Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 18th May 2007 17:43 UTC, submitted by shykid
Mozilla & Gecko clones "When Firefox launched in beta release five years ago, it burst on the open-source browser scene like a young Elvis Presley - slim, sexy and dangerous. Since then it has attracted millions of users, generally set the agenda for browser development and unseated Microsoft's IE as the de facto monopoly in the field. But, with Firefox 3.0 poised for release later this year, the 'IE killer' is in danger of morphing into an early Fat Elvis, if increasing numbers of die-hard fans turned reluctant critics are any guide."
Thread beginning with comment 241532
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Stop calling anything "bloated"
by agentj on Fri 18th May 2007 18:41 UTC
agentj
Member since:
2005-08-19

Most people don't even know how to write any simple program - not comparable to such huge codebase as Firefox , linux kernel or windows have.

If the code grows bigger and bigger, it's impossible to avoid the so called "bloat".

By the above definition, some people who complain about anything being "bloated" shouldn't even use computers, because hardware which computers are built upon is complex ("bloated").

All operating systems and good software are "bloated", because they take a lot of memory and hardware resources.

If you don't want "bloated" software, stick to DOS or buy better PC. You won't have to worry about such unneeded things as advanced 3D graphics, all sort of USB stuff, FireWire, networking and high definition sound.

If Firefox has to support your favorite XHTML or CSS fully, it has to use more complex page rendering algorithms.

Reply Score: 5

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I think you are misunderstanding features and bloat. Bloat is something that is over-engineered, unexplainably inefficient or not of any practical use for most users.

XHTML & CSS are necesary, required, basic features. Having your hardware supported is not 'bloat'.

Reply Parent Score: 4

raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

See, to slightly quote Chris Rock, I'm "TIRED, TIRED, TIRED" of people like yourself who incessantly reply "buy a new PC if your current one can't handle Firefox".

I'm using a "new" PC right now, a 2006 HP Pavilion dv6000 notebook with AMD Turion, 1.61 GHz, 992 MB of RAM, 14.8 out of 80.5 GB of HD space, with WinXP MCE '05 using Firefox 2.0.0.3.

Currently, it is using 165,000 K, and can shoot up to 500,000 or 600,000 K in a single session. It requires going to Task Manager > Processes to manually strangle the life out of the firefox.exe-beast.

Oh, and Windows XP is supposed to be the one on which Firefox works best?

Dude, crack is wack.

Reply Parent Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
If the code grows bigger and bigger, it's impossible to avoid the so called "bloat".

By the above definition, some people who complain about anything being "bloated" shouldn't even use computers, because hardware which computers are built upon is complex ("bloated").

All operating systems and good software are "bloated", because they take a lot of memory and hardware resources.

If you don't want "bloated" software, stick to DOS or buy better PC.

"""

Yes. But to help people understand, perhaps an analogy would be useful.

It's like diet.

If I keep on eating and eating more and more high calorie food every day, it is impossible to avoid so called bloat. There's is nothing I can do to avoid getting fat. It's just part of modern life.

So anyone who dislikes being fat should (by definition, as you put it), not eat at all, or eat only green salads without dressing (and perhaps a bit of plankton), or simply buy larger clothes.

Does that clarify matters for everyone?

Edited 2007-05-18 20:36

Reply Parent Score: 2

Terracotta Member since:
2005-08-15

And lust like diet: different people react differently on the same food. Some people can eat a lot while not becomming fat. Some need more workouts, some less.
Just like the different browsers render the same sites in a different way. Some do it more efficiently without becoming fat.

Reply Parent Score: 1