Firefox seems to want to cache things indefinitely even if the resources are not needed anymore, but it does not actually "leak" them.
I'm not sure I can agree with this. I've tried sooooooo many things over the years to get a handle on the Firefox memory issue, and none of them have paid off.
I've tried disabling/removing plugins and extensions, I've tried tweaking all sorts of memory-related settings, caching, max memory, cache limits, etc etc etc. I've set disk limits, memory limits, page limits, history limits, etc etc etc. I've tried the "opening dozens of blank pages" exercise, I've tried the "back and forward" thing, and nothing, nothing works. The only thing that works is killing the fucking browser and reopening it.
Seriously, I've literally been chasing this for years to no avail. If it is just some sort of super-aggressive caching policy, then I'd refer you to the comment by AC below, who hit the nail on the head: "Sufficiently aggressive caching policy is indistinguishable from memory leak."
Whatever it is, it sucks.
-
My last tests were with Firefox 47, and on my 16GB Win7 x64 system, that fixed amount appears to be exactly 1.6GB. Firefox 50 uses less memory than 47, but I haven't tested what the max limit is, yet.
My PC has 16GB and I'm currently on version 50.1.0. The behavior does not seem to be any better than any of the previous versions....in a few hours memory usage goes up to 1.8GB or so and things start to fuck up. Slow and jerky scrolling, delayed mouse click events, etc etc.
After 24 hours or so the memory usage climbs to ~2.4GB and the browser slows waaaay down, starts to lag and freeze and then starts dropping images from pages. If I do nothing it'll crash and the ever-useless Mozilla Crash Reporter will go "boo hoo, something happened", etc etc etc.
Honestly, if Mozilla doesn't fix this in the next rev or two I'll be switching to Palemoon or Opera or something. It's just too fucking annoying and I've been too fucking patient while they dick around with rebranding and masturbating over the new logo.
I'm not sure how to break this to you, but the heart is inside the body. This goes around the heart. This is an implant, unless the definition of implant has suddenly and inexplicably changed from "stuffs what you open up the body, insert, and leave for some period of time."
Yep, that's what jumped out at me- it's inside the body but somehow it's not an "implant"? Sure sounds like an implant to me.
never did say they would have our best interest at heart or would be completely fair about it. Its also implied that the government DOES have our best interests at heart and is completely fair about it
I'd say the government is fairer than robber barons or private commercial interests whose only interest is in the bottom line.
-
Well i completely disagree, charity does work, we have lots of charitable organizations and they do great work at local, state, and national levels.
Lol, horsecrap. If charity worked there would be no need for government programs that do all the things charity doesn't. Charity is far more fickle and biased than the average government program. This has been shown to be the case again and again and again. Like Catholic "charities" that won't provide birth control services to women, or who can always find some bullshit in their bible to justify not helping certain kinds of people.
-
You are correct that you didn't directly mention charity, but most services offered to the poor that don't come from governments come from charities, which i find to be much more compatible with freedom
They *might* be more compatible, but they're not more effective or useful, and they're so limited in scope that they're not even effective on a limited local level. If they are, why are there hungry and homeless people in every town and city in the nation? Where is all the charity that is supposed to be helping them?
-
This is fundamentally the statement i am disagreeing with. I believe it IS wrong to force joe blow to pay for a school or library that he doesn't use directly.
And here is the basic selfishness and stupidity of the libertarian mindset- "If it ain't good for me, I ain't paying for it!" But a school that your kids don't go to is actually busy producing your future scientists, engineers, and doctors, among other things. You're just too shortsighted and mercenary to grasp that.
-
I also feel like you are trying to shame me for being a 'libertarian' as if that would be a bad thing, or equivalent to a 'fool'.
You said it, pal, not me.
In general, libertarians are the greediest, most naive people on the planet. They have this pathetic notion that they are, at heart, rugged individualists who need not care for anyone outside their immediate circle. Their romantic fantasies of self-sufficiency collide with the real world in ways that would harm everyone (except the rich) if they were ever to able to enact their hateful, dumbfuck notions.
