Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Mar 2008 20:41 UTC, submitted by RJop
Mozilla & Gecko clones "While Firefox 2 used less memory than it's predecessor, Firefox 1.5, we intentionally restricted the number of changes to the Gecko platform (Gecko 1.8.1 was only slightly different than Gecko 1.8) on which Firefox was built. However, while the majority of people were working on Firefox 2/Gecko 1.8.1, others of us were already ripping into the platform that Firefox 3 was to be built on: Gecko 1.9. We've made more significant changes to the platform than I can count, including many to reduce our memory footprint. The result has been dramatic."
Thread beginning with comment 305182
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Good
by cyclops on Sat 15th Mar 2008 19:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Good"
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

You've raised some good points; I find it funny after these same programmers coming up with long, convoluted explanations as to why there is memory leaking left, right and centre - the fact it is a feature; as soon as Opera and Microsoft give them a run for their money, they go from being 'features' to 'bugs we need to fix'. How can it go from one thing to a completely different thing in a space of a few months? I'm confused :?

Regarding Firefox, I am running Firefox 3.0 nightly right now; yes, things have improved, but I simply don't trust the Firefox programmers. When they lied through their teeth claiming that there were no leaks, and all the screaming were by uneducated half-wits; and yes, they turn around and claim that there are leaks, and they're being fixed. How do I know, after 3.0 has released, that they simply won't go back to their old programme of denying memory leaks until the next dust up?


Convoluted...don't you mean clear.

Do you not remember all those points being knocked down when this article was a couple of small paragraphs at the bottom of a very long list of feature changes. You seem to miss out the massive changes in firefox unrelated to any bug fixes.

I'd like you to point to point out where the Mozilla developers are lying scum...I suspect with a project with open development and discussion it would be somewhat trivial for several choice quotes.

The bottom line is that some "uneducated half-wits" claimed nothing was being done about the "memory leak"snicker;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Good
by kaiwai on Sun 16th Mar 2008 11:20 in reply to "RE[6]: Good"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Convoluted...don't you mean clear.


No, convoluted. Long winded gobbly goop going on about non-existent optimisations as justification for code bloat; Christ, use your brain and search OS News for the number of blog articles written by Firefox developers trying to justify the unjustifiable!

Do you not remember all those points being knocked down when this article was a couple of small paragraphs at the bottom of a very long list of feature changes. You seem to miss out the massive changes in firefox unrelated to any bug fixes.


I never said there weren't changes. I said that they were never honest when it came to memory leaks. AGAIN, how does it go from 'memory being used to optimise the user experience' to facing the reality, the 2 tonne elephant in the corner of the room, that Firefox is a giant memory leak that needs fixing.

I'd like you to point to point out where the Mozilla developers are lying scum...I suspect with a project with open development and discussion it would be somewhat trivial for several choice quotes.


I never said they were lying scum. I said they were liars because for over a year we the end users were told that the 'bloat' and 'memory leaks' of Firefox 2.x weren't memory leaks but part of their 'optimisation of Firefox' and that the 'memory is used to improve the browsing experience'.

Well, here we are, months before the release of Firefox 3.0 and told, "well, they were leaks, and we've fixed them". How the hell do you go from claiming that they're optimisations to now classifying them as memory leaks.

The bottom line is that some "uneducated half-wits" claimed nothing was being done about the "memory leak"snicker;)


Nothing was being done because no one in the Firefox development team wished to admit that their product leaked memory like there was no tomorrow - and everytime they were questioned on the bloat of their software they came up with the same rubbish of, "well, its for optimising the end user experience" - yeah, sure; what next, you'll be telling me that Hillary really does care about the welfare of the average American.

Edited 2008-03-16 11:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Good
by cyclops on Tue 18th Mar 2008 00:01 in reply to "RE[7]: Good"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

If you cannot understand the article which is pretty clear than I suspect you have even less chance of understanding the code, which undoubtedly will have some code bloat. It does seem though that the effects of this supposed bloat have yet to be felt as its managed yet another release that's faster uses memory more efficiently, and doesn't suffer from consuming memory, hell its even heading towards better standards.

...but my favorite it the conspiracy theory. I am shocked no surprised...I have no doubt that you are on the money. In a project where the code, and those changes to the code; the bugs available for everyone to see, that these scumbags keep making stuff up...and nobody notices. Its better than wot that bloke did with the china wall.

The funny thing is the feature you describe is still available in firefox3 without the memory leaks and a slew of other new features...or maybe its a clever trick , but it does seem to be the case, or maybe they have improved the program to get into your head...perhaps you should pull out your teeth, because that's how they get you to believe they have cashed pages, and not leak memory. Its in the teeth.

Reply Parent Score: 2