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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-24
"""Memory leaks, slowness, and poor system integration are why I refuse to use Firefox on Windows and OS X. Linux ... well, there's not much of a choice there."""
Sorry about perceived memory leaks and performance problems on your systems. All I can say is that I find no evidence of them on my platforms, which don't seem to have much of an intersection with yours.
I find that system integration is fine. No problems with speed. Like I say, speed is a selling point for the Linux terminals at this site.
While I don't see any memory leaks, FF memory consumption is indeed a bit higher than with Epiphany, the default gecko based Gnome browser, which shares more memory with other apps as well.
I've been thinking about moving the users from FF to Epiphany. I thought it might involve a trade off. But the more I look, the more it looks like a win all around.
I'm not sure what you mean by not much choice of browsers under Linux, though. I would be inclined to say that the problem was *too much* choice. My God!!! We have Epiphany, FF, Konqueror, Opera, Seamonkey. As if that is not enough, we also have IE under Crossover. Office.
Then there are the other, special purpose browsers: Dillo, lynx, links...
Could you please clarify what it is that you mean by "Linux... well, there's not much of a choice there."?
It would be greatly appreciated!
Edited 2006-10-24 02:20
Member since:2005-09-01
Member since:2005-10-13
I think I would notice if *any* of our apps had significant memory leaks.
They don't.
It depends on what extensions you've got installed. I've been told some of the old versions of AdBlock actually leaked memory every single time they blocked something, and that could add up real fast.
Member since:2005-07-24
"""I've been told some of the old versions of AdBlock actually leaked memory every single time they blocked something, and that could add up real fast."""
Been told by whom?
I believe my eyes and the performance monitors I have running. Not what "I've been told" about FF extensions.
I'm not a big fan of FF extensions, which I consider to be a security problem looking for a place to happen. But I do allow them, for now. And I have simply not seen evidence of noticeable memory leaks.
Edited 2006-10-24 02:37
Member since:
2005-07-24
"""FUD or no FUD, it's the truth. Firefox leaks memory like a sieve.
Whether or not you care to admit it doesn't change the facts."""
I support Linux with FF as an often-used application on multiuser systems. One of my systems is running FF 1.5 with 50 users. Typically, about 10 users are running FF at a time. They tend to leave the browser running for long periods.
This server is running about 40 Gnome desktops + 100 instances of a point of sale application, plus a few instances of an accounting package, plus acting as a Samba file server, a database server, a web server, and a Ruby on Rails application server. We have 4GB of main memory, hardly use any swap, and typically have several hundred MB available for cache and buffers.
The machine stays up for months between reboots.
Performance is excelent. One of the main "word of mouth" selling points that makes the existing Windows users want Linux terminals is that the speed is much better.
I think I would notice if *any* of our apps had significant memory leaks.
They don't.
Perhaps the Windows version of FF has memory leaks. But I can attest absolutely that the Linux version does not.
Edited 2006-10-24 01:05