Try any of the latest LG, Nokia, or Samsung phones which have a 5 megapixel camera...
I'm not entirely sure why these phones don't make it across to the US in great numbers but dull plodding generic Windows Mobile or supposedly cutting-edge iPhone, Blackberry, or this G1 do when they're actually a step behind the rest.
I suspect it's something to do with operator lock-in and subsidy. There seems to be a greater willingness by the manufacturers to tie them to one operator and one or two on-line services.
Won't get you very far in a society where what's important is image not responsibility, where nobody takes responsibility until the image comes out, and even if there's a reasonable explanation for the image then responsibility must be seen to be taken (a different thing) because the image is more important than the actual facts.
Also, a difference between 'dumb' and 'uneducated about financial matters.' Is there a class on ARMS in high school people can take? I don't think those are covered in home ec.
People can't be experts on every field. Add to that fact that finances bring up survival fears in most people, and fear shuts down the brain, and you will see that many people may be smart in many areas, but uneducated about finance.
These two paragraphs made me think of this video: Money as debt.
I think perhaps that if people were taught about the current financial system it at an early age they'd be open minded enough to see it for the pyramid scheme it really is and maybe think about other possibilities.
You and I however, mortgaged, with x loans, and carrying y credit cards think it's perfectly normal.
If the problem is a different theme to fit in with Ubuntu's GUI better, then Ubuntu can package an Ubuntu theme with the standard Firefox.
If the problem is a GUI bug, why would Ubuntu need permission to fix it just on the version of FF which comes with Ubuntu? Wouldn't it be easier to open a bug in Mozilla's Bugzilla with the patch included and propagate that fix to all versions of Firefox?
There's more than one way to stop a tab locking up a browser. A dedicated process is not the only way, contrary to the current hype.
Unlike plug-ins which cannot be controlled and really should be given their own process, tabs (web pages) have basically two components; a render and a script engine, and the browser has control of both.
At most you should need a new thread to stop a tab locking up the rest of the browser.
It might be more practical to make each plug-in run in its own process and each tab in its own thread if necessary.
As plug-ins work through APIs there's fewer problems when it comes to accessing data if you put them in their own process (basically you don't need to).
Tabs can be put in other threads and if a JavaScript script goes off the rails it can still be killed. What you gain: it's far less work to overhaul the browser (you still have access to shared memory) and it uses fewer resources.
It might not be popular with the digg crowd who want each tab to have its own process, but then again software architecture is not their strong point.
I would not say that a different process for each window or tab is an obvious design solution. Do you know of any office suite which does it? Do Photoshop, Ultraedit, or [insert well-known software here] spawn a new process for a new window or tab? Even though the option has been buried in an obscure setting in Windows Explorer for about a decade, it is off as default because its use has disadvantages (although Microsoft could easily have tried harder to minimise them).
I think people are more prepared to put up with it for browsers because they've become so (overly) complicated. However most problems can be categorised into one of three things: memory allocation, the script engine getting bogged down, and plug-ins going wrong.
FF3's memory allocation has improved, JavaScript will get as many threads as it needs in version 3.1, and all that remains are plug-ins which as I said above really should have their own processes as they can't be trusted not to go wrong.
The overhead might be small on multiple core desktop machines now, but if Firefox is to get onto mobile devices then it still needs to be resource light and it that case developer effort is better spent making a common version work well on both desktops and mobiles/PDAs (does Chrome on Android use multiple processes as well?). It makes little sense to spend limited developer resources on one approach for the desktop and another for mobile devices.
Finally on older Windows computers the latest available version of IE is IE6. Chrome is clearly too much for them leaving Firefox and Opera to fill in the gap. If it were decided that separate processes for every tab or window is the way to go then these older computers would be struggling, leaving them with just IE6, and anyone using IE6 to browse these days ends up getting owned in a week.
Yes, I do know what address space is and how memory allocation works. Address space is not fixed per application on modern OSes or on UNIX-based OSes, Firefox does not run on MacOS System 7 so your point is invalid.
You're still quoting from the comic. If you have a memory leak it doesn't matter if it belongs to the whole browser or a single tab, it's still a memory leak. If Chrome has a bad memory leak (when e.g. it destroys a flash object) and you restrict your use to one window only without opening new windows or tabs, you will eventually notice it just as much as you would in Firefox.
The fact that Chrome's design means it uses the OS as a crutch and it steps in and throws everything out when a window or tab is closed does not mean Chrome's design is inherently good, it just means it's more robust at the cost of the extra baggage the OS needs to maintain separate processes (extra memory, slower speed). IE8 beta 2 also uses per-process tabs and also requires a similar amount of extra memory as Chrome does and also has a slower response time as a result, but I do not see you singing its praises.
