Right. In my post and the one I was responding to, "they" refers to Mozilla. Mozilla has a 15 to 25% share depending on which web stats you believe. In comparison, the share of OSX users is only about 4 to 5% of desktop computers. Safari will have to become very popular on Windows before it's even the #2 browser. If they come out with such a superior browser that so many users want to switch, that can only be a good thing, as John Lilly has said.
Wait. Tell me again where anyone said Mozilla is not a company. And tell me again where in John Lilly's original post he was crying. John Lilly just said the same thing I got modded +5 Insightful for. More browsers, good for consumers and web standards. Fewer browsers, bad for consumers and web standards.
If they really want the market share, make Firefox 3 worth going back to, and I, for one, will start using FF again.
RTFA. They don't want the market share. They want to keep the web open, as stated in the Mozilla Manifesto.
Anyway, they do have the market share. Apple releasing Safari for Windows will increase consumer choice and the competition will help all browsers improve. It will also help web developers realize they can't develop for only one or two browsers, but instead should develop according to standards unless they want to turn away significant fractions of visitors. I see only good coming out of the release, regardless of what Jobs' intentions are.
Buggy? What bugs are you referring to? Sure, there are some bugs in Firefox, but I can't think of any new ones people are reporting in Firefox 2. If anything, Firefox seems to be less buggy than ever. Can you mention some specific ways that Firefox has become buggy?
There's most definitely memory leaks there. Even the memory leak detecting extension popped up for me so often that I had to uninstall it.
The leak monitor extension is for finding memory leaks in extensions, although on rare occasions it can find a memory leak in Firefox itself. If that extension is often reporting leaks, you almost certainly have an extension with a severe memory leak, such as one of the problematic extensions listed in the MozillaZine Knowledge Base. If you can get the leak monitor extension to report a leak even when you have no extra extensions installed beyond what comes bundled with Firefox 2, please give a set of steps to reproduce the leak so someone can write a bug report.
I just wish they'd fix the memory situation. I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to stop Firefox consuming 200 megs of memory when I only have one tab open.
What memory situation? I keep asking for details about it, and no one can seem to give any. When I have one tab open in Firefox, it usually uses less than 100 MB of memory, and often less memory than other browsers. For example, with this page open, Firefox 2.0.0.4 has Mem Usage of 29 MB and VM Size of 20 MB, Opera 9.21 has Mem Usage of 34 MB and VM Size of 32 MB, and Internet Explorer 7 has Mem Usage of 28 MB and VM Size of 21 MB.
If you're seeing Firefox use more memory than other browsers, please explain in detail what you're doing to cause it to use so much memory, and then the problem can be investigated and fixed. Until then, there isn't anything to go on. It's a cold case.
Netscape 8 was Windows only. So this is the first release of Netscape for Linux that does not have mail or composer. That is important to note, as the review is on linux.com.
Why not use SeaMonkey instead? It's from the same code base as Netscape 7.2 with all kinds of new features and bug fixes, and (most significantly) many years of security vulnerability fixes. It also has menus on the left side, a print button, and mail and composer.
Maybe this is a browser that may be the recommended browser for your aunts and uncles when they get a new system? Who knows.
If Netscape repeats what it's done in the past, Netscape release versions will be several security release versions behind Firefox, and perhaps include a few extra security vulnerabilities as an added bonus. Right now, Netscape 8 seems to be the only browser that Secunia reports as having highly critical vulnerabilities. Let's all sit and wait to see if it's safe to use before we decide to give Netscape 9 a try.
2.0 has been out since November. I reported one problem in it (actually a problem that was worse in 1.5 and partially fixed in 2.0) and the problem was fully fixed in 2.0.0.1. It's been working great for me. In what way isn't it "really ready yet"?
You've done a nice job of trying to rationalize fanboyism. The truth is, fanboyism of any product, whether it be Opera or Firefox, is harmful to the product. Firefox, being the second most used browser with usage rising all the time, doesn't seem to be hurt by the fanboyism. Opera, being the fifth most used browser and usage below 1% according to NetApplications, can't afford to be hurt by fanboyism.
Your point about Firefox being covered on Slashdot more than other browsers is misguided. Firefox is covered more often because it's used so much more than other browsers, with the sole exception of Internet Explorer. It seems like your main annoyance with Firefox is just that it's more popular. There's really no reason to be envious of the success of others.
Lastly, just because Firefox has fanboys doesn't mean Opera has the right to have fanboys. You admit yourself that it's annoying. Why annoy others with fanboyism when you admit yourself that your sick of fanboyism?
So, to get better performance out of Firefox, one must use about:config, but only experts are supposed to use about:config. So, only experts are supposed to have good performance in Firefox?
No, generally dicking with settings does not give better performance. The defaults are set that way for a reason; the defaults work best in most situations. In the rare case that twiddling a setting can increase performance, extensions should be used to shield the user from the harm they can cause from changing a setting incorrectly. One example of such an extension is FasterFox, although that is a poor example because it in fact causes the sorts of problems such extensions should avoid.
