I'm very sorry you feel like Mozilla deceived and harmed you. But the malicious attitude here and elsewhere in this thread is getting old. Use Chrome, if you like! But don't encourage people to waste developers' time with false claims.
I feel the need to chime in here, because my original (humorous) post started this flood of responses. I like Firefox a lot, but still, I experience memory leaks all the time, even with latest versions. And from what i hear, i'm not alone either. It is not mass delusion.
Now, some people to this subject respond passionately, like if their favorite team were involved, which just boggles my mind.
I really appreciated when the FF team started addressing memory usage not too long ago (it really has improved things in latest versions) and i also appreciate knowing that the team is pursuing active testing of extensions for leaks, which seem to be the main culprit most of the time. If anything, i'm thankful.
p>In all seriousness, they need to do something about the extensions. Refuse to host leaky ones or something. Extensions can't be Firefox's killer feature if they make it eat all of your RAM.
Much, much, much agreed. I like FF a lot, but refusing to address memory leaks at all just because "it's on the extensions" does nothing but to hurt the browser.
No trolling at all. Latest versions of Firefox are better behaved regarding memory usage than former ones, specially with only a few tabs open, but will still leak memory steadly over time.
SPDY's goal is to reduce web page load times through the use of header compression, packet prioritization, and multiplexing (combining multiple requests into a single connection).
I'd like to see SCTP getting some love, which sadly enough seems unlikely if it hasn't happened so far. It's a very simple protocol mixing the good parts of both TCP and UDP, plus it supports multiplexing and priorization off the bat.
Ditto. The E-PM1 can do almost everything the E-PL3 can, but has a much simplified interface and "cleaner" look (basically an plain alumium box). But, it's so much cheaper than both the E-P3 an E-PL3 that unless you really need instant acces to stuff like exposure and aperture - you can do this with the E-PM1 as well, it only takes a few clicks.
There is no relationship between having a mirror and quality, you can make SLRs with tiny sensors just as you can make mirrorless cameras with huge ones.
Inded. One thing mirror gives you is phase detection autofocus, which on high-end DSLRs is blazing fast. Having said that, classic (contrast based) autofocus has gotten a lot better these past years. My Olympus E-PM1 focuses faster than my friends Canon Rebel, which i couldn't beleive until we tried them side to side.
Their "old" models (1-2 years old) E-PL1 or E-PL2 are dirt cheap - the E-PL1 can be found for as little as 400 with an additional zoom lens and its image quality is superb. Their newer E-P3, flagship model, might be too much, but you can get the E-PL3 which is basically the same camera in a different form factor with less contol buttons, OR the E-PM1 which is even more simplified.
Olympus uses the same sensor on all their EVIL cameras so they're all pretty much paired regarding image quality. Newer models will give you a much faster autofocus, increased shutter speed, newer "art filters" and HD video. All Oly cams are renewed for their great JPEGs right out of the camera, though they all shoot raw if required.
I've recently bought a E-PM1 with the kit 14-42 lens and a 14-150 zoom lens for about $600. The camera is small (almost pocketable), lightweight and takes stunning pictures, rivaling entry and mid-level DSLRs. It has few buttons and a scroll wheel, but it is very controlable. It's a ridiculosly good bargain - i couldn't be happier.
Withouth 3D, Avatar is just "Dances With Giant Smurfs."
Avatar is "Dances With Giant Smurfs." / Pocahontas. Take all the 3D glitz and FX out and it's a flat out poor movie, which is suprising coming from someone like James Cameron.
I have a Zotac Atom/nVidia mobo which works just fine with passive cooling. In fact, that's exactly why i chose it: ttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813500036 . Highly recommended.
Ditto. I have a dual core Atom setup on my mediacenter ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813500036 ), which also doubles as a server for files, backups, HTTP, FTP and Deluge. I can run XBMC on top of that and never had any performance issue whatsoever.
Much agreed - this is one of the things Django does very well. Having said that, i think the model handling part of Django is it's weaker point. If you need to do anything remotely complex regarding persistance it gets too much in the way.
But yes. Most of the time, having a CRUD interface built automatically from the model it's a Godsend.
The last time i fiddled with a Perl web framework was with Mason - i've been checking out Mojolicious and it looks really cool. It implements a lot of stuff that Django got right in a language that deserves more love than it usually receives.
Really cool stuff. I'll have to try it later at home.
Yes. But it's still an open question whether the success of Unix and C was a good thing.
The Internet might not be riddled with quite so many buffer-overflow errors if it had been built in a language with array bounds checking, for example. Like, oh I dunno, Microsoft BASIC on any of the 8 bit micros of the late 1970s...
You aren't putting things in perspective. Forget internet, we're talking the 1970s here. If you think you could develop a mainframe application with Basic on an 8-bit micro, you're deluded.
C was created for a reason. It's as high level as a language can get while staying as close to the inner workings of the system as possible. "Portable assembler" is a good description. Back then, if you wanted performance it was your only option. Today you can get very good results out of a modern, sandboxed language... and C/C++ would still beat it if required.
Slashdot Mirror
My interest sparked for 30 seconds while i though this was an actual working Lego computer. Oh well. This should generate enough /. stories for a week.
Jesus. That guy needs to get out more. You know, from where the pizza delivery comes.
I'm very sorry you feel like Mozilla deceived and harmed you. But the malicious attitude here and elsewhere in this thread is getting old. Use Chrome, if you like! But don't encourage people to waste developers' time with false claims.
