Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Nov 2007 16:54 UTC, submitted by lefty78312
Mozilla & Gecko clones The Mozilla Corporation today released Firefox 3 Beta 1, which is now available for download in a variety of languages. The beta includes updates to the default theme, the new places site management features, improved security architecture, and Gecko 1.9. Release notes with a more complete list of features, are also available.
Thread beginning with comment 285606
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Native widgets?
by meianoite on Tue 20th Nov 2007 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Native widgets?"
Member since:


Nice to see censorship is live and well, under 5 minutes a point is taken off my score; interesting to see the maturity of some around here is taken to all new pathetic lows. When in doubt, and too lazy to debate, remove a few points to silence the critic(s).

Hear, hear.

I modded you down for being off-topic. The memory thing is already out of date. If you look it has 200+ memory leaks fixed and have now moved to dealing with memory fragmentation. I know this...and can make a point on this, you clearly can't.

It was definitely not off-topic, given the subject of Firefox 3 nearing golden and still hogging memory as always. Bullet points on a release notes document won't change the fact that FF3b as it stands is hardly an improvement over FF2 in memory management:

Given that, my opinion is that despite believing otherwise, you had zero reason to mod Kaiwai down, period. And pretending FF3 is the vessel of the divine blood won't change the fact that modding him down for his criticism is akin to sweeping bugs under the mat: people will trip over them. Specially people with constrained hardware resources. Specially 3rd world governments trying to jump into the eeePC/OLPC/Classmate/whatevercomesnext bandwagon of cheap internet-oriented computers.

Reply Parent Score: 7

v RE[5]: Native widgets?
by cyclops on Tue 20th Nov 2007 22:51 in reply to "RE[4]: Native widgets?"
RE[6]: Native widgets?
by kaiwai on Tue 20th Nov 2007 23:27 in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
kaiwai Member since:

1) I have run Firefox 3.0b1 and subsequent builds - yes, bugs have been fixed, but memory usage is still far too high. Instead of fixing them, what I see in bugzilla is the constant blaming of Apple for all problems in the world.

2) Sure, I use Safari, but I'm open minded enough to give Opera and Firefox a go. Opera has come along well, still got problems with Blogger/Gmail, and Firefox has improved.

3) What are we supposed to do? sit around gushing praise upon something - yes, we know, things have improved, but lets be adult and instead of dwelling on the success, focus on the failures and get them sorted.

Edit: Nice to see you take another point off one of my posts; dear god I wish the moderators did their job here and kicked people off who abuse the system.

Edit 2: And again - truly, this pathetic; its gone from being a way to filter out spam to simply acts of vendetta against those whose opinions individuals don't agree with.

Edited 2007-11-20 23:31

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Native widgets?
by mojojojo on Tue 20th Nov 2007 23:50 in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
mojojojo Member since:

Grow up. If Kaiwai is a retard, then you are the sphincter out of which filth issues. Whatever point you are attempting to make is not supported by statements that so-and-so is a retard. Saying that the memory usage is not a problem for you would be reasonable. Perhaps arguing that the importance of memory footprint has been overblown might work, too.

Modding people down because you disagree with them, saying things like "[ I ] can make a point on this, you clearly can't.", and calling them "retards" makes it appear that you have a few years to go before you're ready to mix with the grown-ups and have a reasonable conversation.

I must say I don't know a lot about Firefox's memory usage (aside from the casual notice that it *does* seem to use more memory than seems reasonable, prior to the 200+ fixes in FF3). However, on the basis of your exchange with Kaiwai, I'm inclined to think that some reasonable people think memory usage in FF3 is still a problem and at least one immature jerk wants the "retards" who think memory is a problem to just shut up. Is that the effect you're going for?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Native widgets?
by WereCatf on Wed 21st Nov 2007 00:01 in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
WereCatf Member since:

Memory issues are clearly not out-of-date..I just tried FF3, read OSNews and left it sitting here for a few minutes. Then when I turned back to the computer I noticed it was crunching away on the harddisk like mad and almost nothing worked :O Yeah, it was FF3 eating away all available memory and chewing it's way to the swap, already happily about 300 megs..I guess I just hit some nasty bug, but it clearly is a memory issue ;)

EDIT: Just tried it three times. It clearly is reproducible. All I have to do is open FireFox and leave it there for a few minutes and it brings the whole system down to it's knees. Darn. I really like the fact that it now has native widgets and would have used it...

Edited 2007-11-21 00:18

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Native widgets?
by meianoite on Wed 21st Nov 2007 02:17 in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
meianoite Member since:

You are a retard. The irony of Kaiwai comment that you are you happy to quote is that its simply not the case. You will notice it is *I* who mods him down after being the first to make a criticism of the *new* Firefox. Note I use the term new. He cried because someone modded him down.

