No, limiting the memory Firefox uses could cause sites to fail to work properly, especially on computers with very little RAM. The thing about the huge memory consumption is that very few users see it, and those that do cannot explain how others can see it so no one can investigate what the problem is or how to fix it.
Sure, and some of those eyeballs wait until just after the release of a new version to announce they know of a security vulnerability just to draw attention to themselves. Open source does help security bugs to be found, but it doesn't magically keep the finders from blabbing to all hackers worldwide exactly what the problem is and how to exploit it.
RTFA. They returned the 503 Service Unavailable error to many abusers, and they just kept on with abusive requests. Many abusers aren't checking the response to the request at all.
Patents are bad because their only effect is funneling resources from the fast, high-powered, creative, dynamic people in the world to the retarded lazy dullards who think thy only ever have to do one single clever thing in their entire life and should get paid for it from here on in perpetuity.
Could you give even one example of such a retarded lazy dullard? Most people and companies I've heard that hold patents keep on working and making new discoveries.
An idea can be an invention. An invention is an object, process, or technique which displays an element of novelty. This looks like a technique for building faster processors, and thus is an invention. It also looks like it is far from obvious, and took considerable research to invent. Those researchers made money, so why not let them license their technology to other companies so they can make money to do more research?
I'm glad they're forward-looking enough to implement Phython, the best of PHP and Python in one language. Maybe next year they can implement Pherlthon?
Your professor was correct. Yes, the computer can automatically write a program from the specification. On the other hand, it probably isn't very efficient. You could write a deviously clever program to produce the same output, and when others don't buy into the tricks you've used, you can prove conclusively that your program is 100% correct. The same technique can prove that the latest processor optimizations don't have bugs (think of the Pentium division problem).
Switch the the new Opera browser! It's fantastic! It has a new de-Ronulizer feature that removes all those annoying Ron Paul posts! Why haven't you switched to Opera yet? Get it now!!!1!!! It's da best! It's liek the Ron Paul of the browser world!1!!!!1!
It's not black and white. The greater Firefox's usage, the less harm is apparent. With less harm, Opera has a weaker case. Yes, Opera could make a case even if all browsers had equal share. However, their case would be undermined (weakened) further. I never said Opera had no case, just that it was undermined by Firefox's high share. Is this really that hard to understand?
MS killed the incentive to produce a browser, the only way to "compete" was to give the browser away for free, the cost of producing such software was swallowed by MS, making it impossible for anybody else to compete in a level playing field, unless they worked gratis.
Mozilla makes tens of millions of dollars per year giving Firefox away for free. Opera makes a similar amount of money selling its mobile browser and also giving away its desktop browser. Apple makes money selling Safari with Macs and iPhones. You can bet their developers are well paid.
By making IE more popular than other browsers and keeping it loaded with quirks and proprietary features, they encourage some web sites require IE to browse them. This is particularly true of corporate intranet sites. To use IE legally, you must buy a Windows license. If MS lets all users choose whatever browser they want, they are also free to move to other operating systems besides Windows, and MS loses money.
The whole point of the tag is that you should not do exactly what you're proposing. Existing web pages that have been tested in IE6 and IE7 should be left as is so they will continue to work, even in newer IE browsers. You'll need to mark pages as tested with IE8 after testing them. You should also validate your HTML and CSS, and test in other more standards compliant browsers to ensure you're really following the web standards correctly, so that your pages will continue to work in all newer browsers.
I'm not excusing bundling. I'm saying it's not severely skewing the market. If it were, the unbundling would mean IE's usage would definitely drop severely from 70-80% to under 50%.
In my dictionary, it says that undermine means weaken. Therefore, what I am saying is that Opera does have a case, but it is weakened by Firefox having 30% share in Europe. I am not saying that fact has completely obliterated Opera's case, just weakened it.
You're missing one critical but important point: Apple does not hold a monopoly on the mobile market with the iPhone as Microsoft does with Windows in the desktop market.
Go back and read what I said. I never said the harm doesn't exist at all. There is some harm to the browser market due to IE being bundled with Windows. However, alternative browsers can not only compete, they can thrive. For example, Firefox.
