Maybe you're right, due to the fact that open source layout engines have more web browsers designed around them by their very nature. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the source code for most layout engines is not publicly available.
And yet they seem to be attracting a net of about two million new users per month to their browser. Why would people be rushing to switch to a browser if development were glacially slow and if it were as buggy as you claim it is? Some people must be happy with it. If you are not, I suggest you stop your ranting and simply switch to a browser you can be happy with.
That would be pointless. If browsers are getting mere hacks to display the specific acid test page correctly, the jig will be up when web developers start using the features tested by that acid test and discover that the features don't really work. I suspect that no browsers have been tweaked to pass certain tests, as that tweaking wouldn't fool web developers for any significant period of time.
Whenever I've tried, Firefox has used less memory than other browsers for years. Do you have a set of steps that causes Firefox 3 beta 2 to use significantly more memory than other browsers? If so, I'll be sure to file a bug report on the issue. Before anyone replies, please note that I have had severalreplies to this request before on Slashdot, and every time the set of steps caused Firefox to use less memory than other browsers. You might want to test on multiple computers before posting the steps here, to make sure that you really are demonstrating a problem in Firefox.
It's not about sticking a finger in Microsoft's eye. It's about being locked in to Windows and Internet Explorer. If your company wants to save money by moving to Linux, you'll have to give them the bad news that it will cost more money to make the web sites work. Perhaps it would have saved more money in the long term to be more forward-looking and make the sites standards complaint. The point is that you made a judgment call, and time will tell if it was the right one or not.
You would be more persuasive if you provided a few examples of such abuse on bugzilla, for example.
Otherwise this looks like a lengthy rant without any facts to support it.
The irony is that his list purports to give excuses why developers won't fix bugs. In reality, it's his excuses why he refuses to submit bug reports.
As many have said, people don't submit bug reports because only those that make finding a bug easy are accepted
A bug report is a detailed description of a bug, not a hint at how to find a bug. If you post hints at how to find a bug in a bug report, of course it will be closed, generally as INVALID. If you have only hint, please post to the Firefox Bugs forum at MozillaZine, where the bug can be discussed until you have a detailed description to write up in a bug report.
Yes, testing can never prove a program correct. On the other hand, do you think you'd get anywhere trying to prove that anything about any browser is correct using formal methods? Especially when the source code for most browsers is not even publicly available.
The Acid tests are also not really about finding obscure bugs, but about demonstrating which basic features work and which ones do not work. After all major browsers pass an Acid test, web developers can attempt to use the features tested by the Acid test. That is when the obscure bugs will be found.
For example, in 6 years the CPU hogging and memory hogging bugs are still not fixed
I remain curious. How would one see one of these supposed CPU or memory hogging problems? If you can describe the circumstances under which the problem occurs, someone can file a bug report so the problem can be fixed. If no one can explain what the bug is, you should not be surprised if it has not been fixed.
On the other hand, perhaps you're experiencing a problem that is not a bug in Firefox that can be easily fixed by some of the suggestions in Reducing memory usage - Firefox or Firefox CPU usage.
If you are unable or unwilling to resolve the problems in Firefox, perhaps it's time to simply switch to another browser. There are plenty of other good ones out there. There's no sense in continuing to suffer from serious problems while using your browser.
Opera is able to restore sessions, but the Firefox session restore feature throws away URLs if response is slow. Why is that, when millions of dollars are spent on development each year?
Perhaps no one has yet filed a bug report on the issue.
One issue is that Firefox does have some bugs. Those are fixed by Mozilla developers fixing the bugs. That does not require the user to do anything. No one is asking for end users to debug those problems. If you can point out any issue you think is not getting the attention it deserves, please point it out. You can refer to a bug report in Bugzilla, or explain how one could see the issue.
The other issue is that users' computers get messed up for whatever reason. Perhaps the user installed a buggy extension, or has a buggy driver. The fixes for those problems are documented in the MozillaZine Knowledge Base. These are the problems that can often be fixed by creating a new profile or updating software in your computer. I don't see how Mozilla developers could fix those problems. If you can suggest a modification to Mozilla code that would allow Firefox to work better in the presence of those problems, please do so.
As always, the bottom line is that if a user continues to have problems with Firefox (whether it's due to a bug in Firefox or not), they should simply switch to another browser. There's no point in putting up with a product that you continually have problems with. There are plenty of other good browsers to choose from.