Which is it?
End users should completely stay out of about:config, period. They have no legitimate reason to tweak it. If there is a legitimate reason to tweak a setting, it should be in Firefox's user interface or accessible through an extension.
Suppose I am Joe user and don't know anything other than I use Firefox. How am I supposed to know about it? How am I supposed to even know there is an about:config section.
Joe User is not supposed to know about it. It is dangerous to go through about:config and make changes without knowing what you are doing. Joe User should not be doing that in the first place. That's why those settings are hidden. It's a feature, not a bug.
How am I supposed to know about the MozillaZine Knowledge Base, and why would I go there? I use Firefox, no Mozilla.
Filing a report requires a special version of Firefox with an included memory leak detector that can write reports at any time. If I was able to compile Firefox, I wouldn't be complaining about the program as a whole and would instead complain about a specific aspect of it.
Speaking as someone who has filed memory leak bug reports, I can assure you that you do not need any special version of Firefox to file a memory leak bug report. If you merely come up with a sequence of steps that can cause Firefox to use much more memory than other browsers, or a sequence of steps that can cause Firefox to continue consuming more memory without limit, you can file a bug report on the problem.
At most, people generally use the Firefox memory leak detection tool. All you need to do is set one or two environmental variables and run a standard version of Firefox. Then after quitting Firefox, you run the leak detection tool. After finding a leak, you then come up with a sequence of steps that can cause Firefox leak memory.
There are sites you can open that will make browsers eat up hundreds of megabytes. The thing is that when people open those sites in Firefox and see the memory usage, they say "Oh, it's that horrible memory leak I keep reading about." Then they post that they, too, see the memory leak problem and ask when it will be fixed, thus reinforcing the belief that Firefox has horrible memory leaks so the next person can complain. And so the cycle continues...
They don't bother to check how much memory other browsers use browsing the same sites. If they did, they would see that Firefox generally uses no more memory than other browsers. If anyone takes offense at my statement, feel free to post sites that will make Firefox (but not other browsers) gobble up huge chunks of memory, so the rest of us can finally see this problem.
Why is is that when I click the on the main slashdot page, it takes ages and hangs...
Dunno. It takes 3-4 seconds to load for me with Firefox, about the same time Opera takes to load it. You should probably go to the MozillaZine forums for support.
I can see you wanted to change some parameters to make Firefox work exactly the way you want. But which of those settings did you have to change to make Firefox work well? Anyway, I'm sure someone can write an extension to give those parameters a user interface if lots of Firefox users feel the same way.
To see if the memory usage is really an issue with Firefox, try opening the same sites in another browser. If the other browser uses about the same amount of memory, it doesn't seem like it's an issue with Firefox specifically. If the other browser uses much less memory, post what the sites are so Mozilla developers can investigate a possible memory issue in Firefox.
And how many of these Firefox parameters are like SL:BB?
There's browser.cache.memory.capacity which many people swear "fixes Firefox's memory leak." If you look at the instructions on sites, you'll see suggested values ranging from 16384 to 65000. For systems with less than 1 GB of RAM, any of those settings will only increase memory use for Firefox 2. Obviously, anyone who says that setting fixes a memory leak were imagining the problem to being with (or were causing it in the first place with an absurdly huge value for browser.cache.memory.capacity).
Firefox, while better than IE7, is a fucking hog and getting worse by the release. Why should users, who are already iffy about switching to Firefox, have to go through archaic setup commands in order to have the browser work well?
Firefox works well with the default settings. If you have to go into about:config and twiddle parameters, there is something very wrong with your Firefox setup. Try creating a new profile and see if that fixes the problems. In reality, the settings suggested in the article can slow Firefox down (by setting the initial paint delay too low), cause sites not to display properly (by using pipelining with servers that don't understand it), and get you blocked from servers (by setting the maximum connections way up). You can avoid all that trouble by sticking with the defaults.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. In my post and the one I was responding to, "they" refers to Mozilla. Mozilla has a 15 to 25% share depending on which web stats you believe. In comparison, the share of OSX users is only about 4 to 5% of desktop computers. Safari will have to become very popular on Windows before it's even the #2 browser. If they come out with such a superior browser that so many users want to switch, that can only be a good thing, as John Lilly has said.
Wait. Tell me again where anyone said Mozilla is not a company. And tell me again where in John Lilly's original post he was crying. John Lilly just said the same thing I got modded +5 Insightful for. More browsers, good for consumers and web standards. Fewer browsers, bad for consumers and web standards.
RTFA. They don't want the market share. They want to keep the web open, as stated in the Mozilla Manifesto.
Anyway, they do have the market share. Apple releasing Safari for Windows will increase consumer choice and the competition will help all browsers improve. It will also help web developers realize they can't develop for only one or two browsers, but instead should develop according to standards unless they want to turn away significant fractions of visitors. I see only good coming out of the release, regardless of what Jobs' intentions are.
