I'm not trying to find fault or lay blame. I'm pointing out that it's ridiculous to assume that because you have a problem with Firefox that everyone else sees the same problem. When you go out to your car in the morning and it doesn't start, do you say that your car manufacturer is making defective cars, or do you simply get it fixed? It has nothing to do with whose "fault" it is. It has to do with effectively dealing with problems instead of immediately assuming it is the fault with the manufacturer. Forget about whose fault it is!
I'm also using Fedora 13 64-bit with Firefox 3.6.4 and I see no stability problems at all. I open sites with Flash all the time. I'm using the 64-bit Flash version 10.0.45.0. Is there a particular site that gives you trouble?
More to the point, they assume it's a problem with Firefox that all other users see, not a problem with how Firefox is installed or configured on their computer, so they don't bother to fix the problem. If they would go discuss the problems at the Mozilla support forum or MozillaZine, they would find that most others are not having these problems.
You should go look at the replies to your earlier post to see why this doesn't mean Mozilla is going down in flames. The CEO was planning on leaving within a year when he joined. The NY Times ad was just a fun way for people to get involved and get their names in the paper. The fact that Mozilla still gets the majority of money from Google doesn't mean they're not looking for other sources of income. Most Mozilla development is done by paid Mozilla employees. The $66 million revenue will help tide them over if they stop receiving funding from Google. Firefox is not getting bloated or crash-prone. Mozilla is not going down in flames.
The one element of truth is that Chrome is faster at JavaScript, but Mozilla developers are working to make Mozilla about as fast if not faster by working on the new fatvals method JIT and their tracing JIT.
StartCom free SSL certificates now seem to work in Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Outlook out of the box. It looks like they're the best bet for free certs that won't display warnings in popular products.
I'm misremembering. The problem with the StartCom certificate in 2008 was that it was not recognized by Outlook. I then tried a CAcert certificate, but it was not recognized by Firefox after importing the CAcert root certificate into Windows. Instead of importing certificates onto every laptop and desktop, I paid the money for a RapidSSL certificate.
Sorry for the confusion. I hope I'm making up for it by admitting I was wrong.
The last I checked, startcom certificates are not recognized as valid by Firefox. I purchased a five-year certificate from rapidssl.com for $60 a few years ago, and the certificate is recognized as valid by all major browsers. The cost is minimal.
What a stupid question! I never, ever said anything about stealing. What do you think? When you check something out of a library, are you stealing? Have Slashdotters completely lost their ability to think for themselves?
Downloading is not the same as stealing, but when you make a copy of a book, CD, or DVD instead of paying for it, you are denying revenue to pay for the creation and distribution of the content. If everyone did that, most wouldn't bother with creating and distributing content, because they wouldn't be able to make a living at it.
Face it. Many Slashdotters are against copyright and patents just because they want to freeload. They don't give a thought to the consequences their actions have.
Yeah, ever since they made laws against shoplifting I can't go into Walmart and take whatever I want for free. Those lawmakers are just protecting the self-interests of big corporations!
As you can see from The Story of Iron, the whole point was to make ad revenue from users coming to the site to download it. You can make up all the stories and excuses you want, but that was the entire point of making Iron from the beginning.
Most of the development on major open-source projects is done by paid developers. Red Hat, IBM, and other companies pay their programmers to develop Linux. Mozilla pays developers to work on Firefox. I'm sure there are some programmers working for free, but if those projects had to get by only on volunteer work, they wouldn't be like they are today.
You're missing the main point. The changes made to Iron do not give you any additional privacy that downloading Chrome from Google and making a few configuration changes will give you. The point of offering Iron software is to drive visitors to the SRware site, which contains ads that give the developers revenue. The whole point was just a money making scam from the start, as The Story of Iron illustrates.
You can just download Chrome from Google and change the preferences for the same effect. The whole point of having Iron is that Iron developers get revenue from the ads on their site. I visited the site once with AdBlock Plus disabled, and wouldn't want to repeat the experience.
Firefox 1.5 used less memory than the versions of IE and Opera that were out at the time. The same was true of Firefox 2. Firefox was using less memory than others browsers before Chrome ever existed. There were some memory leaks in Firefox 1.5, but most were fixed by the time Firefox 2 came out, and they didn't cause Firefox to use more memory than other browsers. See http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=468525 for details.
