First, the OP is referring to XHTML, where an error message on malformed XML is required. Second, if IE gave an error for a web page, web developers would surely fix it before the users had a chance to complain much. Fixing legitimate XML errors would be easier than the contortions web developers already go through just to make pages look good in the current version of IE.
Except that the force that causes macroscopic objects to bump into each other instead of pass through each other is the electromagnetic force, not nuclear forces.
As I've explained, if you want Mozilla to step up and take responsibility for a bug, the thing to do is report it in Bugzilla. You'll first want to make sure it's a bug in Mozilla code (otherwise your time will be wasted). You may want to discuss it in the Firefox Bugs forum on MozillaZine before writing a bug report.
I saw that. Someone should file a *new* bug report properly. Making further comments on a bug report that was fixed years ago isn't the correct way to report a new problem, unless it's basically the same problem. It may be the same symptom, but if it's different someone will have to submit a new bug report.
I've copied code from the Perl Cookbook and the PHP Cookbook. As far as I know, that code doesn't come with any license, and yet I would think the purpose of the code is to be copied and used as is or modified as needed. I would think the same would be true of code someone posted on a forum or mailing list. I'm surprised that anyone thinks copying the code would be a problem.
Anyone can make up any idea and call it science. Are there any peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals about intelligent design? Have any experiments to test intelligent design been designed and carried out to see what the result is?
There are many thousands of Bugzilla accounts. Anyone can sign up. Just because you saw something in Bugzilla doesn't mean a developer said it. Most comments are not from developers, especially in bug reports with many comments about a hotly debated topic. It also depends on the context; in some bug reports, the reporter may be mistaking caching for a memory leak. In that context, not releasing memory is a feature, not a bug. That doesn't mean they're saying that Firefox has absolutely no memory leaks whatsoever. Sorry for the confusion.
I've had your perfect example of a killer memory leak open for over two hours in Firefox 3 beta 1 on Windows XP. You weren't kidding when you said it reloads itself; it's constantly downloading and rendering the iframe. Memory started (of course, after a full day of using Firefox) at 91 MB Mem usage and 84 MB VM Size. The memory use is now still at 91 MB Mem usage and 84 MB VM Size. You can file a bug report on Firefox 2 if you like.
If Firefox's memory grows without bound, that is a memory leak. Firefox's caches have bounds on them, and will not grow without limit. It looks like you're seeing memory leaks and thinking that the caches have been designed stupidly so that they grow without limit. Let me repeat: if you see Firefox's memory usage increasing without limit, that is a bug that should be fixed. File a bug report with the steps to reproduce the problem so it can be fixed.
What you're describing is a common misconception of Ben Goodger's blog about the bfcache. Let me give you a few snippets from that post: "All versions of Firefox no doubt leak memory" and "What I think many people are talking about however with Firefox 1.5 is not really a memory leak at all. It is in fact a feature."
So, yes Firefox does leak memory. On the other hand, some people see the extra memory used by caching and mistake it for a memory leak. Some people see the memory wasted due to memory fragmentation and mistake it for a memory leak. And there are actual memory leaks also.
I'll repeat it again so it might sink in this time. Mozilla developers have never denied that there are leaks. If anyone says that Firefox doesn't leak memory, they're obviously incorrect. Go argue with the people who are stupidly claiming that Firefox doesn't leak memory. Don't argue with me, as I agree with you completely.
I agree with you that Firefox 2 does leak memory. Mozilla developers agree that Firefox 2 leaks memory. I don't see anyone claiming that Firefox 2 doesn't leak. If anyone does, they're obviously incorrect. Do you think you're saying something controversial? It seems like you're stating something that every reasonable person agrees with. There's no reason to start an argument, as everyone agrees already.
Developers are now working on Firefox 3. Do you see any major problems with that version? If so, create a new profile and give steps to reproduce the problem. If you cannot, I don't see the point in discussing the matter further, as the problem would seem to be resolved.
It sounds like you've got a serious problem with your configuration if Firefox "continues to leak more with every single new page that I visit." Try the steps I posted earlier: Download Firefox 3 beta 1 and create a new profile. If you can then reproduce any memory problem, post the steps to reproduce it so the problem can be fixed.
Why do you insist that every memory leak be fixed? Not all crash bugs in Firefox are fixed, so should users be dissatisfied with Firefox because sometimes it crashes? Likewise, if Firefox leaks so slowly that all users are able to run it for months without restarting, why bother with the last few leaks?
And besides, users will never be satisfied, even if all leaks are fixed. I see users complaining about normal memory use all the time, often when they mistake memory fragmentation for a memory leak, or a memory leak in an extension with a memory leak in Firefox. Some users will accuse Firefox developers of simply denying that Firefox has memory problems instead of fixing them.
The catch is that there is no "it" to fix. There are lots of little problems, and no way to know when all the problems are fixed. Even if all known problems are fixed, there could be problems that no one has reported. Besides, if they ever did say all memory problems were fixed, people would complain that they're again denying that Firefox has memory problems. It's a catch-22, isn't it?