Yeah, only. You can get Opera and IE to use more memory than that within just hours.
What memory situation? I keep asking for details about it, and no one can seem to give any. When I have one tab open in Firefox, it usually uses less than 100 MB of memory, and often less memory than other browsers. For example, with this page open, Firefox 2.0.0.4 has Mem Usage of 29 MB and VM Size of 20 MB, Opera 9.21 has Mem Usage of 34 MB and VM Size of 32 MB, and Internet Explorer 7 has Mem Usage of 28 MB and VM Size of 21 MB.
If you're seeing Firefox use more memory than other browsers, please explain in detail what you're doing to cause it to use so much memory, and then the problem can be investigated and fixed. Until then, there isn't anything to go on. It's a cold case.
That last sentence was for the benefit of any Windows users reading the article. ;-)
Netscape 8 was Windows only. So this is the first release of Netscape for Linux that does not have mail or composer. That is important to note, as the review is on linux.com.
Why not use SeaMonkey instead? It's from the same code base as Netscape 7.2 with all kinds of new features and bug fixes, and (most significantly) many years of security vulnerability fixes. It also has menus on the left side, a print button, and mail and composer.
Security researchers find security vulnerabilities in all browsers. Just two weeks ago Opera fixed an arbitrary code execution vulnerability. I suppose by your standards no browsers are ever really ready yet.
2.0 has been out since November. I reported one problem in it (actually a problem that was worse in 1.5 and partially fixed in 2.0) and the problem was fully fixed in 2.0.0.1. It's been working great for me. In what way isn't it "really ready yet"?
You've done a nice job of trying to rationalize fanboyism. The truth is, fanboyism of any product, whether it be Opera or Firefox, is harmful to the product. Firefox, being the second most used browser with usage rising all the time, doesn't seem to be hurt by the fanboyism. Opera, being the fifth most used browser and usage below 1% according to NetApplications, can't afford to be hurt by fanboyism.
Your point about Firefox being covered on Slashdot more than other browsers is misguided. Firefox is covered more often because it's used so much more than other browsers, with the sole exception of Internet Explorer. It seems like your main annoyance with Firefox is just that it's more popular. There's really no reason to be envious of the success of others.
Lastly, just because Firefox has fanboys doesn't mean Opera has the right to have fanboys. You admit yourself that it's annoying. Why annoy others with fanboyism when you admit yourself that your sick of fanboyism?
No, generally dicking with settings does not give better performance. The defaults are set that way for a reason; the defaults work best in most situations. In the rare case that twiddling a setting can increase performance, extensions should be used to shield the user from the harm they can cause from changing a setting incorrectly. One example of such an extension is FasterFox, although that is a poor example because it in fact causes the sorts of problems such extensions should avoid.
End users should completely stay out of about:config, period. They have no legitimate reason to tweak it. If there is a legitimate reason to tweak a setting, it should be in Firefox's user interface or accessible through an extension.Speaking as someone who has filed memory leak bug reports, I can assure you that you do not need any special version of Firefox to file a memory leak bug report. If you merely come up with a sequence of steps that can cause Firefox to use much more memory than other browsers, or a sequence of steps that can cause Firefox to continue consuming more memory without limit, you can file a bug report on the problem.
At most, people generally use the Firefox memory leak detection tool. All you need to do is set one or two environmental variables and run a standard version of Firefox. Then after quitting Firefox, you run the leak detection tool. After finding a leak, you then come up with a sequence of steps that can cause Firefox leak memory.
There are sites you can open that will make browsers eat up hundreds of megabytes. The thing is that when people open those sites in Firefox and see the memory usage, they say "Oh, it's that horrible memory leak I keep reading about." Then they post that they, too, see the memory leak problem and ask when it will be fixed, thus reinforcing the belief that Firefox has horrible memory leaks so the next person can complain. And so the cycle continues...
They don't bother to check how much memory other browsers use browsing the same sites. If they did, they would see that Firefox generally uses no more memory than other browsers. If anyone takes offense at my statement, feel free to post sites that will make Firefox (but not other browsers) gobble up huge chunks of memory, so the rest of us can finally see this problem.
Yes.
MozillaZine Knowledge Base Article on about:config entries
It is the first page Google finds when you search for "about:config". I'll let you decide whether that's easy to find.
If there wasn't, you'd be able to put it in the Knowledge Base yourself.I can see you wanted to change some parameters to make Firefox work exactly the way you want. But which of those settings did you have to change to make Firefox work well? Anyway, I'm sure someone can write an extension to give those parameters a user interface if lots of Firefox users feel the same way.
To see if the memory usage is really an issue with Firefox, try opening the same sites in another browser. If the other browser uses about the same amount of memory, it doesn't seem like it's an issue with Firefox specifically. If the other browser uses much less memory, post what the sites are so Mozilla developers can investigate a possible memory issue in Firefox.