The problem most libertarians have is they never think that they'll be the ones getting fucked over by libertarian policies made real. It'll never be YOUR wife or YOUR child who'll die from some untested medication or contaminated food or unsafe electrical appliance. It'll always be the other guy whose wife or kid dies, and then the Magical Invisible Hand Of The Market will punish that company and force them out of business, so you'll be safe, right?
And if it IS your kid or your wife, well shucks, you can just take them to court for damages, right? Because that will bring your child or wife back to life, right?
Libertarianism is a load of uncaring, uncharitable, self-serving horseshit, and that's why there has never been a successful libertarian society in all of recorded history. Never, not once. If I'm wrong, go ahead and name me a few viable libertarian societies if you can...I'll wait.
Libertarians are just anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. Me, me, me, and to hell with everyone else. And they're hypocrites, like Ayn Rand who was happily (but secretly) accepting government services like Social Security and Medicare when she needed it.
Libertarianism is is just a way for conservatives pass of
Dear Mozilla: Too much navel-gazing, and not enough good software engineering and innovation. No one but you gives a crap about your "brand experience". In case you haven't noticed, you're becoming less relevant every day, and your logo is not the reason why.
I'd be happy if they just fixed their memory leak(s).
I have 4 browsers open with about 12 tabs running and memory has climbed from ~880 meg to over 1400 meg in just a few hours.
And yet taxes are exactly the thing I was referring to. I never said anyone was forcing you to pay for cable TV or or a refrigerator. But if you live within a society that provides services to the population at large, you should expect to help pay for those things. Would you prefer there to be no police or fire services, no emergency rooms, and no regulations at all on anything?
-
And if our government would allow roads to be built, owned, and wholly operated by private businesses I would gladly pay to use those instead of government ones.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, because all the people that would do those things only have our best interests at heart and would be completely fair about it. *cough*
In other words, "found the libertarian!"
-
Your solution is probably for me to 'pay taxes for homeless program'
Not necessarily, but I would agree that it's probably a more effective way to help mitigate homelessness than by relying on the uncertain, inconsistent, and fickle generosity of the the population at large. If that weren't the case then no one would feel the need to enact government-funded homeless programs. If charity worked then none of of the typical government-run social services would ever be needed....but they are.
-
Charity is only charity when the money is given freely from the heart.
I never said anything about charity, mostly because it doesn't work for large-scale problems. Charity really doesn't work on a national level, never has, never will. There are simply too many selfish people in the world and we both know it.
-
Forcing me to pay taxes to help the poor isn't charity.
Thanks for ignoring the fact that I never said any such thing. Yes, taxes and charity are two different things...maybe that's why there are two different words for them.
-
Also, Society != Government. Stop confusing the two
The fact is, though, that there's a huge amount of overlap in those two things. They are both shaped by each other, and only a fool or a libertarian would deny that. Which one are you? Are you the kind of guy who complains about having to pay for a road you may never personally drive on?
Parallel construction grammar fail. That should have read, "The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, no competing services, and won't lack software and security updates."
Bingo. The original sentence should be taken out and shot.
Would you get on a plane that had no human pilot aboard?
Yes, if it had demonstrated a sufficient level of safety.
You rely on automated systems every day in various services that could cause death or injury if they don't work, but most of them aren't obvious. Nonetheless, you use them and you don't complain about them because in most cases they've demonstrated a sufficient level of safety.
Traffic lights, natural gas controllers, furnaces, elevators, etc etc...all these things rely on automated controllers that could kill you if they malfunctioned, yet we all go on about our business every day not giving them a second thought.
Because some people got scammed by/pol into believing that hookers were paid to pee on Obama's bed in Moscow.
Technically we don't know that they didn't pee on the bed. We only have/pol's claim that they made it all up, and who can believe any of the things/pol says?
After all, they admit to lying, so how do we know they aren't lying about making it up?
Personally, I believe Trump did pay hookers to pee on the bed, it's completely in keeping with the rest of his personality. And if he did do it it only makes sense that he would deny it and fabricate a story about some internet site making it up.
Welcome to the post-fact world of the Trump presidency. As Trump spokeperson Scottie Nell Hughes said herself, "There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts."