There have been no "vehement denials issued by the Firefox team regarding the memory leaks," unless by that phrase you mean "politely asking for how to reproduce memory leaks." If you have a way that others can reproduce the problem, please file a bug report so the bug can be fixed!
I'm not saying it's not a bug. I'm saying that because no one is filing a bug report, it is not getting fixed. I'm sure that many people cannot figure out how to reproduce the problem, because as you describe it is intermittent. On the other hand, out of 130 million users, someone should be able to figure out how to reproduce it.
First problem: When I start Firefox 3 beta 1 and IE 7 and do nothing but go to your comment to reply, IE 7 takes 56 MB Mem Usage and 43 MB VM Size, but Firefox takes only 44 MB Mem Usage and 34 MB VM Size. So I can't reproduce that one.
I cannot reproduce the second one because you haven't given instructions for how to do so, and I never see it on my own.
I'm not saying that the problem is not there or is not annoying. I'm simply saying that to get the problem fixed, someone needs to file a bug report. To file a bug report, we need a set of steps to reproduce the problem. That's where we keep getting stuck, because I can never reproduce the memory problem, no matter what I do. If you still think there's a problem that needs to be fixed, all you need to do is point out what it is, specifically, by giving a set of steps that will allow others to reproduce it on their computers. Until someone gives such a set of steps, you cannot expect the problem to be fixed.
I think you're referring to caches. They are different from leaks in that caches are deliberately holding on to memory to improve performance. All browsers have caches, because performance would be unacceptable with no caching whatsoever. A leak is different in that it does not improve performance, but is only wasting memory. You can minimize the amount of memory Firefox uses for caching if you want.
Here we go again... could you explain to me how I could see "high memory consumption" in Firefox, significantly higher than other browsers use? Please give a detailed set of steps for how I could reproduce the problem on other computers. If you do, I'll file a bug report so the problem can be fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
First, the OP is referring to XHTML, where an error message on malformed XML is required. Second, if IE gave an error for a web page, web developers would surely fix it before the users had a chance to complain much. Fixing legitimate XML errors would be easier than the contortions web developers already go through just to make pages look good in the current version of IE.
Except that the force that causes macroscopic objects to bump into each other instead of pass through each other is the electromagnetic force, not nuclear forces.
As I've explained, if you want Mozilla to step up and take responsibility for a bug, the thing to do is report it in Bugzilla. You'll first want to make sure it's a bug in Mozilla code (otherwise your time will be wasted). You may want to discuss it in the Firefox Bugs forum on MozillaZine before writing a bug report.
I saw that. Someone should file a *new* bug report properly. Making further comments on a bug report that was fixed years ago isn't the correct way to report a new problem, unless it's basically the same problem. It may be the same symptom, but if it's different someone will have to submit a new bug report.
What bug? I see bug 246078 which was fixed years ago. Is there a new bug? If so, you should make sure you report it properly.
Try the suggestions from the MozillaZine Knowledge Base article Firefox crashes.
I've copied code from the Perl Cookbook and the PHP Cookbook. As far as I know, that code doesn't come with any license, and yet I would think the purpose of the code is to be copied and used as is or modified as needed. I would think the same would be true of code someone posted on a forum or mailing list. I'm surprised that anyone thinks copying the code would be a problem.
Anyone can make up any idea and call it science. Are there any peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals about intelligent design? Have any experiments to test intelligent design been designed and carried out to see what the result is?
There are many thousands of Bugzilla accounts. Anyone can sign up. Just because you saw something in Bugzilla doesn't mean a developer said it. Most comments are not from developers, especially in bug reports with many comments about a hotly debated topic. It also depends on the context; in some bug reports, the reporter may be mistaking caching for a memory leak. In that context, not releasing memory is a feature, not a bug. That doesn't mean they're saying that Firefox has absolutely no memory leaks whatsoever. Sorry for the confusion.
I've had your perfect example of a killer memory leak open for over two hours in Firefox 3 beta 1 on Windows XP. You weren't kidding when you said it reloads itself; it's constantly downloading and rendering the iframe. Memory started (of course, after a full day of using Firefox) at 91 MB Mem usage and 84 MB VM Size. The memory use is now still at 91 MB Mem usage and 84 MB VM Size. You can file a bug report on Firefox 2 if you like.
Where have Mozilla developers denied that there are leaks? I've never seen such a statement from them.
If Firefox's memory grows without bound, that is a memory leak. Firefox's caches have bounds on them, and will not grow without limit. It looks like you're seeing memory leaks and thinking that the caches have been designed stupidly so that they grow without limit. Let me repeat: if you see Firefox's memory usage increasing without limit, that is a bug that should be fixed. File a bug report with the steps to reproduce the problem so it can be fixed.
What you're describing is a common misconception of Ben Goodger's blog about the bfcache. Let me give you a few snippets from that post: "All versions of Firefox no doubt leak memory" and "What I think many people are talking about however with Firefox 1.5 is not really a memory leak at all. It is in fact a feature."
