It obviously does not work, the idea is we get it BEFORE its headline news?
No, that is not the idea. The idea is that the software updates itself even if you don't see it in the headlines or check for updates manually. As has already been pointed out, there's no way to update everyone before news of the new version is out. It would require far too much bandwidth.
Then if they disable a protection system then tough they chose to not be protected automatically. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Many users can't update automatically or even manually, because they don't have permissions to install software on their computers. They have to wait until the IT department upgrades them.
That bug is a security bug that they're keeping closed until they release a patch. It's common practice to attempt to keep security bugs secret until a patch is released. If they didn't, malware authors could easily exploit the flaws, and tens of millions of computers running Firefox would be vulnerable.
If you forget to lock your door one day, do you want someone coming by to put a big red sign announcing that fact to the world so anyone can walk into your house and take whatever they want?
Anyone wanting to stick with the Mozilla Suite should upgrade to SeaMonkey soon for security updates. SeaMonkey gets all the core security fixes Firefox and Thunderbird do, but the old Suite isn't being developed any more and therefore won't get any security fixes.
Actually, you could prove that P=NP without having the slightest clue how to make a polynomial time algorithm to solve problems that can be checked in polynomial time. All it would show is that the alogrithms exist, perhaps without any hint of how to construct them. How infuriating would that be, huh?
It wasn't a huge error. Just a slight syntax error in HTML that caused horrible problems. It happened five years ago at a company I no longer work for, so no, I can't share what the error was.
I also remember an HTML syntax error (a missing quote) on the Charles Schwab site that crashed Netscape back in the day. The point is that even a slight syntax error in HTML can wreck havoc, and validating the HTML is far easier than trying every possible use case in every version of every browser in every OS. Read the rest of the posts here for more of the same opinion.
Uh, because we can only test on IE 7 now? In general, if you write tag soup that happens to work in IE X, it might well break in IE X+1, especially if Microsoft continues to make IE more standards compliant. However, if your site adheres to the standards, and in addition works in IE X and standards-compilant browsers without resorting to hacks and browser sniffing, it will be very unlikely to break in IE X+1.
How hard is it to not use IE-specific code, avoid things like tags, and self-close tags that need it?
It's pretty hard to do it perfectly. I find structural errors (improperly closed tags) in my own HTML code, and in the HTML code others send me. Validating the code finds these problems, and is easier than testing in many different browsers in a trial-and-error attempt to find the problems.
In one case, one of these errors caused the printer to queue up thousands of pages when a short web page was printed. How could the HTML author have thought to try printing the page in every browser? Isn't it easier to simply validate the HTML code?
Yes, Firefox does have memory leaks. These will eat all your RAM given time. However, people who are reporting a serious problem are not seeing these subtle memory leaks that take a long time to build up, but a much more serious memory problem that happens quite quickly. These serious memory problems are often fixed by uninstalling extensions. For good measure, reinstall Firefox and create a new profile to make sure any accumulated junk causing problems is gone.
No, they said the memory use that is obviously higher than Firefox 1.0 is mainly due to the caching. The memory leaks are far more subtle. The extra memory due to the caching is noticeable after visiting a few pages. The memory leaks are usually not noticeable until after days of continuous use. That is, unless you use one of the many extensions with a bad memory leak, in which case you can see Firefox use hundreds of megabytes within hours.
I've tried similar tests in other browsers (Opera and IE). None of them "return" to their starting amount of RAM. Even though all browsers exhibit this behavior, people complain about it only when Firefox does it.
How does using some more memory cause the browser to be unusable or crash? If you find Firefox to be unusable or it crashes on you, it doesn't sound those problems are caused by Firefox using a few tens of megabytes more memory.
However, Adblock is an extension that has, at least in the past, leaked hundreds of megabytes of memory. And the vast majority of Firefox users aren't seeing a leak of the magnitude you're describing. Perhaps Adblock is causing your problems?
You're having a serious problem with Firefox that the vast majority of Firefox users aren't seeing. I recommend completely uninstalling Firefox, reinstalling it, and creating a new profile. That will likely fix the problem.
If Firefox is using 700 MB of RAM, it's almost certainly not a cache that's causing the memory use. You can check how much RAM the memory cache is uing by going to about:cache. You can make sure the bfcache is using only a little memory by visiting eight simple pages, one after the other.
