The SDK is designed to produce add-ons that will be forwards-compatible with future versions of Firefox, so you won't need to update your add-on every time a new version of Firefox is released. And SDK-based add-ons benefit from a security model that limits the harm that can be caused by a vulnerability in add-on code.
and
Users can install and remove SDK-based add-ons instantly, without a browser restart, making it easier to try add-ons and personalize their browsing experience. They also won't have to worry about add-on compatibility with new versions of Firefox. And SDK-based add-ons will soon load in separate processes, so slow-running add-ons won't slow down Firefox itself.
I think web browsers are far more complicated than you realize. They're large, complex C++ programs. Of course they have memory leaks. They have buffer overflow problems, crashes, and security problems, too. All of them.
Certainly every browser has memory leaks, and browser releases fix memory leaks all the time. The question is -- do the memory leaks leak enough memory to cause problems? In Firefox's case, the answer seems to be "no", because Firefox uses less memory than other browsers when performing common tasks. If you think you have found a bad memory leak in Firefox, you're welcome to write up a benchmark that will demonstrate Firefox using more memory than other browsers.
You should use the new JetPack API so you don't need to update your plugin every time a new version of Firefox is released. Better yet, release a plugin that tells all the other plugin developers to use JetPack.
I should also point out that some so-called "intractable" problems can be solved fairly quickly. Many 3-SAT problems can be quickly solved by algorithms such as DPLL or WalkSAT. It's just that solving a 3-SAT problem can potentially take exponential time.
Likewise, many problems that are "undecidable" in general, such as the halting problem, can be solved in many common cases. It's just that given any program, any particular algorithm is potentially unable to determine whether it halts or not.
Many people think the terms "intractable" and "undecidable" means that all we can do is throw our hands up and give up, because we can't possibly solve those problems. True, you may not be able to find an algorithm that solves any SAT problem in polynomial time, and you can't find an algorithm that will determine if any program will halt, but we can write algorithms that can solve many interesting SAT problems quickly, and algorithms that can determine if many interesting programs will ever go into an infinite loop.
I would have to agree that copyrights should have a shorter lifetime and the patent office should not be granting patents for obvious inventions. Many people here, though, seem to want to abolish all copyrights and patents, which as you point out, is going from one extreme to the other.
Oh, of course. We should banish all patents and copyrights, and now trademarks, too, huh? Can we for once get an explanation of how this would benefit society? If someone could finally make a good argument, something beneficial might happen. Continually whining that you don't like certain laws and making slogans like "information wants to be free" or "I don't believe in imaginary property laws" won't cause any change. Where can I find a rational, thoughtful discussion of the issues by someone who understands what they are?
I think marketing can get users to try a browser, but it's not necessarily going to get users to stick with a browser. We've seen users drop NCSA Mosaic, Netscape, and IE when better alternatives become available. Lots of people try Opera, but relatively few seem to stick with it, on the desktop at least. There may be other browsers out there that are just as good as the more popular ones, but they have trouble getting people to try them. Firefox and Chrome seem to be successful because they can get people to try the browser and also stick with it. I would say marketing is just half of the cause of having a high usage share of the browser market. Quality is the other half.
I've always seen Opera as the "we're better than you" choice. Better at standards compliance. Better user interface. Faster. More customizable. More secure. Lower memory usage. Better everything! Then when people actually try it, it doesn't live up to the expectation. I think they should be a bit more humble in their marketing. Maybe the "give it a try and maybe you'll like it" choice.
I can't believe that people think that IE renders pages better because IE is better at rendering pages. When IE renders a page better than other browsers, it's because web developers bent over backwards to make sure it works well in IE. Even now, most websites are tested with IE6. Web developers stopped testing their sites with Netscape 6 ages ago. That's why IE6 renders pages better than Netscape 6 today -- not because it's a better browser!
You can't simply extrapolate any function and get a meaningful result. But if you extrapolate a long term trend that looks like it's going to continue, you can make very accurate predictions. The most famous is Moore's Law. In the browser world, we could predict Mozilla usage would continue to double every year, at least while it was still under 10% usage. I think we can expect Chrome's usage share to increase 6-8% over the next year, and Internet Explorer's usage share to decline by about the same amount.
Yes, a carbon tax would be the obvious way to easily reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are many people who will not pay the extra $2 for a light bulb that will save them $40 over its lifetime, or will not pay $500 to insulate their homes even if it will save them $2000 over the next ten years. Banning inefficient light bulbs and requiring good insulation in the building codes will have a significant impact even if there are already economic incentives to use less energy.