You're still claiming FF3 is crappy code without proof. The UI can hang because it uses JavaScript however this is a problem that will be addressed in 3.1, heavy JavaScript scripts will be placed into their own threads. The advantage of threads is speed and less memory usage when compared to processes. Scripts in other threads can go off the rails as much as they want as they won't affect the main browser and when the tab is closed the problem is resolved; like Chrome without using as many resources.
I will say that the task manager is a good idea so that the user is a little more informed and non-responding tabs can be killed, and where processes do have their place is separating plug-ins from the browser so Java, Flash, or Acrobat don't go mad and hang the browser, however processes for each tab/window is overkill.
I think FF3, Opera, and Safari will go with threads, IE8 will go with processes, and Google will have a decision to make with regards to benchmarks when memory usage and new tab/window response time places them closer to IE8 than it does to the competition.
With reference to my babble; I know, but I used a paragraph of his to introduce an observation.
My observation was that people have slated Firefox 2 and IE 7 and 8 for using 200M of memory, and when Chrome uses the same it's all shiney and new.
I see you're quoting from that comic. Firefox does not have one giant address space, it can allocate memory and release it as and when required using various different methods depending on data requirements (just as any other process can).
The fact that this memory is attached to one process or various is beside the point, apart from one: When a process (tab/window) in Chrome is destroyed the OS cleans up the memory. When a tab or a window is destroyed in Firefox the application cleans up the memory.
Very well, but this basically means Google's designers have decided that any memory problems will solve themselves (or rather the OS will solve them) when a tab or window is closed in Chrome and that this advantage outweighs the disadvantage involved in spawning new processes and the IPC between them. There is also less incentive to spend time fixing memory leaks because the workaround will be to close the window/tab and re-open it again.
FF3 has achieved quite a reduction in memory usage and received praise for it until now, and slating it as 'crappy code' and 'half-hearted attempts at fixing [memory leaks] is disingenuous.
Google's Chrome brings the browser war to a white heat - suddenly FF is being given a run for its money as the undisputed browser feature champion!
I feel sorry for the FF team. After all those criticisms memory usage, they spend all that time ripping out the bloat from FF2 to get FF3. Then Google releases Chrome which is even more memory hogging, but as it's Google they can do no wrong...
Most of Labour in the UK were activists too (CND, student union activists, Marxist groups, etc...).
Personally I think it's the saying absolute power corrupts absolutely still holds, and databases linked to ID and surveillance technology and like give government at least an illusion of absolute power and, in time, possibly absolute power.
Most public organisations from local, to national, to international (e.g. EU) are playing a game where one steps a little further down the road then waits for the rest to catch up.
However I have more faith in the French to make their dissent known than other countries, but they're up against the EU and other countries in the EU using the EU to do their policy laundering. In the end the EU Parliament is just window dressing and doesn't have any real power to stop this.
No. I've got Flash 9, Windows Media (as supplied on Windows 2K), QT 7.1.3 (latest available version for Win 2K), and Java 6.5. Not cutting edge as it's a locked down work computer, but nothing that can't be designed around.
"Sorry, your system does not appear to have any supported player software."
On my home computer I have more up-to-date versions of these along with DivX and XviD and even the mad woman in the attic of media players (RealPlayer) but something's still wrong if after all this I need to download yet another codec or player. After all, these codecs are openly documented on the web.
Mark as a troll if you feel necessary, but the point remains that the objective is to win people over. If this is a task which is too complicated for the FSF's web developers then just put the thing on YouTube and be done with it. People want YouTube to work and people know how to get their system to show YouTube.
Or so I've read; I can't see it either, I'm on my work computer and Ogg's a no go.
I could see it at home but I'd have to install the Ogg codec. The question is... am I really bothered?
If the FSF want people to come to them, they're going to have to at least make some attempt at bringing their message to the people they want to convince.
Only last month he was waxing lyrical about the Macbook Air on his blog so I'm not that certain that he's suddenly seen the light and has changed to a battered ThinkPad running gNewSense...
Not sure how one post can be modded as 3, Informative then the two replies to that as 0. Offtopic. (Prepares for this post to be modded 0, Offtopic...)
Wireless connectivity has never been Apple's strong point. It seems every other Airport update manages to knock out a good number of Macs' wifi connection, and the next update is a rollback which brings it back...
(I own an iMac, I think it's great apart from wifi problems.)
Slashdot Mirror
Try any of the latest LG, Nokia, or Samsung phones which have a 5 megapixel camera...
I'm not entirely sure why these phones don't make it across to the US in great numbers but dull plodding generic Windows Mobile or supposedly cutting-edge iPhone, Blackberry, or this G1 do when they're actually a step behind the rest.
I suspect it's something to do with operator lock-in and subsidy. There seems to be a greater willingness by the manufacturers to tie them to one operator and one or two on-line services.
2. Wait a year.
3. Knock direct credit payments to the seller and payment upon pickup on the head.
4. Profit!
Who says they haven't learnt from what happened in Australia.