My point is simply that a browser can get 80% or more of the market without being bundled with an OS. There's no guarantee that IE usage will drop to a minority share just because it becomes unbundled from Windows.
If you look back at the history of web browsers, one browser has usually had a majority of the usage share. First it was Mosaic, then Netscape, then Internet Explorer. I would agree that IE is the most popular browser currently because of the bundling with Windows, and that the over 90% of IE usage in the early 2000s was skewed from the normal browser usage pattern. But one browser having 80% usage share is normal and has happened before. For example, Netscape had 80% usage share around 1995-1996 without being bundled with an OS. With IE usage dropping below 80% worldwide and below 70% in Europe and continuing to drop every year, it doesn't look like the market is severely skewed towards IE. Skewed, yes, but not severely skewed.
Opera's saying that it can't compete because users won't download browsers when they already have IE installed along with Windows, which has more than 90% of the desktop OS market share. But wait! 30% of users download Firefox, what's up with that? I guess users will go out of their way to download other browsers, after all. That undermines Opera's case. Oops!
There are about 1.3 billion Internet users according to Internet Growth Statistics. That seems to add up to me. Firefox may have up to 150 million users by now. So where are all the complaints about web sites breaking with each release of Firefox? All I can see is lame "memory leak" complaints that no one can seem to verify.
Mozilla was achieving success from the very start. The usage of Mozilla doubled every year from 2000 to 2005 (and probably before 2000 also but the stats sites just don't have any data on that time period). Since 2005, Mozilla use has doubled yet again. Because Firefox came out in 2004, of course most people who use Firefox today didn't use Mozilla products before Firefox. That's the nature of exponential growth.
Memory leaks have been fixed for years now. Just look at the ones that were fixed this week alone. If you think there are still some unfixed, just let us know how to reproduce the leak and we'll file a bug report so it can be fixed. I would never tell you to buy more RAM to work around a memory leak. That would be incredibly stupid.
If you didn't see the incredible success of Mozilla long before Firefox came out, and if you don't see that memory leaks are getting fixed, you're simply not paying any attention.
Slashdot Mirror
If you see the quality of Firefox declining, you probably just need to create a new profile.
No, limiting the memory Firefox uses could cause sites to fail to work properly, especially on computers with very little RAM. The thing about the huge memory consumption is that very few users see it, and those that do cannot explain how others can see it so no one can investigate what the problem is or how to fix it.
Sure, and some of those eyeballs wait until just after the release of a new version to announce they know of a security vulnerability just to draw attention to themselves. Open source does help security bugs to be found, but it doesn't magically keep the finders from blabbing to all hackers worldwide exactly what the problem is and how to exploit it.
RTFA. They returned the 503 Service Unavailable error to many abusers, and they just kept on with abusive requests. Many abusers aren't checking the response to the request at all.
An idea can be an invention. An invention is an object, process, or technique which displays an element of novelty. This looks like a technique for building faster processors, and thus is an invention. It also looks like it is far from obvious, and took considerable research to invent. Those researchers made money, so why not let them license their technology to other companies so they can make money to do more research?
I'm glad they're forward-looking enough to implement Phython, the best of PHP and Python in one language. Maybe next year they can implement Pherlthon?
Your professor was correct. Yes, the computer can automatically write a program from the specification. On the other hand, it probably isn't very efficient. You could write a deviously clever program to produce the same output, and when others don't buy into the tricks you've used, you can prove conclusively that your program is 100% correct. The same technique can prove that the latest processor optimizations don't have bugs (think of the Pentium division problem).
Switch the the new Opera browser! It's fantastic! It has a new de-Ronulizer feature that removes all those annoying Ron Paul posts! Why haven't you switched to Opera yet? Get it now!!!1!!! It's da best! It's liek the Ron Paul of the browser world!1!!!!1!
It's not black and white. The greater Firefox's usage, the less harm is apparent. With less harm, Opera has a weaker case. Yes, Opera could make a case even if all browsers had equal share. However, their case would be undermined (weakened) further. I never said Opera had no case, just that it was undermined by Firefox's high share. Is this really that hard to understand?