On the other hand, you seem to swing from retard to cynical, and back. You completely misunderstand/misuse the modding system, and you openly admit so.

As I said, no amount of bullet talking points on a release notes document change the fact that FF is still a huge resource hog.

(btw, current user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20071025 Firefox/; current memory usage: Working Set: 402,312K; Private Working Set: 374,288K; Commit Size: 1,032,508K; and that's with nine tabs open: 1 gmail, 5 OSNews, 2 Best Buy, 1 NIN Hotline)

That is why the original comment is off-topic

No matter how you cut it, it can't be off-topic if you're talking about the subject on topic. Your M.O. of evangelising Firefox is doing a massive disservice to the alternative, standards-compliant browsers community.

The reality is though is I strongly *believe* that an application should make *best* use of resources available to it,

When an application starts to swap like mad, it has crossed the "resources available to it" by a long margin.

clearly it is *not* doing so with Firefox 2, but you can see that they are striving to do just that with 3. Anything else is stupid.

This is not fact, this is just your opinion. Which, AFAICT, bears no authority whatsoever.

(OTOH, I hold a degree in Computer Science, so I sometimes actually know WTF I'm talking about.)

I will address you final point which I am more than happy for you to disagree with, is that I would rather participially due to Firefox's large release cycles is building Firefox to be *scalable* as you describe, although I have seen references to work being done for a mobile(sic) Firefox. Personally I would rather the emphasis was on heavier requirements rather than less simply because

I've once complained that some of your sentences are really hard to make sense of, but... Here's my best shot: I'm not demanding that FF scales from wristwatches to Crays, but I do demand that my web browser uses less than 200MB of RAM at any given time, PERIOD.

a) the desktop is where its always happened

People wiser than me describe this sort of attitude as "famous last words before obsolescence".

b)the move will always be towards bigger and faster. Look at Linux built for the server, or how gOS is going down with enlightenment both originally memory hogs, both come on a $200 computer...that runs Firefox of all things

Yeah, as if there's really any real alternatives when you run Linux. (No, Konqueror isn't a valid alternative, not when not even Gmail loads itself with the AJAX interface unless you tamper with the user-agent string; but that I blame on Google more than on the K guys.)

And where did you get that wild idea that Enlightenment used to be a memory hog?!

c) Microsoft is in the process of *buying* the internet, and rebuilding it on OOXML, and other patented/proprietary standards of all things...but they are moving in the *right* direction, the fact that Firefox is built on standards and *finally* passes the acid test is just a pleasant bonus.

You're mixing a lot of stuff up here. I'd recommend you to wash your face with cold water, but it would seem like I'm attacking you personally. OTOH, you called me retarded, so I wonder why I'm holding my punches... Elegance and common courtesy, maybe.

d) Any benefit gained from having an browser work on a machine of limited specs for the vast majority and we are talking 200million users so far is *lost* because the bottlenecks with the internet are elsewhere...and don't make me quote the rest of the release notes on performance. If anything that should be left to the eLinks/Dillo's of this world.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. There are NGOs whose sole mission is to provide public schools in 3rd world countries with broadband internet access. In Brazil those NGOs promote what's called "digital inclusion". I know that much, I used to work at a place that fostered digital inclusion and served as a hub to interconnect 200+ public schools spread over 5 states.

...but basically your making a point thats not here. I suspect the reasons for you making such a point is to promote an alternative browser.

Just because I cited Opera as a browser that doesn't burn my patience out? Dude, were that the case, I'd simply stick with IE. I don't use Opera, as I profoundly dislike its interface, but despite my reservations towards it, I can recognise it's a decent product, specially the mobile version; it's the only thing out there that manages to somewhat compete with MobileSafari. I've made a comment on this very topic not too long ago.

Please, take your head out of the sand (I'm being very courteous here) and get a grip: there's a reason why most "regular" people reject Firefox despite plenty of evangelism, sponsorship and bundling with Google's software. There's a reason why Google went with Webkit and not with Firefox on Android.

The FF team needs a *good dose* of criticism towake up and get their act together. I've been using Firefox since back when it was a Gecko demo that fitted a floppy, and it really hurts to see where we stand today.

Firefox is giving me a lot of déjà vu regarding the GCC 2.8 situation, except that I see no EGCS coming to the rescue.

Edit: stray (q) tag

Edited 2007-11-21 02:18

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Native widgets?
by Endica on Wed 21st Nov 2007 10:33 in reply to "RE[5]: Native widgets?"
Endica Member since:

I left only your emphasized words and this is what I got:

*I* *new* *has* *anything* *My* *felt* *anything* *me* *use* *wastes* *keeping* *believe* *best* *not* *scalable* *buying* *finally* *lost*

I can't make anything out of it, so I'm modding you down.

Reply Parent Score: 1