When we suggest switching to alternative energy, the naysayers say we should let the market decide what energy source to use. They will choose to use coal. When we suggest taxing fossil fuels so the market will decide to switch to alternatives, the naysayers say it will destroy the economy. Somehow, they have an excuse for every suggestion.
In any case, we can't simply switch to alternative energy in a few decades without greatly improving energy efficiency. Lighting currently accounts for 10-20% of electricity produced, so switching to a much more efficient light bulb is not just pretending to help. By requiring more efficient appliances, cars and buildings, perhaps we can reduce energy use up to 40% in a few decades. That would mean we would have to build a new nuclear power plant every two days instead of a new nuclear power plant every day to have most electricity from sources other than fossil fuels in a few decades.
The government has instituted energy efficiency regulations for decades, for example, with CAFE standards for cars. The government also regulates hazardous chemicals. This type of regulation is not new, so I'm not sure why you're complaining now.
The specific reason that inefficient light bulbs are being banned is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to reduce anthropogenic global warming. There are also new energy efficiency guidelines for cars and appliances. You can also expect new building codes for energy efficiency. We've had building codes for a long time, too, by the way.
It is idiotic to ban owning and smoking a plant, if owning and smoking a plant harms no one but the owner or smoker. But greenhouse gas emissions harm many others.
I've been switching over to CFLs over the past year by replacing the incandescents that burn out with new CFLs. I'm now replacing light bulbs only half to a third as often as I used to, and most of the ones I change are the incandscents that burn out, even though the lights we use most often are now CFLs. The CFLs really do last much longer for me.
Generating electricity and transmitting it down power lines is only about 50% efficient. Gas furnaces really are almost 100% efficient and have the benefit of piping heat where you are, not generating it over your head.
A tax on fossil fuels to make an economic incentive to use energy efficiently and promote alternative energy sources would be a godsend. We have powerful political parties, though, who claim that doing this would literally destroy the economy. The worst thing is, the dittoheads believe them and brainlessly repeat the mantra.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you file an enhancement request in Bugzilla asking for an addition to the JetPack API that allows plugins to add a new keyboard shortcut?
and
I think web browsers are far more complicated than you realize. They're large, complex C++ programs. Of course they have memory leaks. They have buffer overflow problems, crashes, and security problems, too. All of them.
Certainly every browser has memory leaks, and browser releases fix memory leaks all the time. The question is -- do the memory leaks leak enough memory to cause problems? In Firefox's case, the answer seems to be "no", because Firefox uses less memory than other browsers when performing common tasks. If you think you have found a bad memory leak in Firefox, you're welcome to write up a benchmark that will demonstrate Firefox using more memory than other browsers.
The last time I used Google Docs, it generated a PDF when I printed the document. Why wouldn't every browser display and print the PDF the same way?
You should use the new JetPack API so you don't need to update your plugin every time a new version of Firefox is released. Better yet, release a plugin that tells all the other plugin developers to use JetPack.
They're sure to go the way of Apple, just another one of those failed computer companies that couldn't keep up with the new competition.
I should also point out that some so-called "intractable" problems can be solved fairly quickly. Many 3-SAT problems can be quickly solved by algorithms such as DPLL or WalkSAT. It's just that solving a 3-SAT problem can potentially take exponential time.
Likewise, many problems that are "undecidable" in general, such as the halting problem, can be solved in many common cases. It's just that given any program, any particular algorithm is potentially unable to determine whether it halts or not.
Many people think the terms "intractable" and "undecidable" means that all we can do is throw our hands up and give up, because we can't possibly solve those problems. True, you may not be able to find an algorithm that solves any SAT problem in polynomial time, and you can't find an algorithm that will determine if any program will halt, but we can write algorithms that can solve many interesting SAT problems quickly, and algorithms that can determine if many interesting programs will ever go into an infinite loop.
Sir Alec Guinness asked for a two percent cut of the box office gross for Star Wars. He died a very wealthy man. Anyone who works in Hollywood should know enough to either ask for a cut of the profits (if they think they have a hit) or a flat fee (if they think they have a flop).
I would have to agree that copyrights should have a shorter lifetime and the patent office should not be granting patents for obvious inventions. Many people here, though, seem to want to abolish all copyrights and patents, which as you point out, is going from one extreme to the other.
