Could it be that Firefox is crashing (a problem) and you're blaming it on memory leaks (nothing to do with the problem you're experiencing)?
Install the Quality Feedback Agent and turn it on when Firefox crashes. That will give Firefox developers the information they need to fix the crashes. Try Firefox 1.5.0.4 when it comes out. It should be far more stable than earlier 1.5 versions.
Not if you actually have an understanding of why it "leaks" memory and how you can fix it by changing a setting.
There are hundreds of memory leaks in Firefox. You can't fix them by "changing a setting".
Besides, what most people are reporting as "memory leaks" in Firefox are generally due to normal memory usage (which is about what other browsers, such as IE and Opera, use), caching, memory fragmentation, memory leaks in extensions and plugins, and blaming any random problems on memory leaks. Yes, Firefox can leak away lots of memory, but it usually takes many days to eat up enough to be noticeable. This problem should be mostly fixed in Firefox 3.
I was happily reading a webpage when this popped up.
I want it to only check for updates during a new tab or window, NOT when I'm just sitting there browsing or typing or watching something.
Okay, ultrapedantic time. The U.S. court of appeals upheld the decicion that Microsoft is a monopoly, and the US Supreme Court unanimously agreed not to hear Microsoft's appeal. So, although what I said wasn't to the letter completely correct, it's basically true. They've been ruled a monopoly by the US court system, even though the case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. So, yes I'm claiming Microsoft is a monopoly, and it's not just one person's or group's goofy idea.
Often companies and individuals run Windows applications for which there is no equivalent on other operating systems. Other OSes are simply not a choice for many users.
I'm not talking about when you use Windows that you're presented with choices of other operating systems. You should be presented with a choice of browsers to use. I'm not talking about when you use IE that you're presented with choices of other browsers. You should be presented about with a choice of search engines to use. So of course when you go to Google you shouldn't be presented with a choice of search engines.
When you start Windows, of course you want to use Windows. When you start IE, of course you want to use IE. And when you go to google.com, of course you want to use the Google search engine.
Yeah, but the difference is that Microsoft controls 85% of the browser market. That means that merely by defaulting the search engine in their browser to their own search engine, they get an unfair advantage in the market. They could become the most used search engine because of this default alone. Isn't that anticompetitive? Google doesn't have anywhere near that power in the market, so it doesn't have the power to be anticompetitive like Microsoft does.
The point is that when Microsoft does the same thing as other companies, it can be unethical and even illegal, even if it's okay for the other companies. That's because of the enormous power they wield in the marketplace. They have the power to crush other large companies who want to compete with them. The other companies don't have the power to crush Microsoft.
No, many applications are made for Windows only, because it has a 95% share of the desktop market. That makes other operating systems practically and economically infeasable for many, if not most, users.
For years, slashdotters have been claiming that Microsoft is a monopoly, regardless of the fact that we are free to use OSX, Linux, or any other OS if we desire.
Need I remind you of the court case that was upheld unanimously by the supreme court that Microsoft is a monopoly and has illegally abused its monopoly powers? Surely, you're not that ignorant, are you?
You're going to tell me a court is going to overlook the fact that Google owns almost 50% market share in search, and that MSFT's attempt to set its default to MSN search is somehow endangering that?
Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it.
Oh, how about Google using it's dominant market position in Search to push Firefox?
Are you claiming Google is a monopoly? We're not free to use Yahoo and MSN search as we desire? That's news to me!
From the comments next to the clips, they've tried to make the clips look much more ridiculous than they actually are. They say it took about a minute to break into the WOPR in WarGames. Wrong -- David went to the library and read many books and magazines and watched videos of Professor Falken before he finally figured out that the password was the name of his deceased son. They say that in Sneakers they break into a government site with little more than a soldering iron. Wrong -- it's a probe, and guess what it's connect to? Say, is that the fancy decryption box they stole from the govenment? Guess that might have something to do with breaking the encryption on the site!
It's more just laziness and stupidity. I fixed a website that worked only on IE for Windows last year. The fix was to add the www. to some URLs, and took me about an hour to find the problem and fix it. After that change, it worked in Firefox, Opera, and Safari. The original web designers must have been just too lazy to test in any other browsers or too stupid to figure out how to fix it. It doesn't take $1 million to fix most IE-only sites, give me a break!
