Asking a group of people who like Firefox to share their opinion results in a skewed sample, with a disproportionate number of respondants giving positive feedback. It's not really ballot stuffing, and not really astroturfing, but it does result in Firefox seeming more popular than it really is among the general population.
Speaking as someone who has put a lot of time and energy into hunting down memory leaks, you do have good insight into what is causing the severe memory problems that some users experience. Have you considered filing some bug reports for some of your suggestions?
And, BTW, Firefox developers never, ever, lied and said that Firefox doesn't leak memory -- they merely pointed out that the greater memory use many users are seeing in Firefox 1.5 is largely attributable to the new bfcache.
I haven't used Firefox in a while (Opera). Have they fixed the Memory Leak yet?
That's a silly question. Firefox will always have memory leaks, as well as other serious bugs such as crashers and security problems. All the other browsers have these problems, too.
The memory leaks are being addressed, with dozens fixed since Firefox 1.5 was released. You can try Firefox 1.5.0.2 when it comes out and see if you still experience problems or not.
You're the one who introduced using complexity as a measure of "goodness" of a system, not me. Of course you can't determine which system is better just by which is more complicated.
Quicksort is more complicated than bubble sort. Do you consider all uses of quicksort to be design faults that would be fixed by replacing them with bubble sort?
Obviously, it depends on how you define the term "success."
Back to the point, which you're trying to distract the conversation from, is your complexity over a nematode a design fault? Perhaps you should correct it.;-)
So, this is a single-celled organism I'm conversing with? It seems that either nature or God (depending on whether you belive in evolution or creation(ism)) disagrees with you.
I don't get it. What's funny? It sounds like an obviously true statement to me, such as, "no doubt all versions of OpenOffice crash -- it is a common problem with software this complicated," or "no doubt Linux has security problems -- it is a common problem with software this complicated."
Debunk intelligent design? Excuse me? All intelligent design is, as far as I can tell, is a hypothsesis that some intelligent being designed life, rather than life evolving from natural processes. We have evidence that genetic mutations occur in nature and know that they can lead to life forms that are better adapted to their environment. We can measure the rate at which these mutations take place, measure the genetic "distance" between species, and determine when their common ancestor lived. The geologic and fossil evidence matches quite closely with the results we get from assuming that life evolved due to random mutations over long periods of time.
Now, where's the evidence for this "intelligent being"? What is there to debunk? It's just an idea, and there's no evidence to argue against. There is no scientific debate of evolution vs. intelligent design, because intelligent design isn't based on science. Science requires evidence.
If you're really seriously talking about comparing the two ideas, and want to bring up the holes in evolution, how about the one huge gaping hole in intelligent design? Namely, what is the intelligence?
FYI science is made on testable hypothesis. One of the reasons that evolution does not make good science is that it is not testable. It is not testable is that it is based on many one-time events
So the big bang theory is not good science, either? It seems like there are lots of predictions made by that theory that have been tested thoroughly, even though it was clearly a one-time event. Just because we can't actually see the Earth's tectonic plates moving continents thousands of miles, or the solar system form, or life evolve, that doesn't mean that we can't form hypotheses about these events and test them.
In short, evolution is a scientific, testable theory. Why do people refute it? Fear of reality? Fear of the unknown? Feel free to confess.
You may not believe this, but the English language is often ambiguous. Some words have two, three, four, or more meanings. The word theory is one of those. One definition of theory is a widely tested and accepted set of principles, as in Einstein's theory of relativity, which gives specific predictions about the universe that have been time and again proven correct to a high degree of accuracy. Another definition of theory is a hypothesis that has not yet been verified, as in string theory, which has not been scientifically verified at all. Yes, this ambiguity causes no end of confusion when one refers to the "theory of evolution". Many of us sit back and chuckle as people refer to it as "just a theory".
All code that goes into Firefox is reviewed by a peer programmer, and then the code is superreviewed. How could somebody "easily sneak malicious code in there"?
On the other hand, Opera is just now adding support for XSLT, which IE, Firefox, and Mozilla have supported for quite some time. In some ways, Opera's still playing catch-up. Sure, excellent support for CSS is great, but you can't even view some sites in Opera 8 because it doesn't support XSLT.
Actually, in Opera 9 Preview 2 GIFs still go too slow. Opera slows fast GIFs down just like IE does. Firefox plays fast GIFs at the specified speed, according to the GIF specification.
However, Opera does little to encourage website developers to drop using document.all, which Firefox does not support nearly as much as Opera. It does little to encourage website developers to send files with the correct MIME types, and Firefox does less MIME type sniffing than Opera. If Opera ever did get 90% share, there would still be plenty of sites that wouldn't work in Firefox, even if they all worked in IE and Opera.
