Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Oct 2006 21:04 UTC, submitted by Manuel FLURY
Mozilla & Gecko clones The Mozilla Foundation has released version 2.0 of their Firefox webbrowser to their ftp site. The release notes are not yet updated, so you'll have to do with the release notes for the third release candidate, which will probably not differ all that much from the final notes.
Thread beginning with comment 174392
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

If you're going to comment on app performance, try listing some proof. If you're going to make bullsh*t statements based on your bullsh*t thinking, try backing it up. There's benchmark apps out there, try using a few of them you lazy phuks.

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, Firefox is OSS. If you don't like how the software is operating, download the source and modify it since you obviously have a better grasp of programming than the developer community does.

A world with Firefox is still better than a world without. It forced MS to upgrade IE and conform (somewhat) to net standards. Choice is always needed.

Personally, I'd sacrifice the few milliseconds of startup time so as to not have to use IE. Doesn't bother me one bit.

Reply Score: 3

Excel Hearts Choi Member since:
2006-07-08

Remember, you can not make changes to Fire Fox source and use the same name unless you say "mother may I" to Mozilla.

The article posted on this website maybe a week ago about developers taking suggestions for FF 3.0 contained a lot of people saying that they want a reduced size, increased speed, and smaller memory requirements. Granted FF 2.0 had not been released, but it sounds like FF is not what it once was.

Edited 2006-10-23 22:40

Reply Parent Score: 2

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Remember, you can not make changes to Fire Fox source and use the same name unless you say "mother may I" to Mozilla.

You're sort of taking that out of context... he was basically suggesting that if you think you can fix the problems, go for it - and submit your patches back to Mozilla.

Obviously, if they can find nothing wrong with a patch submitted by an external developer that fixes some serious flaw(s) in FireFox/Gecko, they have no reason not to apply the patch to the trunk.

Reply Parent Score: 1

abdavidson Member since:
2005-07-06

Only with Firefox could someone call those who say anything against it "Retards" and get modded up to 5.

Reply Parent Score: 0

smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

He got modded to a +5 because because he told them to quit whining and asked them to present actual proof instead of unsubstantiated complaints. But go ahead and assume it was because he called them retards if it makes you feel better.

Reply Parent Score: -1

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

I think that pretty much depends on what they were saying against it. some people have no coherent arguments and just come here to pick fights, they are indeed retards.

Reply Parent Score: 2

It does leak a lot
by hussam on Tue 24th Oct 2006 00:06 in reply to "To the Firefox Performance-Bashing Retards"
hussam Member since:
2006-08-17

Actually this is the build from 20061010 which is firefox 2.0 final
As for the memory leaks, just try valgrind.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: It does leak a lot
by Valhalla on Tue 24th Oct 2006 01:21 in reply to "It does leak a lot"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

hussam wrote:
"Actually this is the build from 20061010 which is firefox 2.0 final As for the memory leaks, just try valgrind."

so show us the valgrind output. since you state this as fact, you must have run it against firefox, right? so where is the data to support you? though memcheck isn't perfect, it would atleast add some credibility to your claim.

Reply Parent Score: 1