Won't get you very far in a society where what's important is image not responsibility, where nobody takes responsibility until the image comes out, and even if there's a reasonable explanation for the image then responsibility must be seen to be taken (a different thing) because the image is more important than the actual facts.
What happens if you can figure it out but your friend who took the photo and uploaded it can't?
How annoying. You'd have thought they could have managed to put sync in Opera Mobile, which supposedly has more features than Mini.
Maybe it'll appear in version 9.5.
As far as I can tell (and I use it fairly regularly), Opera Mobile v8.65 on Symbian doesn't have a sync option with the desktop version.
(If anyone is curious I mentioned sync because it's one of the projects in Mozilla Labs so it's going to happen... eventually.)
That'll be sync with their desktop Mozilla browser.
Use GlovePIE to translate remote buttons to keypresses for XBMC. As for which remote you could use Bluetooth and a Wiimote.
Also, a difference between 'dumb' and 'uneducated about financial matters.' Is there a class on ARMS in high school people can take? I don't think those are covered in home ec.
People can't be experts on every field. Add to that fact that finances bring up survival fears in most people, and fear shuts down the brain, and you will see that many people may be smart in many areas, but uneducated about finance.
These two paragraphs made me think of this video: Money as debt.
I think perhaps that if people were taught about the current financial system it at an early age they'd be open minded enough to see it for the pyramid scheme it really is and maybe think about other possibilities.
You and I however, mortgaged, with x loans, and carrying y credit cards think it's perfectly normal.
I don't think Apple got their current reputation with regard to GUIs with that attitude.
If the problem is a different theme to fit in with Ubuntu's GUI better, then Ubuntu can package an Ubuntu theme with the standard Firefox.
If the problem is a GUI bug, why would Ubuntu need permission to fix it just on the version of FF which comes with Ubuntu? Wouldn't it be easier to open a bug in Mozilla's Bugzilla with the patch included and propagate that fix to all versions of Firefox?
There's more than one way to stop a tab locking up a browser. A dedicated process is not the only way, contrary to the current hype.
Unlike plug-ins which cannot be controlled and really should be given their own process, tabs (web pages) have basically two components; a render and a script engine, and the browser has control of both.
At most you should need a new thread to stop a tab locking up the rest of the browser.
It might be more practical to make each plug-in run in its own process and each tab in its own thread if necessary.
As plug-ins work through APIs there's fewer problems when it comes to accessing data if you put them in their own process (basically you don't need to).
Tabs can be put in other threads and if a JavaScript script goes off the rails it can still be killed. What you gain: it's far less work to overhaul the browser (you still have access to shared memory) and it uses fewer resources.
It might not be popular with the digg crowd who want each tab to have its own process, but then again software architecture is not their strong point.
FF3 does use OS X widgets. Making Gecko use native widgets was part of a major overhaul to the rendering engine.
I would not say that a different process for each window or tab is an obvious design solution. Do you know of any office suite which does it? Do Photoshop, Ultraedit, or [insert well-known software here] spawn a new process for a new window or tab? Even though the option has been buried in an obscure setting in Windows Explorer for about a decade, it is off as default because its use has disadvantages (although Microsoft could easily have tried harder to minimise them).
I think people are more prepared to put up with it for browsers because they've become so (overly) complicated. However most problems can be categorised into one of three things: memory allocation, the script engine getting bogged down, and plug-ins going wrong.
FF3's memory allocation has improved, JavaScript will get as many threads as it needs in version 3.1, and all that remains are plug-ins which as I said above really should have their own processes as they can't be trusted not to go wrong.
The overhead might be small on multiple core desktop machines now, but if Firefox is to get onto mobile devices then it still needs to be resource light and it that case developer effort is better spent making a common version work well on both desktops and mobiles/PDAs (does Chrome on Android use multiple processes as well?). It makes little sense to spend limited developer resources on one approach for the desktop and another for mobile devices.
Finally on older Windows computers the latest available version of IE is IE6. Chrome is clearly too much for them leaving Firefox and Opera to fill in the gap. If it were decided that separate processes for every tab or window is the way to go then these older computers would be struggling, leaving them with just IE6, and anyone using IE6 to browse these days ends up getting owned in a week.
Yes, I do know what address space is and how memory allocation works. Address space is not fixed per application on modern OSes or on UNIX-based OSes, Firefox does not run on MacOS System 7 so your point is invalid.
You're still quoting from the comic. If you have a memory leak it doesn't matter if it belongs to the whole browser or a single tab, it's still a memory leak. If Chrome has a bad memory leak (when e.g. it destroys a flash object) and you restrict your use to one window only without opening new windows or tabs, you will eventually notice it just as much as you would in Firefox.