Every browser increases its footprint over time. It is largely due to memory fragmentation and caching, and of course every browser also has some memory leaks. When compared against other browsers, Firefox's memory usage increases more slowly. The Firefox developers are not denying that Firefox has memory leaks. You are also not pointing out any memory leak in Firefox. That doesn't mean that there aren't any, but complaining that they won't fix the problem when you aren't even willing to explain exactly what the problem is is disingenuous.
Saying that plugins have memory leaks is not the same as denying that Firefox has memory leaks. Please point out any instance of a Firefox developer denying that Firefox has memory leaks. You can also try to point out any specific memory leak in Firefox. Go ahead and try!
Yes, it is a configuration choice. With that configuration choice, Firefox cannot determine that it's communicating with the site it thinks it's communicating to, and warns the user about the potential security problem.
Where have the devs denied there are memory leaks? I remember filing memory leak bug reports, and the devs acknowledged and fixed them. At this point, I do not know how to cause any memory leak in Firefox. Go ahead and find a memory leak. The bug database is open. Find a reproducible set of steps to cause memory use to climb without limit and post it somewhere.
In your first post you mentioned that Firefox has become more bloated over the years. You fail you mention one specific way in which this has occurred. Perhaps you meant that other browsers have been becoming faster and simpler. I would agree with that point. The other browsers are indeed catching up to Firefox. That doesn't mean Firefox is becoming bloated.
The reason SRWare Iron was developed was to drive hits to the SRware site, which has ads that net the developer revenue. The whole "privacy" scare is just a tactic to convince users to go to the site to get the browser. In any case, if a user doesn't trust Google with their data, why would they trust some unknown developer?
Slashdot Mirror
So enjoy Chrome. Not everyone needs to love Firefox.
I'm not trying to find fault or lay blame. I'm pointing out that it's ridiculous to assume that because you have a problem with Firefox that everyone else sees the same problem. When you go out to your car in the morning and it doesn't start, do you say that your car manufacturer is making defective cars, or do you simply get it fixed? It has nothing to do with whose "fault" it is. It has to do with effectively dealing with problems instead of immediately assuming it is the fault with the manufacturer. Forget about whose fault it is!
I'm also using Fedora 13 64-bit with Firefox 3.6.4 and I see no stability problems at all. I open sites with Flash all the time. I'm using the 64-bit Flash version 10.0.45.0. Is there a particular site that gives you trouble?
More to the point, they assume it's a problem with Firefox that all other users see, not a problem with how Firefox is installed or configured on their computer, so they don't bother to fix the problem. If they would go discuss the problems at the Mozilla support forum or MozillaZine, they would find that most others are not having these problems.
You should go look at the replies to your earlier post to see why this doesn't mean Mozilla is going down in flames. The CEO was planning on leaving within a year when he joined. The NY Times ad was just a fun way for people to get involved and get their names in the paper. The fact that Mozilla still gets the majority of money from Google doesn't mean they're not looking for other sources of income. Most Mozilla development is done by paid Mozilla employees. The $66 million revenue will help tide them over if they stop receiving funding from Google. Firefox is not getting bloated or crash-prone. Mozilla is not going down in flames.
The one element of truth is that Chrome is faster at JavaScript, but Mozilla developers are working to make Mozilla about as fast if not faster by working on the new fatvals method JIT and their tracing JIT.
CAcert withdrew their request for their root cert to be included in Firefox. Talk to CAcert about it.
StartCom free SSL certificates now seem to work in Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Outlook out of the box. It looks like they're the best bet for free certs that won't display warnings in popular products.
I'm misremembering. The problem with the StartCom certificate in 2008 was that it was not recognized by Outlook. I then tried a CAcert certificate, but it was not recognized by Firefox after importing the CAcert root certificate into Windows. Instead of importing certificates onto every laptop and desktop, I paid the money for a RapidSSL certificate.
Sorry for the confusion. I hope I'm making up for it by admitting I was wrong.
