmer'.
And why on earth would I be interested in the browser configuration that I've already done and which appears to be able to return 34MB to me if firefox has already leaked several hundred megabytes, and continues to leak more with every single new page that I visit.
Extra bonus question:
If what is happening is an OS trick, and firefox is a userspace application that disables this trick, then why is a user-space application interfering with the running of the operating system?
Lynx isn't graphical, you want to compare it to w3m, which whilst text-based also renders images if running under X.
29490 phil 15 0 179m 87m 16m S 0.0 40.1 9:46.17 firefox-bin
8146 root 5 -10 151m 20m 2636 S 0.3 9.1 77:22.35 Xorg
29527 phil 15 0 16616 12m 4532 S 0.0 5.8 0:06.72 emacs21
29682 phil 15 0 10952 8264 2472 T 0.0 3.7 0:00.51 w3m
I kill firefox every day due to its incessant leaking. (I know they've designed it it allocate memory which doesn't get freed, but however they word it, it's still a leak.)
Maybe not the top flight journals, but I have caught a glimpse of several papers intended for publication in peer reviewed journals recently that have cited wikipedia as a source. The most amusing one had as the first entry in the references
[1] Wikipedia, http://www.wikipedia.org/, retrieved 2007-06-05
Do not think for one minute that everything which calls itself academia is actually worthy of the title. Most of it is pure tripe.
There have been more "consumer" oriented linux distributions which will auto-mount and auto-play removable media. I forget which ones, but at least one was quite a big name one (Knoppix or Ubuntu, don't know exactly which version, but it was fairly current a year ago, IIRC). I remember doing some googling and seeing that most people running (as in behind) that distribution had no intention of changing that behaviour.
What definition of 'locking' currencies are you using?
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=CNY&amt=1&t=2y
If that's locked, I'm a dutchman.
I think the FCC publish all their cases (perhaps yearly) - they do still go after people. However, it's really not the small-time hams they seem to be focussing their resources on, it's the radio stations. I guess the public are more likely to recognise interference from radio stations, so they're more often grassed up to the FCC.
How can you say that a hard disk with 3 platters or 820 cylinders is "in base 2 natively"?
What is so natively "binary" about 3 and 820 that isn't equally-natively decimal?
Are you also unfamiliar with the fact that in the comms industry, which is arguably the most universal computer technology out there, that powers of 10 are used as the multiplier, and not powers of 2. Those modems were never measuring kibibytes, they were always measuring kilobytes. ISDN B channels are 64000 bps, not 65536 bps, for example.
Exactly opposite impression I once got: I was testing some fairly pucker speakers, and one pair gave me the impression that Metallica was in the room with me. And that was from a CD, I've never had that from vinyl. I bought the other pair I was testing - it was just too spooky an impression.
"The longer a theory evades contradiction, the more accepted it becomes, "
Nope. The longer a theory evades contradiction through multiple and various attempts to demonstrate such a contradiction, the more accepted it becomes.
If it just sits there not being tested, then one gains no confidence in its verity at all.
Neither gamut is a strict subspace of the other. However, if you want to work in one of them, you generally don't want to work in the other. Different representations for different, erm, representations.
They sent a great ball of helium up into space in order to get a better look at a great ball of helium up in space?
So the bandwidth was identical over 10m of phone line and over 10km of phone line?
Burn your EE textbooks, they're worse than useless.
I saw a demonstration of 55Mb/s HDSL over a kilometre of class 5 bell wire back in 1998.
For 9 years, this is not an enormous leap at all.
http://www.cloudappreciationsociety.org/gallery/index.php?showimage=3264
Wow. A huge thank you for that. My g/f's mother is a meteorologist, I've already passed that URL on to her, I'm sure she'll love the site too.
That's not pretty good - that's fantastic, compared to the one in TFI.
I was going to just say "pffft! that's nothing, look at these instead" and point people to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wave_cloud.jpg
instead, but actually it appears bores (why's it called that? It's not contrained, not self-supporting.) can be quite impressive too.
I'm entirely sure that Oxbridge rivalry would trump any such etiquette.
I've long advocated the death by a million paper cuts.
What's one spam? Perhaps a slight annoyance, but nothing more.
What's one paper cut? Perhaps a slight annoyance, but nothing more.
Right, multiply both by many many million...
I once played go against one of the top-50 players in one of the top-10 go countries in the world. He gave me a handicap which flattered my beginner status, and only just managed to beat me. He indicated that I played many good moves, and obviously had a reasonable insight into several aspects of the game. I indicated that I found the whole thing a dreadful bore. It's not that I don't like abstract strategy games, far from it.
Never attempt to project your enjoyment for a hobby onto anyone else. It is _entirely_ subjective.
Are you missing this bit:
"""
recipients buffer
The minimum total number of recipients that must be buffered is
100 recipients. Rejection of messages (for excessive recipients)
with fewer than 100 RCPT commands is a violation of this
specification.
"""
which is only a couple of paragraphs above what you quoted.
You're also missing the fact that when a server rejects a message because of some issue with the recipients, it is still rejecting the message, and not "rejecting the recipient", which is a completely meaningless concept in the language of the RFC.
I live only a few hundred metres from the sea. I've never noticed anything that makes me concerned.
The problem is that your definition isn't useful to the problem in hand. In fact it quite obviously isn't even a complete definition, as it leaves undefined "useful". In order to define that, you'd start to need discussing the issues I mentioned above.