You can demonstrate the memory use problem quickly by loading and closing the following large web page into multiple Firefox tabs a few times:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/ libc.html. To see the memory and CPU percentage used in Windows, right-click on the Taskbar and choose Task Manager. Choose the Processes tab.This demonstrates one aspect of the bug, but is not representative of big occuring in normal use, since that web page is huge.
When I tried opening the page you specified in three tabs in Firefox, memory use went up to about 200 MB, and the memory was released when I closed the tabs. Then you stated:
...does it seem reasonable that opening 3 tabs showing the same 4 megabyte HTML file should require 200 Megabytes?
Why is it that Opera has no problems of this nature?
When I tried the same test in Opera, it used 165 MB of memory. Granted, it's nearly 20% less than what Firefox uses, but how can you seriously claim that 200 MB of memory use in Firefox "demonstrate[s] the memory use problem quickly", but 165 MB of memory use in Opera shows "Opera has no problems of this nature"?
The trolling that you're doing is not saying bad things about Mozilla and Firefox. It's about two programs that do nearly the same thing in the same situation, then claiming one has serious stability problems, while the other exhibits no problems of that nature. As others point out, they cannot reproduce any sort of problem in Firefox with your demonstration.
If you ever do figure out how to demonstrate some serious problem in Firefox, be sure to let us know, and we can help get it fixed. Until then, no amount of ranting is going to help; it's likely to just get you ignored.
I've read them, and none of them hold any water. I went and read your bug reports; they are mere rants rather than having any useful information such as how to reproduce a specific problem. That's why the bug you mentioned got marked INVALID, not because of any conspiracy to hide problems.
If you can demonstrate a memory problem, CPU hogging problem, or crash, give some steps to demonstrate the problem. Look, there's space right below my post for you to report the problem for all to see. Otherwise, I have to conclude you're trolling.
Re:Firefox: Most unstable program in common use =
on
A History of Firefox
·
· Score: 1
If your Firefox is buggy, it's you at blame. Not Firefox. Either you or your extensions, but never the fox!
Anyhow, does it seem reasonable that opening 3 tabs showing the same 4 megabyte HTML file should require 200 Megabytes?
I just tried the same test using Opera 9 Preview 1, and it takes about 165 MB to show all three tabs. So you're saying that Firefox using 200 MB is obviously unreasonable, but Opera using 165 MB is obviously perfectly reasonable, demonstrating "no problems of this nature"? If so, can you explain how you've made this determination? Sure, Opera uses nearly 20% less memory in this case, but how do you jump to the conclusion that Opera has no problems, and Firefox has terrible memory problems? It sounds like you're just ever so slightly biased towards Opera to me... IHBT!
Re:Firefox: Most unstable program in common use =
on
A History of Firefox
·
· Score: 1
From the above mentioned +5 post:
You can demonstrate the memory use problem quickly by loading and closing the following large web page into multiple Firefox tabs a few times:
http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/ libc.html. To see the memory and CPU percentage used in Windows, right-click on the Taskbar and choose Task Manager. Choose the Processes tab.This demonstrates one aspect of the bug, but is not representative of big occuring in normal use, since that web page is huge.
I tried what you suggested with Firefox 1.5.0.1 on Windows XP. I opened that large web page into three tabs, and when all three tabs were done loading, I closed them all. When the tabs were closed, memory use was about 30 MB. When they were open memory use was about 200 MB. I repeated these steps three times. Can you explain what the bug is? Perhaps the moderators did not try what you suggested before modding you up?
And, for the record, I'm not seeing the crashes or CPU problems, either.
If there's any bug about Firefox not releasing memory when closing a tab, I haven't found it in Bugzilla, and I can't reproduce it. Maybe you can tell us about the problem?
If the OP were arguing that the hobbyists were not stealing, yes, that would be an ad hominem argument. His point, however, is that Bill Gates is a hypocrite. The fact that he himself stole, to develop the very product he was pointing out others should not steal, makes him one.
If you want to save time, don't waste it complaining about something that may or may not be a problem. I'm sure you have better things to do with your time that criticize some software that may not even be to blame for the problems you're having, right?
If you don't want someone to criticize IE for having memory leaks, I suggest you don't criticize Firefox's memory usage.
Slashdot Mirror
Asking a group of people who like Firefox to share their opinion results in a skewed sample, with a disproportionate number of respondants giving positive feedback. It's not really ballot stuffing, and not really astroturfing, but it does result in Firefox seeming more popular than it really is among the general population.