So why did Trump pay hookers to pee on the bed? Inquiring minds want to know!
If they don't have a viable one which doesn't try to run over cyclist and run red lights and requires 2(!) drivers to operate, then they don't have one.
They used to say more or less the same thing about airplanes and safety but whaddya know, millions of people fly on planes everyday, even with the occasional crash.
Technology doesn't have to be perfect to be used. And no technology will ever be perfect, so let's just go back to riding horses in the streets, even though horses occasionally trampled people too...
I'm forced to pay taxes. I may not agree with what my government does with the money. But I don't question the fairness of paying my share of taxes.
Exactly. We don't live in a vacuum and the day of the self-sufficient "rugged individualist" is over for 99.9999% of the population. We all have to pay for things that we personally may not want, but other people are saying the exact same thing about things we do want.
We're all in this together, like it or not and just because Joe Blow doesn't want to pay for a school or a library or other service that he may not use directly doesn't mean that making him pay for it is evil or wrong- other members of the society he lives in may need it.
The fact is that we all need to share the burden in order to provide a certain standard of living for the society in which we live.
If you literally live 100% off the grid and NEVER use a road or any centrally operated service (electricity, food, water, hospitals, police, etc), then you might have a case for not paying taxes. But I don't think those people really exist anymore. Even if they do, unless they're living a 17th century lifestyle they're still using the fruits of society's labor.
Being forced to pay for an organization that provides no goods or services to you is the LITERAL DEFINITION of robbery.
Let me guess- you're one of those guys that complains about having to pay for schools and libraries and other services because you don't use them?
Frankly, I've never seen a union that didn't provide some sort of benefit to the members. Yes, there are abuses in the union system and I wouldn't even say they're rare, but they do provide services to the members.
In some ways I think unions have gone too far and/or become too overreaching, but in general I think we're better off with them than without them.
And in case anyone is wondering, no, I've never been a union member and I don't think anyone in my family has either.
Except that drivers for companies like Uber have a huge incentive to make you feel good about the transaction or else they will be fired for having not enough five-star customer ratings.
I don't think that's a credible explanation. If anything I'd expect them to tell me that it's hard work, blah blah blah so I'd feel sorry for them and give a better rating out of sympathy.
I took a series of Ubers recently and I asked each of them straight out how it was working out for them in terms of making a living. All of the drivers said they were doing pretty well money-wise.
Two of them mentioned that they make a *ton* of cash from the Uber Eats service on the weekends. All of them said they liked what they were doing, liked the flexibility, and were making a good living at it. I have no reason to disbelieve them.
Isn't 'video' short for 'video cassette' or 'video cassette recording'?
No, "video" isn't short for 'video cassette' or 'video cassette recording'. In case you didn't realize it, originally, ALL video was live, there were actually no methods to record it. That didn't come until later.
-
So what exactly is 'live video'?
Video that is broadcast as it happens and that is not pre-recorded.
-
Related question: Is my age showing?
If you mean "Am I too young to understand the origins of video technology?", then yes, you are showing your "age".
Surprise! As it turns out, no one wants to watch a live show of you and your nerdy pop-culture pals discussing the finer points of Dr Who's cape or any of that other ridiculous minutiae that you think is so incredibly fascinating.
...the rep told them specifically: "We do not currently have a policy in place to offer any refunds."
As a business owner, it had never occurred to me to present such a clever argument.
I can't wait to use that one on the next person that asks for a refund..."Gee whiz, we'd love to give you your money back but we just never came up with a way to do it...sorry!"
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox seems to want to cache things indefinitely even if the resources are not needed anymore, but it does not actually "leak" them.
I'm not sure I can agree with this. I've tried sooooooo many things over the years to get a handle on the Firefox memory issue, and none of them have paid off.
I've tried disabling/removing plugins and extensions, I've tried tweaking all sorts of memory-related settings, caching, max memory, cache limits, etc etc etc. I've set disk limits, memory limits, page limits, history limits, etc etc etc. I've tried the "opening dozens of blank pages" exercise, I've tried the "back and forward" thing, and nothing, nothing works. The only thing that works is killing the fucking browser and reopening it.