The advice to create a new profile also has nothing to do with memory leaks in Mozilla software. If you're experiencing bugs in Mozilla software, you'll still see them with a new profile. If creating a new profile fixes a problem, it was due to a bad extension or other bad setting. In some rare situations, it may be possible that a perfectly reasonable setting triggers a bug in Firefox. If you see that is the case, simply point out the problem by posting to the MozillaZine forums or filing a bug report in Bugzilla, then the problem can be fixed.
If you still experience problems after creating a new profile and following the other basic advice in the Knowledge Base, and posting about the problem in the MozillaZine forums also doesn't help, then yes, a user should consider changing to another browser.
They have been spending lots of time fixing those issues. Are there any specific bug reports you think should be addressed? Any particular site or feature you're having a problem with?
If you cannot or will not track down the problems you're complaining about, and they persist even after creating a new profile and trying other fixes in the MozillaZine Knowledge Base and asking for help in the MozillaZine Forums, you should simply switch to another browser. Why put up with serious problems when there are so many other browsers to choose from?
I was taught in physics class that the pull of gravity is proportional to the masses of the two objects attracted and inversely proportional to the square of their distance. I suppose if you could work out a formula involving voids pushing, that would be equally valid, if verified by plenty of experimental evidence. Do you have a formula involving voids pushing that can accurately direct spacecraft through the solar system, for example? And predict Mercury's precessing orbit, et cetera? If you do, then yes, as you point out, you have a perfectly valid alternative interpretation of gravity.
I don't see that the edit makes much of a difference. Even if HTML5 says that user agents SHOULD support Ogg, it doesn't mean they all will. And even though HTML 5 doesn't mention Ogg, it doesn't mean they all won't.
As every web developer knows, what you can and cannot do on a web site has less to do with what the standards say, and more to do with what browsers decide to support. There are web standards that have been specified for years that developers still cannot use (for example, much of the CSS in the Acid2 test), and there are technologies that get widely used before being standardized (for example, XMLHttpRequest).
I'm listening to Will Stein's talk about Sage right now, and he mentions the licensing fees as one of the two main problems with commercial mathematics software. The other is that users should be able to examine and change the software as desired, as you mention.
It doesn't have to do with the boss. Certain industries require SAS. No, there's no way to hide the fact you didn't use SAS. You can do the work at first with another product, but you need to submit SAS code that allows others to reproduce results.
If the ads didn't display, that would make the ad company fix them right away, wouldn't it? Would they be inclined to fix the ads if they happened to work the vast majority of the time?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you're right, due to the fact that open source layout engines have more web browsers designed around them by their very nature. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the source code for most layout engines is not publicly available.
And yet they seem to be attracting a net of about two million new users per month to their browser. Why would people be rushing to switch to a browser if development were glacially slow and if it were as buggy as you claim it is? Some people must be happy with it. If you are not, I suggest you stop your ranting and simply switch to a browser you can be happy with.
That would be pointless. If browsers are getting mere hacks to display the specific acid test page correctly, the jig will be up when web developers start using the features tested by that acid test and discover that the features don't really work. I suspect that no browsers have been tweaked to pass certain tests, as that tweaking wouldn't fool web developers for any significant period of time.
For now, yes. For the future, who knows?
Whenever I've tried, Firefox has used less memory than other browsers for years. Do you have a set of steps that causes Firefox 3 beta 2 to use significantly more memory than other browsers? If so, I'll be sure to file a bug report on the issue. Before anyone replies, please note that I have had several replies to this request before on Slashdot, and every time the set of steps caused Firefox to use less memory than other browsers. You might want to test on multiple computers before posting the steps here, to make sure that you really are demonstrating a problem in Firefox.
It's not about sticking a finger in Microsoft's eye. It's about being locked in to Windows and Internet Explorer. If your company wants to save money by moving to Linux, you'll have to give them the bad news that it will cost more money to make the web sites work. Perhaps it would have saved more money in the long term to be more forward-looking and make the sites standards complaint. The point is that you made a judgment call, and time will tell if it was the right one or not.
Yes, testing can never prove a program correct. On the other hand, do you think you'd get anywhere trying to prove that anything about any browser is correct using formal methods? Especially when the source code for most browsers is not even publicly available.
The Acid tests are also not really about finding obscure bugs, but about demonstrating which basic features work and which ones do not work. After all major browsers pass an Acid test, web developers can attempt to use the features tested by the Acid test. That is when the obscure bugs will be found.
I remain curious. How would one see one of these supposed CPU or memory hogging problems? If you can describe the circumstances under which the problem occurs, someone can file a bug report so the problem can be fixed. If no one can explain what the bug is, you should not be surprised if it has not been fixed.