And, BTW, Firefox developers never, ever, lied and said that Firefox doesn't leak memory -- they merely pointed out that the greater memory use many users are seeing in Firefox 1.5 is largely attributable to the new bfcache.
The memory leaks are being addressed, with dozens fixed since Firefox 1.5 was released. You can try Firefox 1.5.0.2 when it comes out and see if you still experience problems or not.
Quicksort is more complicated than bubble sort. Do you consider all uses of quicksort to be design faults that would be fixed by replacing them with bubble sort?
Back to the point, which you're trying to distract the conversation from, is your complexity over a nematode a design fault? Perhaps you should correct it. ;-)
So, this is a single-celled organism I'm conversing with? It seems that either nature or God (depending on whether you belive in evolution or creation(ism)) disagrees with you.
I don't get it. What's funny? It sounds like an obviously true statement to me, such as, "no doubt all versions of OpenOffice crash -- it is a common problem with software this complicated," or "no doubt Linux has security problems -- it is a common problem with software this complicated."
Now, where's the evidence for this "intelligent being"? What is there to debunk? It's just an idea, and there's no evidence to argue against. There is no scientific debate of evolution vs. intelligent design, because intelligent design isn't based on science. Science requires evidence.
If you're really seriously talking about comparing the two ideas, and want to bring up the holes in evolution, how about the one huge gaping hole in intelligent design? Namely, what is the intelligence?
In short, evolution is a scientific, testable theory. Why do people refute it? Fear of reality? Fear of the unknown? Feel free to confess.
You may not believe this, but the English language is often ambiguous. Some words have two, three, four, or more meanings. The word theory is one of those. One definition of theory is a widely tested and accepted set of principles, as in Einstein's theory of relativity, which gives specific predictions about the universe that have been time and again proven correct to a high degree of accuracy. Another definition of theory is a hypothesis that has not yet been verified, as in string theory, which has not been scientifically verified at all. Yes, this ambiguity causes no end of confusion when one refers to the "theory of evolution". Many of us sit back and chuckle as people refer to it as "just a theory".
Mozilla was more popular than Opera soon after Mozilla 1.0 was out (in 2002) and Phoenix (as Firefox was known back then) was just starting. Firefox is not more popular due just to hype, as Mozilla browsers were more popular before the Firefox hype ever started. As far as I can tell, Firefox use is still climbing, as is Safari use, and Opera use is holding steady. This same pattern has persisted for years. I don't see any evidence that many Firefox users are switching to other browsers.
All code that goes into Firefox is reviewed by a peer programmer, and then the code is superreviewed. How could somebody "easily sneak malicious code in there"?
On the other hand, Opera is just now adding support for XSLT, which IE, Firefox, and Mozilla have supported for quite some time. In some ways, Opera's still playing catch-up. Sure, excellent support for CSS is great, but you can't even view some sites in Opera 8 because it doesn't support XSLT.
Actually, in Opera 9 Preview 2 GIFs still go too slow. Opera slows fast GIFs down just like IE does. Firefox plays fast GIFs at the specified speed, according to the GIF specification.
However, Opera does little to encourage website developers to drop using document.all, which Firefox does not support nearly as much as Opera. It does little to encourage website developers to send files with the correct MIME types, and Firefox does less MIME type sniffing than Opera. If Opera ever did get 90% share, there would still be plenty of sites that wouldn't work in Firefox, even if they all worked in IE and Opera.
The trolling that you're doing is not saying bad things about Mozilla and Firefox. It's about two programs that do nearly the same thing in the same situation, then claiming one has serious stability problems, while the other exhibits no problems of that nature. As others point out, they cannot reproduce any sort of problem in Firefox with your demonstration.
If you ever do figure out how to demonstrate some serious problem in Firefox, be sure to let us know, and we can help get it fixed. Until then, no amount of ranting is going to help; it's likely to just get you ignored.
If you can demonstrate a memory problem, CPU hogging problem, or crash, give some steps to demonstrate the problem. Look, there's space right below my post for you to report the problem for all to see. Otherwise, I have to conclude you're trolling.
Sheesh. What needs work are the Firefox trolls. Maybe do some research next time so your trolls are at least convincing?
And, for the record, I'm not seeing the crashes or CPU problems, either.
If there's any bug about Firefox not releasing memory when closing a tab, I haven't found it in Bugzilla, and I can't reproduce it. Maybe you can tell us about the problem?
If the OP were arguing that the hobbyists were not stealing, yes, that would be an ad hominem argument. His point, however, is that Bill Gates is a hypocrite. The fact that he himself stole, to develop the very product he was pointing out others should not steal, makes him one.
If you don't want someone to criticize IE for having memory leaks, I suggest you don't criticize Firefox's memory usage.