I feel the need to chime in here, because my original (humorous) post started this flood of responses. I like Firefox a lot, but still, I experience memory leaks all the time, even with latest versions. And from what i hear, i'm not alone either. It is not mass delusion.
Now, some people to this subject respond passionately, like if their favorite team were involved, which just boggles my mind.
I really appreciated when the FF team started addressing memory usage not too long ago (it really has improved things in latest versions) and i also appreciate knowing that the team is pursuing active testing of extensions for leaks, which seem to be the main culprit most of the time. If anything, i'm thankful.
p>In all seriousness, they need to do something about the extensions. Refuse to host leaky ones or something. Extensions can't be Firefox's killer feature if they make it eat all of your RAM.
Much, much, much agreed. I like FF a lot, but refusing to address memory leaks at all just because "it's on the extensions" does nothing but to hurt the browser.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&product=Firefox&content=leak&comments=0
No trolling at all. Latest versions of Firefox are better behaved regarding memory usage than former ones, specially with only a few tabs open, but will still leak memory steadly over time.
Oh, and i like Opera, thank you very much.
There's a reason they're the most efficient browser when it comes down to memory usage. They actively work at it.
Yeah, it's not like it leaks memory like a BP pipeline.
Yea, but is there something see remotely?
SPDY's goal is to reduce web page load times through the use of header compression, packet prioritization, and multiplexing (combining multiple requests into a single connection).
I'd like to see SCTP getting some love, which sadly enough seems unlikely if it hasn't happened so far. It's a very simple protocol mixing the good parts of both TCP and UDP, plus it supports multiplexing and priorization off the bat.
Starving indeed. A source tells me a couple of RIAA executives lost corporate lunches over this.
Ditto. The E-PM1 can do almost everything the E-PL3 can, but has a much simplified interface and "cleaner" look (basically an plain alumium box). But, it's so much cheaper than both the E-P3 an E-PL3 that unless you really need instant acces to stuff like exposure and aperture - you can do this with the E-PM1 as well, it only takes a few clicks.
Great little camera. I love mine.
There is no relationship between having a mirror and quality, you can make SLRs with tiny sensors just as you can make mirrorless cameras with huge ones.
Inded. One thing mirror gives you is phase detection autofocus, which on high-end DSLRs is blazing fast. Having said that, classic (contrast based) autofocus has gotten a lot better these past years. My Olympus E-PM1 focuses faster than my friends Canon Rebel, which i couldn't beleive until we tried them side to side.
Their "old" models (1-2 years old) E-PL1 or E-PL2 are dirt cheap - the E-PL1 can be found for as little as 400 with an additional zoom lens and its image quality is superb. Their newer E-P3, flagship model, might be too much, but you can get the E-PL3 which is basically the same camera in a different form factor with less contol buttons, OR the E-PM1 which is even more simplified.
Olympus uses the same sensor on all their EVIL cameras so they're all pretty much paired regarding image quality. Newer models will give you a much faster autofocus, increased shutter speed, newer "art filters" and HD video. All Oly cams are renewed for their great JPEGs right out of the camera, though they all shoot raw if required.
I've recently bought a E-PM1 with the kit 14-42 lens and a 14-150 zoom lens for about $600. The camera is small (almost pocketable), lightweight and takes stunning pictures, rivaling entry and mid-level DSLRs. It has few buttons and a scroll wheel, but it is very controlable. It's a ridiculosly good bargain - i couldn't be happier.
Withouth 3D, Avatar is just "Dances With Giant Smurfs."
Avatar is "Dances With Giant Smurfs." / Pocahontas. Take all the 3D glitz and FX out and it's a flat out poor movie, which is suprising coming from someone like James Cameron.
I have a Zotac Atom/nVidia mobo which works just fine with passive cooling. In fact, that's exactly why i chose it: ttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813500036 . Highly recommended.
Ditto. I have a dual core Atom setup on my mediacenter ( http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813500036 ), which also doubles as a server for files, backups, HTTP, FTP and Deluge. I can run XBMC on top of that and never had any performance issue whatsoever.
"Yes, that means anyone could now write an Android app that uses the real Siri!"
OR, you could try Vlingo....
+1. Much agreed.
Oooh i see what you did right there!
+1 Physics!
Really nice. I have to try this.
Much agreed - this is one of the things Django does very well. Having said that, i think the model handling part of Django is it's weaker point. If you need to do anything remotely complex regarding persistance it gets too much in the way.
But yes. Most of the time, having a CRUD interface built automatically from the model it's a Godsend.
The last time i fiddled with a Perl web framework was with Mason - i've been checking out Mojolicious and it looks really cool. It implements a lot of stuff that Django got right in a language that deserves more love than it usually receives.
Really cool stuff. I'll have to try it later at home.
I'm guessing Vlingo is distilled magic then.
Sheeze. Apple fanboys and their hyperboles...
Yes. But it's still an open question whether the success of Unix and C was a good thing.
The Internet might not be riddled with quite so many buffer-overflow errors if it had been built in a language with array bounds checking, for example. Like, oh I dunno, Microsoft BASIC on any of the 8 bit micros of the late 1970s...
You aren't putting things in perspective. Forget internet, we're talking the 1970s here. If you think you could develop a mainframe application with Basic on an 8-bit micro, you're deluded.
C was created for a reason. It's as high level as a language can get while staying as close to the inner workings of the system as possible. "Portable assembler" is a good description. Back then, if you wanted performance it was your only option. Today you can get very good results out of a modern, sandboxed language... and C/C++ would still beat it if required.