On the other hand, perhaps you're experiencing a problem that is not a bug in Firefox that can be easily fixed by some of the suggestions in Reducing memory usage - Firefox or Firefox CPU usage.
If you are unable or unwilling to resolve the problems in Firefox, perhaps it's time to simply switch to another browser. There are plenty of other good ones out there. There's no sense in continuing to suffer from serious problems while using your browser.
Perhaps no one has yet filed a bug report on the issue.
You're confounding two different issues.
One issue is that Firefox does have some bugs. Those are fixed by Mozilla developers fixing the bugs. That does not require the user to do anything. No one is asking for end users to debug those problems. If you can point out any issue you think is not getting the attention it deserves, please point it out. You can refer to a bug report in Bugzilla, or explain how one could see the issue.
The other issue is that users' computers get messed up for whatever reason. Perhaps the user installed a buggy extension, or has a buggy driver. The fixes for those problems are documented in the MozillaZine Knowledge Base. These are the problems that can often be fixed by creating a new profile or updating software in your computer. I don't see how Mozilla developers could fix those problems. If you can suggest a modification to Mozilla code that would allow Firefox to work better in the presence of those problems, please do so.
As always, the bottom line is that if a user continues to have problems with Firefox (whether it's due to a bug in Firefox or not), they should simply switch to another browser. There's no point in putting up with a product that you continually have problems with. There are plenty of other good browsers to choose from.
No, creating a new profile does not cause you to lose any information. You can import your old settings to the new profile.
The advice to create a new profile also has nothing to do with memory leaks in Mozilla software. If you're experiencing bugs in Mozilla software, you'll still see them with a new profile. If creating a new profile fixes a problem, it was due to a bad extension or other bad setting. In some rare situations, it may be possible that a perfectly reasonable setting triggers a bug in Firefox. If you see that is the case, simply point out the problem by posting to the MozillaZine forums or filing a bug report in Bugzilla, then the problem can be fixed.
If you still experience problems after creating a new profile and following the other basic advice in the Knowledge Base, and posting about the problem in the MozillaZine forums also doesn't help, then yes, a user should consider changing to another browser.
They have been spending lots of time fixing those issues. Are there any specific bug reports you think should be addressed? Any particular site or feature you're having a problem with?
If you cannot or will not track down the problems you're complaining about, and they persist even after creating a new profile and trying other fixes in the MozillaZine Knowledge Base and asking for help in the MozillaZine Forums, you should simply switch to another browser. Why put up with serious problems when there are so many other browsers to choose from?
I was taught in physics class that the pull of gravity is proportional to the masses of the two objects attracted and inversely proportional to the square of their distance. I suppose if you could work out a formula involving voids pushing, that would be equally valid, if verified by plenty of experimental evidence. Do you have a formula involving voids pushing that can accurately direct spacecraft through the solar system, for example? And predict Mercury's precessing orbit, et cetera? If you do, then yes, as you point out, you have a perfectly valid alternative interpretation of gravity.
No, gravity causes matter to clump and contract. As that happens, the voids grow more sparse and larger. It's pretty simple, isn't it?
Even Secunia itself says not to use their statistics to compare the overall security of products against one another.
I don't see that the edit makes much of a difference. Even if HTML5 says that user agents SHOULD support Ogg, it doesn't mean they all will. And even though HTML 5 doesn't mention Ogg, it doesn't mean they all won't.
As every web developer knows, what you can and cannot do on a web site has less to do with what the standards say, and more to do with what browsers decide to support. There are web standards that have been specified for years that developers still cannot use (for example, much of the CSS in the Acid2 test), and there are technologies that get widely used before being standardized (for example, XMLHttpRequest).
There are some projects I'd like to flush out, but in the end I usually concede and flesh them out.
I'm listening to Will Stein's talk about Sage right now, and he mentions the licensing fees as one of the two main problems with commercial mathematics software. The other is that users should be able to examine and change the software as desired, as you mention.
It doesn't have to do with the boss. Certain industries require SAS. No, there's no way to hide the fact you didn't use SAS. You can do the work at first with another product, but you need to submit SAS code that allows others to reproduce results.
I found the audio for a talk he gave at UW about Sage earlier this year.
If the ads didn't display, that would make the ad company fix them right away, wouldn't it? Would they be inclined to fix the ads if they happened to work the vast majority of the time?
Just to clarify your clarification, there was at least one browser that had tabs before Opera.
Yes, it depends. Worldwide, IE usage is about 80% overall. In Europe and on tech-heavy sites, IE usage is significantly lower.
IE usage is closer to 80%, but it is still dropping. Give it a few more years, and it'll be down to 70%.