I would suspect Google Toolbar, which many Firefox users report leaks memory.
Yes, there are memory leaks in Firefox. However, they are generally so subtle that you don't notice them until you've had Firefox open continuously for a week. The problems people are referring to as "Firefox memory leaks" are generally not memory leaks, or are leaks caused by extensions, not leaks that exists in Firefox itself.
Slashdot Mirror
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=283580
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335249
Q: I have Mozilla 1.7.13. What am I supposed to upgrade to!?!?!
A: SeaMonkey!!!!
After users get a chance to patch their systems, the bug reports will be opened. Not everyone can upgrade to the latest release within a few hours.
If you forget to lock your door one day, do you want someone coming by to put a big red sign announcing that fact to the world so anyone can walk into your house and take whatever they want?
Anyone wanting to stick with the Mozilla Suite should upgrade to SeaMonkey soon for security updates. SeaMonkey gets all the core security fixes Firefox and Thunderbird do, but the old Suite isn't being developed any more and therefore won't get any security fixes.
Actually, you could prove that P=NP without having the slightest clue how to make a polynomial time algorithm to solve problems that can be checked in polynomial time. All it would show is that the alogrithms exist, perhaps without any hint of how to construct them. How infuriating would that be, huh?
I also remember an HTML syntax error (a missing quote) on the Charles Schwab site that crashed Netscape back in the day. The point is that even a slight syntax error in HTML can wreck havoc, and validating the HTML is far easier than trying every possible use case in every version of every browser in every OS. Read the rest of the posts here for more of the same opinion.
Uh, because we can only test on IE 7 now? In general, if you write tag soup that happens to work in IE X, it might well break in IE X+1, especially if Microsoft continues to make IE more standards compliant. However, if your site adheres to the standards, and in addition works in IE X and standards-compilant browsers without resorting to hacks and browser sniffing, it will be very unlikely to break in IE X+1.
In one case, one of these errors caused the printer to queue up thousands of pages when a short web page was printed. How could the HTML author have thought to try printing the page in every browser? Isn't it easier to simply validate the HTML code?
What you're describing sounds like a horrbile memory leak, not normal operation of the caches. Don't blame the caches for the problem you're seeing.
Yes, Firefox does have memory leaks. These will eat all your RAM given time. However, people who are reporting a serious problem are not seeing these subtle memory leaks that take a long time to build up, but a much more serious memory problem that happens quite quickly. These serious memory problems are often fixed by uninstalling extensions. For good measure, reinstall Firefox and create a new profile to make sure any accumulated junk causing problems is gone.
It could be gmail leaking all the memory, if you check gmail a lot. See bug 321282.
No, they said the memory use that is obviously higher than Firefox 1.0 is mainly due to the caching. The memory leaks are far more subtle. The extra memory due to the caching is noticeable after visiting a few pages. The memory leaks are usually not noticeable until after days of continuous use. That is, unless you use one of the many extensions with a bad memory leak, in which case you can see Firefox use hundreds of megabytes within hours.
I've tried similar tests in other browsers (Opera and IE). None of them "return" to their starting amount of RAM. Even though all browsers exhibit this behavior, people complain about it only when Firefox does it.
How does using some more memory cause the browser to be unusable or crash? If you find Firefox to be unusable or it crashes on you, it doesn't sound those problems are caused by Firefox using a few tens of megabytes more memory.
However, Adblock is an extension that has, at least in the past, leaked hundreds of megabytes of memory. And the vast majority of Firefox users aren't seeing a leak of the magnitude you're describing. Perhaps Adblock is causing your problems?
You're having a serious problem with Firefox that the vast majority of Firefox users aren't seeing. I recommend completely uninstalling Firefox, reinstalling it, and creating a new profile. That will likely fix the problem.
I would suspect Google Toolbar, which many Firefox users report leaks memory.
Yes, there are memory leaks in Firefox. However, they are generally so subtle that you don't notice them until you've had Firefox open continuously for a week. The problems people are referring to as "Firefox memory leaks" are generally not memory leaks, or are leaks caused by extensions, not leaks that exists in Firefox itself.
Did you try creating a new profile and not installing any extensions?
Well, it sounds like your install of Firefox got b0rked, at least. The Firefox Standard Diagnostic should fix most of your problems.