By making IE more popular than other browsers and keeping it loaded with quirks and proprietary features, they encourage some web sites require IE to browse them. This is particularly true of corporate intranet sites. To use IE legally, you must buy a Windows license. If MS lets all users choose whatever browser they want, they are also free to move to other operating systems besides Windows, and MS loses money.
The whole point of the tag is that you should not do exactly what you're proposing. Existing web pages that have been tested in IE6 and IE7 should be left as is so they will continue to work, even in newer IE browsers. You'll need to mark pages as tested with IE8 after testing them. You should also validate your HTML and CSS, and test in other more standards compliant browsers to ensure you're really following the web standards correctly, so that your pages will continue to work in all newer browsers.
I'm not excusing bundling. I'm saying it's not severely skewing the market. If it were, the unbundling would mean IE's usage would definitely drop severely from 70-80% to under 50%.
In my dictionary, it says that undermine means weaken. Therefore, what I am saying is that Opera does have a case, but it is weakened by Firefox having 30% share in Europe. I am not saying that fact has completely obliterated Opera's case, just weakened it.
Firefox uses more resources than other browsers? Tell me, how could I see this effect? If you can, I'd be happy to file a performance bug report.
You're missing one critical but important point: Apple does not hold a monopoly on the mobile market with the iPhone as Microsoft does with Windows in the desktop market.
Go back and read what I said. I never said the harm doesn't exist at all. There is some harm to the browser market due to IE being bundled with Windows. However, alternative browsers can not only compete, they can thrive. For example, Firefox.
My point is simply that a browser can get 80% or more of the market without being bundled with an OS. There's no guarantee that IE usage will drop to a minority share just because it becomes unbundled from Windows.
In the mobile market, Safari is killing the competition by being bundled with the iPhone. When Mozilla 2 comes out, "Mobile Firefox" will compete in the mobile market, too. The competition is tough and getting tougher even in the mobile market where Opera has traditionally done best.
Both. Nearly all desktop computers have Windows installed. That's especially true in Europe where Mac OS is not popular.
If you look back at the history of web browsers, one browser has usually had a majority of the usage share. First it was Mosaic, then Netscape, then Internet Explorer. I would agree that IE is the most popular browser currently because of the bundling with Windows, and that the over 90% of IE usage in the early 2000s was skewed from the normal browser usage pattern. But one browser having 80% usage share is normal and has happened before. For example, Netscape had 80% usage share around 1995-1996 without being bundled with an OS. With IE usage dropping below 80% worldwide and below 70% in Europe and continuing to drop every year, it doesn't look like the market is severely skewed towards IE. Skewed, yes, but not severely skewed.
Opera's saying that it can't compete because users won't download browsers when they already have IE installed along with Windows, which has more than 90% of the desktop OS market share. But wait! 30% of users download Firefox, what's up with that? I guess users will go out of their way to download other browsers, after all. That undermines Opera's case. Oops!
There are about 1.3 billion Internet users according to Internet Growth Statistics. That seems to add up to me. Firefox may have up to 150 million users by now. So where are all the complaints about web sites breaking with each release of Firefox? All I can see is lame "memory leak" complaints that no one can seem to verify.
Mozilla was achieving success from the very start. The usage of Mozilla doubled every year from 2000 to 2005 (and probably before 2000 also but the stats sites just don't have any data on that time period). Since 2005, Mozilla use has doubled yet again. Because Firefox came out in 2004, of course most people who use Firefox today didn't use Mozilla products before Firefox. That's the nature of exponential growth.
Memory leaks have been fixed for years now. Just look at the ones that were fixed this week alone. If you think there are still some unfixed, just let us know how to reproduce the leak and we'll file a bug report so it can be fixed. I would never tell you to buy more RAM to work around a memory leak. That would be incredibly stupid.
If you didn't see the incredible success of Mozilla long before Firefox came out, and if you don't see that memory leaks are getting fixed, you're simply not paying any attention.