The fact that Chrome's design means it uses the OS as a crutch and it steps in and throws everything out when a window or tab is closed does not mean Chrome's design is inherently good, it just means it's more robust at the cost of the extra baggage the OS needs to maintain separate processes (extra memory, slower speed). IE8 beta 2 also uses per-process tabs and also requires a similar amount of extra memory as Chrome does and also has a slower response time as a result, but I do not see you singing its praises.
You're still claiming FF3 is crappy code without proof. The UI can hang because it uses JavaScript however this is a problem that will be addressed in 3.1, heavy JavaScript scripts will be placed into their own threads. The advantage of threads is speed and less memory usage when compared to processes. Scripts in other threads can go off the rails as much as they want as they won't affect the main browser and when the tab is closed the problem is resolved; like Chrome without using as many resources.
I will say that the task manager is a good idea so that the user is a little more informed and non-responding tabs can be killed, and where processes do have their place is separating plug-ins from the browser so Java, Flash, or Acrobat don't go mad and hang the browser, however processes for each tab/window is overkill.
I think FF3, Opera, and Safari will go with threads, IE8 will go with processes, and Google will have a decision to make with regards to benchmarks when memory usage and new tab/window response time places them closer to IE8 than it does to the competition.
With reference to my babble; I know, but I used a paragraph of his to introduce an observation.
My observation was that people have slated Firefox 2 and IE 7 and 8 for using 200M of memory, and when Chrome uses the same it's all shiney and new.
I see you're quoting from that comic. Firefox does not have one giant address space, it can allocate memory and release it as and when required using various different methods depending on data requirements (just as any other process can).
The fact that this memory is attached to one process or various is beside the point, apart from one: When a process (tab/window) in Chrome is destroyed the OS cleans up the memory. When a tab or a window is destroyed in Firefox the application cleans up the memory.
Very well, but this basically means Google's designers have decided that any memory problems will solve themselves (or rather the OS will solve them) when a tab or window is closed in Chrome and that this advantage outweighs the disadvantage involved in spawning new processes and the IPC between them. There is also less incentive to spend time fixing memory leaks because the workaround will be to close the window/tab and re-open it again.
FF3 has achieved quite a reduction in memory usage and received praise for it until now, and slating it as 'crappy code' and 'half-hearted attempts at fixing [memory leaks] is disingenuous.
Google's Chrome brings the browser war to a white heat - suddenly FF is being given a run for its money as the undisputed browser feature champion!
I feel sorry for the FF team. After all those criticisms memory usage, they spend all that time ripping out the bloat from FF2 to get FF3. Then Google releases Chrome which is even more memory hogging, but as it's Google they can do no wrong...
Most of Labour in the UK were activists too (CND, student union activists, Marxist groups, etc...).
Personally I think it's the saying absolute power corrupts absolutely still holds, and databases linked to ID and surveillance technology and like give government at least an illusion of absolute power and, in time, possibly absolute power.
Most public organisations from local, to national, to international (e.g. EU) are playing a game where one steps a little further down the road then waits for the rest to catch up.
However I have more faith in the French to make their dissent known than other countries, but they're up against the EU and other countries in the EU using the EU to do their policy laundering. In the end the EU Parliament is just window dressing and doesn't have any real power to stop this.
No. I've got Flash 9, Windows Media (as supplied on Windows 2K), QT 7.1.3 (latest available version for Win 2K), and Java 6.5. Not cutting edge as it's a locked down work computer, but nothing that can't be designed around.
"Sorry, your system does not appear to have any supported player software."
On my home computer I have more up-to-date versions of these along with DivX and XviD and even the mad woman in the attic of media players (RealPlayer) but something's still wrong if after all this I need to download yet another codec or player. After all, these codecs are openly documented on the web.
Mark as a troll if you feel necessary, but the point remains that the objective is to win people over. If this is a task which is too complicated for the FSF's web developers then just put the thing on YouTube and be done with it. People want YouTube to work and people know how to get their system to show YouTube.
Possibly, but you can't see it.
Or so I've read; I can't see it either, I'm on my work computer and Ogg's a no go.
I could see it at home but I'd have to install the Ogg codec. The question is... am I really bothered?
If the FSF want people to come to them, they're going to have to at least make some attempt at bringing their message to the people they want to convince.
Only last month he was waxing lyrical about the Macbook Air on his blog so I'm not that certain that he's suddenly seen the light and has changed to a battered ThinkPad running gNewSense...
You can get Summer Games 2 on the Wii's Virtual Console, however at the moment C64 games are only sold in Europe.
Not sure how one post can be modded as 3, Informative then the two replies to that as 0. Offtopic. (Prepares for this post to be modded 0, Offtopic...)
Wireless connectivity has never been Apple's strong point. It seems every other Airport update manages to knock out a good number of Macs' wifi connection, and the next update is a rollback which brings it back...
(I own an iMac, I think it's great apart from wifi problems.)