Seriously, I've literally been chasing this for years to no avail. If it is just some sort of super-aggressive caching policy, then I'd refer you to the comment by AC below, who hit the nail on the head: "Sufficiently aggressive caching policy is indistinguishable from memory leak."
Whatever it is, it sucks.
-
My last tests were with Firefox 47, and on my 16GB Win7 x64 system, that fixed amount appears to be exactly 1.6GB. Firefox 50 uses less memory than 47, but I haven't tested what the max limit is, yet.
My PC has 16GB and I'm currently on version 50.1.0. The behavior does not seem to be any better than any of the previous versions....in a few hours memory usage goes up to 1.8GB or so and things start to fuck up. Slow and jerky scrolling, delayed mouse click events, etc etc.
After 24 hours or so the memory usage climbs to ~2.4GB and the browser slows waaaay down, starts to lag and freeze and then starts dropping images from pages. If I do nothing it'll crash and the ever-useless Mozilla Crash Reporter will go "boo hoo, something happened", etc etc etc.
Honestly, if Mozilla doesn't fix this in the next rev or two I'll be switching to Palemoon or Opera or something. It's just too fucking annoying and I've been too fucking patient while they dick around with rebranding and masturbating over the new logo.
I'm not sure how to break this to you, but the heart is inside the body. This goes around the heart. This is an implant, unless the definition of implant has suddenly and inexplicably changed from "stuffs what you open up the body, insert, and leave for some period of time."
Yep, that's what jumped out at me- it's inside the body but somehow it's not an "implant"? Sure sounds like an implant to me.
again, you are confusing society with government.
No, I am not.
-
never did say they would have our best interest at heart or would be completely fair about it. Its also implied that the government DOES have our best interests at heart and is completely fair about it
I'd say the government is fairer than robber barons or private commercial interests whose only interest is in the bottom line.
-
Well i completely disagree, charity does work, we have lots of charitable organizations and they do great work at local, state, and national levels.
Lol, horsecrap. If charity worked there would be no need for government programs that do all the things charity doesn't. Charity is far more fickle and biased than the average government program. This has been shown to be the case again and again and again. Like Catholic "charities" that won't provide birth control services to women, or who can always find some bullshit in their bible to justify not helping certain kinds of people.
-
You are correct that you didn't directly mention charity, but most services offered to the poor that don't come from governments come from charities, which i find to be much more compatible with freedom
They *might* be more compatible, but they're not more effective or useful, and they're so limited in scope that they're not even effective on a limited local level. If they are, why are there hungry and homeless people in every town and city in the nation? Where is all the charity that is supposed to be helping them?
-
This is fundamentally the statement i am disagreeing with. I believe it IS wrong to force joe blow to pay for a school or library that he doesn't use directly.
And here is the basic selfishness and stupidity of the libertarian mindset- "If it ain't good for me, I ain't paying for it!" But a school that your kids don't go to is actually busy producing your future scientists, engineers, and doctors, among other things. You're just too shortsighted and mercenary to grasp that.
-
I also feel like you are trying to shame me for being a 'libertarian' as if that would be a bad thing, or equivalent to a 'fool'.
You said it, pal, not me.
In general, libertarians are the greediest, most naive people on the planet. They have this pathetic notion that they are, at heart, rugged individualists who need not care for anyone outside their immediate circle. Their romantic fantasies of self-sufficiency collide with the real world in ways that would harm everyone (except the rich) if they were ever to able to enact their hateful, dumbfuck notions.
The problem most libertarians have is they never think that they'll be the ones getting fucked over by libertarian policies made real. It'll never be YOUR wife or YOUR child who'll die from some untested medication or contaminated food or unsafe electrical appliance. It'll always be the other guy whose wife or kid dies, and then the Magical Invisible Hand Of The Market will punish that company and force them out of business, so you'll be safe, right?
And if it IS your kid or your wife, well shucks, you can just take them to court for damages, right? Because that will bring your child or wife back to life, right?