Yes, of course people bitch about IE-only sites, and rightly so. The OP made it sound like it was open source advocates who were the main ones doing so, implying that they're now being hypocrites by doing exactly the same thing with Firefox. I think the people who were complaining about IE-only sites will complain just as loudly about forcing users to use Firefox. From the comments in this article, it would seem like that is the case. No hypocrites.
As long as the IE has a dominant role in the browser world, trojan writers will concentrate on it.
By your reasoning, hackers would concentrate on Apache instead of IIS because it runs more servers. Wrong, they still attack IIS more. Likewise, hackers will focus on IE because it has more known unpatched vulnerabilities than other browsers.
Can you give an example of what you're referring to? When has Microsoft or its friends encouraged downloading software, and the idea was condemned by open source advocates?
Slashdot Mirror
Install the Quality Feedback Agent and turn it on when Firefox crashes. That will give Firefox developers the information they need to fix the crashes. Try Firefox 1.5.0.4 when it comes out. It should be far more stable than earlier 1.5 versions.
Besides, what most people are reporting as "memory leaks" in Firefox are generally due to normal memory usage (which is about what other browsers, such as IE and Opera, use), caching, memory fragmentation, memory leaks in extensions and plugins, and blaming any random problems on memory leaks. Yes, Firefox can leak away lots of memory, but it usually takes many days to eat up enough to be noticeable. This problem should be mostly fixed in Firefox 3.
Or maybe even syntax rules would catch it!
Okay, ultrapedantic time. The U.S. court of appeals upheld the decicion that Microsoft is a monopoly, and the US Supreme Court unanimously agreed not to hear Microsoft's appeal. So, although what I said wasn't to the letter completely correct, it's basically true. They've been ruled a monopoly by the US court system, even though the case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. So, yes I'm claiming Microsoft is a monopoly, and it's not just one person's or group's goofy idea.
Often companies and individuals run Windows applications for which there is no equivalent on other operating systems. Other OSes are simply not a choice for many users.
When you start Windows, of course you want to use Windows. When you start IE, of course you want to use IE. And when you go to google.com, of course you want to use the Google search engine.
The point is that when Microsoft does the same thing as other companies, it can be unethical and even illegal, even if it's okay for the other companies. That's because of the enormous power they wield in the marketplace. They have the power to crush other large companies who want to compete with them. The other companies don't have the power to crush Microsoft.
No, many applications are made for Windows only, because it has a 95% share of the desktop market. That makes other operating systems practically and economically infeasable for many, if not most, users.
By not presenting the user with a clear choice of search engine? Hello, have you been following? That's what Google's asking for!
So explain how Google is using monopolistic business practices and thereby doing something illegal, as Microsoft is.
No, the Supreme Court of the United States. Surely you haven't forgotten already?
From the comments next to the clips, they've tried to make the clips look much more ridiculous than they actually are. They say it took about a minute to break into the WOPR in WarGames. Wrong -- David went to the library and read many books and magazines and watched videos of Professor Falken before he finally figured out that the password was the name of his deceased son. They say that in Sneakers they break into a government site with little more than a soldering iron. Wrong -- it's a probe, and guess what it's connect to? Say, is that the fancy decryption box they stole from the govenment? Guess that might have something to do with breaking the encryption on the site!
It's more just laziness and stupidity. I fixed a website that worked only on IE for Windows last year. The fix was to add the www. to some URLs, and took me about an hour to find the problem and fix it. After that change, it worked in Firefox, Opera, and Safari. The original web designers must have been just too lazy to test in any other browsers or too stupid to figure out how to fix it. It doesn't take $1 million to fix most IE-only sites, give me a break!
Yes, of course people bitch about IE-only sites, and rightly so. The OP made it sound like it was open source advocates who were the main ones doing so, implying that they're now being hypocrites by doing exactly the same thing with Firefox. I think the people who were complaining about IE-only sites will complain just as loudly about forcing users to use Firefox. From the comments in this article, it would seem like that is the case. No hypocrites.
For the potentially lucrative Google Firefox referral program, of course.
As far as I know, people say that's a dumb idea, and I agree. But the question is, do open source advocates condemn it? If so, can you show me where?
It's also similar to Google's latest Firefox campaign. Just visit Google with IE to see what I mean.
Can you give an example of what you're referring to? When has Microsoft or its friends encouraged downloading software, and the idea was condemned by open source advocates?