Oh, of course. We should banish all patents and copyrights, and now trademarks, too, huh? Can we for once get an explanation of how this would benefit society? If someone could finally make a good argument, something beneficial might happen. Continually whining that you don't like certain laws and making slogans like "information wants to be free" or "I don't believe in imaginary property laws" won't cause any change. Where can I find a rational, thoughtful discussion of the issues by someone who understands what they are?
This is more liberal lies. Bill O'Reilly told me that you can't explain that!
I think marketing can get users to try a browser, but it's not necessarily going to get users to stick with a browser. We've seen users drop NCSA Mosaic, Netscape, and IE when better alternatives become available. Lots of people try Opera, but relatively few seem to stick with it, on the desktop at least. There may be other browsers out there that are just as good as the more popular ones, but they have trouble getting people to try them. Firefox and Chrome seem to be successful because they can get people to try the browser and also stick with it. I would say marketing is just half of the cause of having a high usage share of the browser market. Quality is the other half.
I've always seen Opera as the "we're better than you" choice. Better at standards compliance. Better user interface. Faster. More customizable. More secure. Lower memory usage. Better everything! Then when people actually try it, it doesn't live up to the expectation. I think they should be a bit more humble in their marketing. Maybe the "give it a try and maybe you'll like it" choice.
I can't believe that people think that IE renders pages better because IE is better at rendering pages. When IE renders a page better than other browsers, it's because web developers bent over backwards to make sure it works well in IE. Even now, most websites are tested with IE6. Web developers stopped testing their sites with Netscape 6 ages ago. That's why IE6 renders pages better than Netscape 6 today -- not because it's a better browser!
You can't simply extrapolate any function and get a meaningful result. But if you extrapolate a long term trend that looks like it's going to continue, you can make very accurate predictions. The most famous is Moore's Law. In the browser world, we could predict Mozilla usage would continue to double every year, at least while it was still under 10% usage. I think we can expect Chrome's usage share to increase 6-8% over the next year, and Internet Explorer's usage share to decline by about the same amount.
This is pure BS. Current refrigerators are more efficient than the ones produced in the 1980s.
Yes, a carbon tax would be the obvious way to easily reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, there are many people who will not pay the extra $2 for a light bulb that will save them $40 over its lifetime, or will not pay $500 to insulate their homes even if it will save them $2000 over the next ten years. Banning inefficient light bulbs and requiring good insulation in the building codes will have a significant impact even if there are already economic incentives to use less energy.
This is why we need a tax on fossil fuels. Then there would be an incentive to get energy from other sources.
When we suggest switching to alternative energy, the naysayers say we should let the market decide what energy source to use. They will choose to use coal. When we suggest taxing fossil fuels so the market will decide to switch to alternatives, the naysayers say it will destroy the economy. Somehow, they have an excuse for every suggestion.
In any case, we can't simply switch to alternative energy in a few decades without greatly improving energy efficiency. Lighting currently accounts for 10-20% of electricity produced, so switching to a much more efficient light bulb is not just pretending to help. By requiring more efficient appliances, cars and buildings, perhaps we can reduce energy use up to 40% in a few decades. That would mean we would have to build a new nuclear power plant every two days instead of a new nuclear power plant every day to have most electricity from sources other than fossil fuels in a few decades.
So increased demand has no effect on prices. I am intrigued by your new economic theory and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
The government has instituted energy efficiency regulations for decades, for example, with CAFE standards for cars. The government also regulates hazardous chemicals. This type of regulation is not new, so I'm not sure why you're complaining now.
The specific reason that inefficient light bulbs are being banned is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to reduce anthropogenic global warming. There are also new energy efficiency guidelines for cars and appliances. You can also expect new building codes for energy efficiency. We've had building codes for a long time, too, by the way.
It is idiotic to ban owning and smoking a plant, if owning and smoking a plant harms no one but the owner or smoker. But greenhouse gas emissions harm many others.
I've been switching over to CFLs over the past year by replacing the incandescents that burn out with new CFLs. I'm now replacing light bulbs only half to a third as often as I used to, and most of the ones I change are the incandscents that burn out, even though the lights we use most often are now CFLs. The CFLs really do last much longer for me.
Generating electricity and transmitting it down power lines is only about 50% efficient. Gas furnaces really are almost 100% efficient and have the benefit of piping heat where you are, not generating it over your head.
A tax on fossil fuels to make an economic incentive to use energy efficiently and promote alternative energy sources would be a godsend. We have powerful political parties, though, who claim that doing this would literally destroy the economy. The worst thing is, the dittoheads believe them and brainlessly repeat the mantra.