Libertarianism is a load of uncaring, uncharitable, self-serving horseshit, and that's why there has never been a successful libertarian society in all of recorded history. Never, not once. If I'm wrong, go ahead and name me a few viable libertarian societies if you can...I'll wait.
Libertarians are just anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. Me, me, me, and to hell with everyone else. And they're hypocrites, like Ayn Rand who was happily (but secretly) accepting government services like Social Security and Medicare when she needed it.
Libertarianism is is just a way for conservatives pass of
Dear Mozilla: Too much navel-gazing, and not enough good software engineering and innovation. No one but you gives a crap about your "brand experience". In case you haven't noticed, you're becoming less relevant every day, and your logo is not the reason why.
I'd be happy if they just fixed their memory leak(s).
I have 4 browsers open with about 12 tabs running and memory has climbed from ~880 meg to over 1400 meg in just a few hours.
The root cause may be all the hot air spewing from Trump's facial orifice.
Thats not the same for taxes.
And yet taxes are exactly the thing I was referring to. I never said anyone was forcing you to pay for cable TV or or a refrigerator. But if you live within a society that provides services to the population at large, you should expect to help pay for those things. Would you prefer there to be no police or fire services, no emergency rooms, and no regulations at all on anything?
-
And if our government would allow roads to be built, owned, and wholly operated by private businesses I would gladly pay to use those instead of government ones.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight, because all the people that would do those things only have our best interests at heart and would be completely fair about it. *cough*
In other words, "found the libertarian!"
-
Your solution is probably for me to 'pay taxes for homeless program'
Not necessarily, but I would agree that it's probably a more effective way to help mitigate homelessness than by relying on the uncertain, inconsistent, and fickle generosity of the the population at large. If that weren't the case then no one would feel the need to enact government-funded homeless programs. If charity worked then none of of the typical government-run social services would ever be needed....but they are.
-
Charity is only charity when the money is given freely from the heart.
I never said anything about charity, mostly because it doesn't work for large-scale problems. Charity really doesn't work on a national level, never has, never will. There are simply too many selfish people in the world and we both know it.
-
Forcing me to pay taxes to help the poor isn't charity.
Thanks for ignoring the fact that I never said any such thing. Yes, taxes and charity are two different things...maybe that's why there are two different words for them.
-
Also, Society != Government. Stop confusing the two
The fact is, though, that there's a huge amount of overlap in those two things. They are both shaped by each other, and only a fool or a libertarian would deny that. Which one are you? Are you the kind of guy who complains about having to pay for a road you may never personally drive on?
Parallel construction grammar fail. That should have read, "The phones are attractive because they contain no bloatware, no competing services, and won't lack software and security updates."
Bingo. The original sentence should be taken out and shot.
I never knew slashdot users to be so xenophobic.
You haven't been paying attention or you browse at +2. Browse at 0 and it's a sea of hateful drek.
Slashdot didn't use to be this way but in the last couple of years the right-wing whackos and the bigots have found it to be a target-rich playground.
Would you get on a plane that had no human pilot aboard?
Yes, if it had demonstrated a sufficient level of safety.
You rely on automated systems every day in various services that could cause death or injury if they don't work, but most of them aren't obvious. Nonetheless, you use them and you don't complain about them because in most cases they've demonstrated a sufficient level of safety.
Traffic lights, natural gas controllers, furnaces, elevators, etc etc...all these things rely on automated controllers that could kill you if they malfunctioned, yet we all go on about our business every day not giving them a second thought.
Is that like the Planned Parenthood people who were "caught" selling baby parts, except they weren't?
Hey hey, lets not get all "facty" now. Just because it was proven to be false doesn't mean Trump supporters still won't believe it.
Because some people got scammed by /pol into believing that hookers were paid to pee on Obama's bed in Moscow.
Technically we don't know that they didn't pee on the bed. We only have /pol's claim that they made it all up, and who can believe any of the things /pol says?
After all, they admit to lying, so how do we know they aren't lying about making it up?
Personally, I believe Trump did pay hookers to pee on the bed, it's completely in keeping with the rest of his personality. And if he did do it it only makes sense that he would deny it and fabricate a story about some internet site making it up.