So, yes Firefox does leak memory. On the other hand, some people see the extra memory used by caching and mistake it for a memory leak. Some people see the memory wasted due to memory fragmentation and mistake it for a memory leak. And there are actual memory leaks also.
I'll repeat it again so it might sink in this time. Mozilla developers have never denied that there are leaks. If anyone says that Firefox doesn't leak memory, they're obviously incorrect. Go argue with the people who are stupidly claiming that Firefox doesn't leak memory. Don't argue with me, as I agree with you completely.
I agree with you that Firefox 2 does leak memory. Mozilla developers agree that Firefox 2 leaks memory. I don't see anyone claiming that Firefox 2 doesn't leak. If anyone does, they're obviously incorrect. Do you think you're saying something controversial? It seems like you're stating something that every reasonable person agrees with. There's no reason to start an argument, as everyone agrees already.
Developers are now working on Firefox 3. Do you see any major problems with that version? If so, create a new profile and give steps to reproduce the problem. If you cannot, I don't see the point in discussing the matter further, as the problem would seem to be resolved.
It sounds like you've got a serious problem with your configuration if Firefox "continues to leak more with every single new page that I visit." Try the steps I posted earlier: Download Firefox 3 beta 1 and create a new profile. If you can then reproduce any memory problem, post the steps to reproduce it so the problem can be fixed.
Why do you insist that every memory leak be fixed? Not all crash bugs in Firefox are fixed, so should users be dissatisfied with Firefox because sometimes it crashes? Likewise, if Firefox leaks so slowly that all users are able to run it for months without restarting, why bother with the last few leaks?
And besides, users will never be satisfied, even if all leaks are fixed. I see users complaining about normal memory use all the time, often when they mistake memory fragmentation for a memory leak, or a memory leak in an extension with a memory leak in Firefox. Some users will accuse Firefox developers of simply denying that Firefox has memory problems instead of fixing them.
Memory use is a combination of necessary memory use, caches, memory fragmentation, and memory leaks. What you're describing sounds like memory leaks, not caching. The good news is that in Firefox 3, Mozilla developers' "extensive testing shows an occasional leak here and there and we are working to fix those, but in general we aren't seeing many leaks anymore." If you see any way to reproduce any memory problem in Firefox 3, please report it with the set of steps used to cause the problem.
They've already said "Our extensive testing shows an occasional leak here and there and we are working to fix those, but in general we aren't seeing many leaks anymore." It seems like they've done everything you've suggested (except for the bounty), and yet you still seem unsatisfied. Isn't that proving our point?
Did you notice the Flash animation on the right side of the page? That's what's consuming the CPU, not Firefox. You can read more about the issue in the Firefox CPU usage article in the MozillaZine Knowledge Base.
The catch is that there is no "it" to fix. There are lots of little problems, and no way to know when all the problems are fixed. Even if all known problems are fixed, there could be problems that no one has reported. Besides, if they ever did say all memory problems were fixed, people would complain that they're again denying that Firefox has memory problems. It's a catch-22, isn't it?
There have been no "vehement denials issued by the Firefox team regarding the memory leaks," unless by that phrase you mean "politely asking for how to reproduce memory leaks." If you have a way that others can reproduce the problem, please file a bug report so the bug can be fixed!
I'm not saying it's not a bug. I'm saying that because no one is filing a bug report, it is not getting fixed. I'm sure that many people cannot figure out how to reproduce the problem, because as you describe it is intermittent. On the other hand, out of 130 million users, someone should be able to figure out how to reproduce it.
First problem: When I start Firefox 3 beta 1 and IE 7 and do nothing but go to your comment to reply, IE 7 takes 56 MB Mem Usage and 43 MB VM Size, but Firefox takes only 44 MB Mem Usage and 34 MB VM Size. So I can't reproduce that one.
I cannot reproduce the second one because you haven't given instructions for how to do so, and I never see it on my own.
I'm not saying that the problem is not there or is not annoying. I'm simply saying that to get the problem fixed, someone needs to file a bug report. To file a bug report, we need a set of steps to reproduce the problem. That's where we keep getting stuck, because I can never reproduce the memory problem, no matter what I do. If you still think there's a problem that needs to be fixed, all you need to do is point out what it is, specifically, by giving a set of steps that will allow others to reproduce it on their computers. Until someone gives such a set of steps, you cannot expect the problem to be fixed.
I think you're referring to caches. They are different from leaks in that caches are deliberately holding on to memory to improve performance. All browsers have caches, because performance would be unacceptable with no caching whatsoever. A leak is different in that it does not improve performance, but is only wasting memory. You can minimize the amount of memory Firefox uses for caching if you want.
Here we go again... could you explain to me how I could see "high memory consumption" in Firefox, significantly higher than other browsers use? Please give a detailed set of steps for how I could reproduce the problem on other computers. If you do, I'll file a bug report so the problem can be fixed.
According to the list of problematic extensions, IE Tab has a memory leak. Perhaps you should uninstall that extension.