The last I checked, startcom certificates are not recognized as valid by Firefox. I purchased a five-year certificate from rapidssl.com for $60 a few years ago, and the certificate is recognized as valid by all major browsers. The cost is minimal.
What a stupid question! I never, ever said anything about stealing. What do you think? When you check something out of a library, are you stealing? Have Slashdotters completely lost their ability to think for themselves?
Downloading is not the same as stealing, but when you make a copy of a book, CD, or DVD instead of paying for it, you are denying revenue to pay for the creation and distribution of the content. If everyone did that, most wouldn't bother with creating and distributing content, because they wouldn't be able to make a living at it.
Face it. Many Slashdotters are against copyright and patents just because they want to freeload. They don't give a thought to the consequences their actions have.
Yeah, ever since they made laws against shoplifting I can't go into Walmart and take whatever I want for free. Those lawmakers are just protecting the self-interests of big corporations!
As you can see from The Story of Iron, the whole point was to make ad revenue from users coming to the site to download it. You can make up all the stories and excuses you want, but that was the entire point of making Iron from the beginning.
Most of the development on major open-source projects is done by paid developers. Red Hat, IBM, and other companies pay their programmers to develop Linux. Mozilla pays developers to work on Firefox. I'm sure there are some programmers working for free, but if those projects had to get by only on volunteer work, they wouldn't be like they are today.
You're missing the main point. The changes made to Iron do not give you any additional privacy that downloading Chrome from Google and making a few configuration changes will give you. The point of offering Iron software is to drive visitors to the SRware site, which contains ads that give the developers revenue. The whole point was just a money making scam from the start, as The Story of Iron illustrates.
You can just download Chrome from Google and change the preferences for the same effect. The whole point of having Iron is that Iron developers get revenue from the ads on their site. I visited the site once with AdBlock Plus disabled, and wouldn't want to repeat the experience.
Firefox 1.5 used less memory than the versions of IE and Opera that were out at the time. The same was true of Firefox 2. Firefox was using less memory than others browsers before Chrome ever existed. There were some memory leaks in Firefox 1.5, but most were fixed by the time Firefox 2 came out, and they didn't cause Firefox to use more memory than other browsers. See http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=468525 for details.
If you don't trust Google, why would you trust the makers of Iron?
Faster perhaps, but less memory? Many tests show it uses more memory than other browsers.
http://lifehacker.com/5457242/browser-speed-tests-firefox-36-chrome-4-opera-105-and-extensions http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
http://www.whoisandrewwee.com/browsers/verdict-on-google-chrome-memory-hog/
Every browser increases its footprint over time. It is largely due to memory fragmentation and caching, and of course every browser also has some memory leaks. When compared against other browsers, Firefox's memory usage increases more slowly. The Firefox developers are not denying that Firefox has memory leaks. You are also not pointing out any memory leak in Firefox. That doesn't mean that there aren't any, but complaining that they won't fix the problem when you aren't even willing to explain exactly what the problem is is disingenuous.
Saying that plugins have memory leaks is not the same as denying that Firefox has memory leaks. Please point out any instance of a Firefox developer denying that Firefox has memory leaks. You can also try to point out any specific memory leak in Firefox. Go ahead and try!
Yes, it is a configuration choice. With that configuration choice, Firefox cannot determine that it's communicating with the site it thinks it's communicating to, and warns the user about the potential security problem.
Where have the devs denied there are memory leaks? I remember filing memory leak bug reports, and the devs acknowledged and fixed them. At this point, I do not know how to cause any memory leak in Firefox. Go ahead and find a memory leak. The bug database is open. Find a reproducible set of steps to cause memory use to climb without limit and post it somewhere.
If you were willing to spend the money, you could do it. Therefore, it is possible.
In your first post you mentioned that Firefox has become more bloated over the years. You fail you mention one specific way in which this has occurred. Perhaps you meant that other browsers have been becoming faster and simpler. I would agree with that point. The other browsers are indeed catching up to Firefox. That doesn't mean Firefox is becoming bloated.
The reason SRWare Iron was developed was to drive hits to the SRware site, which has ads that net the developer revenue. The whole "privacy" scare is just a tactic to convince users to go to the site to get the browser. In any case, if a user doesn't trust Google with their data, why would they trust some unknown developer?