Welcome to the post-fact world of the Trump presidency. As Trump spokeperson Scottie Nell Hughes said herself, "There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts."
So why did Trump pay hookers to pee on the bed? Inquiring minds want to know!
If they don't have a viable one which doesn't try to run over cyclist and run red lights and requires 2(!) drivers to operate, then they don't have one.
They used to say more or less the same thing about airplanes and safety but whaddya know, millions of people fly on planes everyday, even with the occasional crash.
Technology doesn't have to be perfect to be used. And no technology will ever be perfect, so let's just go back to riding horses in the streets, even though horses occasionally trampled people too...
I'm forced to pay taxes. I may not agree with what my government does with the money. But I don't question the fairness of paying my share of taxes.
Exactly. We don't live in a vacuum and the day of the self-sufficient "rugged individualist" is over for 99.9999% of the population. We all have to pay for things that we personally may not want, but other people are saying the exact same thing about things we do want.
We're all in this together, like it or not and just because Joe Blow doesn't want to pay for a school or a library or other service that he may not use directly doesn't mean that making him pay for it is evil or wrong- other members of the society he lives in may need it.
The fact is that we all need to share the burden in order to provide a certain standard of living for the society in which we live.
If you literally live 100% off the grid and NEVER use a road or any centrally operated service (electricity, food, water, hospitals, police, etc), then you might have a case for not paying taxes. But I don't think those people really exist anymore. Even if they do, unless they're living a 17th century lifestyle they're still using the fruits of society's labor.
Being forced to pay for an organization that provides no goods or services to you is the LITERAL DEFINITION of robbery.
Let me guess- you're one of those guys that complains about having to pay for schools and libraries and other services because you don't use them?
Frankly, I've never seen a union that didn't provide some sort of benefit to the members. Yes, there are abuses in the union system and I wouldn't even say they're rare, but they do provide services to the members.
In some ways I think unions have gone too far and/or become too overreaching, but in general I think we're better off with them than without them.
And in case anyone is wondering, no, I've never been a union member and I don't think anyone in my family has either.
Except that drivers for companies like Uber have a huge incentive to make you feel good about the transaction or else they will be fired for having not enough five-star customer ratings.
I don't think that's a credible explanation. If anything I'd expect them to tell me that it's hard work, blah blah blah so I'd feel sorry for them and give a better rating out of sympathy.
Taxi drivers can actually earn a living wage.
So do all of the Uber drivers I have talked to.
I took a series of Ubers recently and I asked each of them straight out how it was working out for them in terms of making a living. All of the drivers said they were doing pretty well money-wise.
Two of them mentioned that they make a *ton* of cash from the Uber Eats service on the weekends. All of them said they liked what they were doing, liked the flexibility, and were making a good living at it. I have no reason to disbelieve them.
Links please, or it didn't happen.
It's worth it for the casinos to indulge such superstitions.
Not this time it wasn't.
Next thing you know they'll be saying that automobiles are killing off the buggy-whip market.
Isn't 'video' short for 'video cassette' or 'video cassette recording'?
No, "video" isn't short for 'video cassette' or 'video cassette recording'. In case you didn't realize it, originally, ALL video was live, there were actually no methods to record it. That didn't come until later.
-
So what exactly is 'live video'?
Video that is broadcast as it happens and that is not pre-recorded.
-
Related question: Is my age showing?
If you mean "Am I too young to understand the origins of video technology?", then yes, you are showing your "age".
Surprise! As it turns out, no one wants to watch a live show of you and your nerdy pop-culture pals discussing the finer points of Dr Who's cape or any of that other ridiculous minutiae that you think is so incredibly fascinating.
I'm sorry, we gave our last refund to the previous caller.
Reminds me of the Alaska Jack's company slogan: "We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you!"
As a business owner, it had never occurred to me to present such a clever argument.
I can't wait to use that one on the next person that asks for a refund..."Gee whiz, we'd love to give you your money back but we just never came up with a way to do it...sorry!"
Out here (in WA) they have little preset paths you can use to bring kids in through the gaming areas to get to the restaurants inside.
That's what I meant, why use Windows to run Linux? Just run Linux and be done with it.