Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox 3.5 Reviewed; Draws Praise For HTML5, Speed

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the new-improved-dragon dept.

Mozilla 436

johndmartiniii writes "Farhad Manjoo has a review of Firefox 3.5 at Slate.com this week. From the article: 'Lately I've been worried about Firefox. Ever since its debut in 2004, the open-source Web browser has won acclaim for its speed, stability, and customizability. It eventually captured nearly a quarter of the market, an astonishing achievement for a project run by a nonprofit foundation. But recently Firefox seemed to go soft.' The worried tone in the beginning of the review gives way to excitement over the HTML5 features being implemented, saying that thus far Firefox 3.5 'offers the best implementation of the standard — and because it's the second-most-popular Web browser in the world, the new release is sure to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language.'" The final version could be here at any time; Firefox 3.5 is still shown as a release candidate at Mozilla's home page. Update: 06/30 15:31 GMT by T : No longer marked as RC; the Firefox upgrade page now says 3.5 has arrived.

cancel ×

436 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

As usual with new Firefox releases... (5, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528003)

The main thing i want to know is if they've (finally) fixed the memory issues yet. Namely, if i keep a lot of tabs open for awhile (yes, i know, bad habit) and then close those tabs, will Firefox free up the memory (frequently over a gig of it) without requiring me to shut it down and restart it?

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (4, Insightful)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528063)

Firefox really needs a multiprocess architecture.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528185)

It does indeed. On my Linux box I've created a custom version of Firefox that does just that, but on Windows this simply isn't possible. I've tried copying and pasting code from my Linux copy into the Windows DLL's using a hex editor but this hasn't worked and has broken my Firefox installation - Windows shittyness at it's finest!

no sense of humor today, mods? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528363)

I squirted milk out my nose when I read that.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528353)

I'm not sure if multiprocess architectures are really the way to go. Yes, they stop memory leaks but still take up more memory in the short run. Firefox is used heavily on older computers where IE doesn't cut it and the max memory is 512 MB or less.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528541)

Oh, you mean the multiprocess architecture that I described in my blog as being a pile of shit [wordpress.com] ? See "Processes".

Yes, I fully agree, we need to provide more "distractions" for programmers. Hey man, rather than solve bugs, let's just fuck around!

Next up, Firefox On Rails...

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (2, Interesting)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528085)

(frequently over a gig of it)

Are you including virtual memory in that figure? I can't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory, but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MB (Jesus! I have really lowered my expectations thinking that isn't a lot!) with 15 tabs open for a week.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (4, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528429)

Are you including virtual memory in that figure? I can't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory, but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MB (Jesus! I have really lowered my expectations thinking that isn't a lot!) with 15 tabs open for a week.

I'm using version 3.0.11. I currently have three windows open with about 120 tabs between them. Process Explorer reports that the firefox.exe process has 585,384k private bytes and 689,916k virtual bytes. Over the next couple days the amount of memory consumed will continue to grow, probably until it hits around 1.5 gigs of private bytes. I know that i really shouldn't have that many tabs open, but as someone else pointed out it's a convenient bad habit. (Perhaps a quarter of those tabs are sites that i check and refresh fairly often, at least once a day. The rest are sites links that i've checked or the results of google searches that i either haven't finished reading yet or think i'll need to reference back to in the near future. (For example, over 30 of those tabs relate to the myriad of issues i've run into trying to get Oracle working through ADO.Net, and i'll need to keep a lot of them open for reference until this project actually works correctly.)

It's not that i mind Firefox taking up a lot of memory when i have a lot of tabs open (although almost 5 megs a page already seems a little high, though not as bad as your 40 megs per tab!) but i do mind that when i notice my computer slowing down and see that Firefox has consumed somewhere between 1 and 1.5 gigs of physical memory that doing a pruning of the tabs gets me almost no memory back. I have in fact closed everything down except for one google tab left on one window of Firefox and seen it still consuming over a gig of memory.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528553)

Setting browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to something other than -1 should make memory use somewhat less aggressive (I haven't dug into it very deeply, but I don't think FF adjusts the number of pages any when the number of open tabs gets huge, and as I understand it, the setting is per tab, so you might actually have several hundred rendered pages in memory when you have 120 tabs open).

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers [mozillazine.org]

Isn't this a little overkill? (5, Insightful)

Xaedalus (1192463) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528731)

Please excuse me for being a paltry light user of Firefox... but aren't you an outlier in this particular case? The most tabs I ever have open on Firefox is three, maybe four. IMHO, you're a power user and while your comments are insightful, I have to wonder whether or not your insights are of relevance to the average user of Firefox? I'm all for improvement, but if the improvement is only noticeable when you've got 30+tabs open a day and are burning through close to a gig of RAM to keep everything operating... then what good is the improvement to the average user?

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528693)

I can't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory, but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MB

Hmmm ... I'm using a Macbook Pro at the moment, and according to the Activity Monitor window, Firefox is currently using RSIZE=338.62MB and VSIZE=1.37GB. This is with 7 windows with 25 tabs open, plus the "Library" (i.e., bookmarks) window. This seems about normal We also have a smaller, 5-year-old Mac Powerbook with only 1 GB of memory (vs the 4 GB on this machine), and FF there typically shows numbers about half as large. It's a lot slower there, of course.

I've noticed that the RSIZE and VSIZE numbers rarely seem to have any discernable correlation with what FF is doing. I've also found that if I "kill -9" (force quit) the firefox process, restart it, and tell it to restore the previous windows, it usually uses only about half as much memory as it used before it was killed. This tells me something about its memory wastage, I suppose. But it doesn't really tell me much that's usable, since it usually balloons back up in a fairly short time.

I do have some evidence that part of the problem is that memory expands permanently if I download any sort of "active" page. A page with flash is the really visible culprit, and I have flashblock installed. Still, there are some sites I'd like to look at that use flash in a useful way, so sometimes I enable flash for them. Then I watch to see whether it has ballooned up. Every few days I kill it and restart it, to get the memory back.

It does seem likely that FF has little if any control over memory usage by plugins such as video viewers. They are really separate pieces of software, with minimal interaction with the main program. They are "black boxes" as far as FF itself is concerned, and FF would have little if any control over the way they use memory.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (5, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528099)

if i keep a lot of tabs open for awhile (yes, i know, bad habit)

This is a bad habit? I've always just thought of it as a convenient way to browse.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (1)

SargentDU (1161355) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528125)

So it is a convenient bad habit! :)
Isn't that true for many bad habits?

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (3, Interesting)

pdboddy (620164) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528167)

Yeah, I thought the same, a convenient way to browse. And being able to close FF and open it later on with all my tabs intact, that's even better.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (5, Informative)

fredrik70 (161208) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528113)

according to this test [dotnetperls.com] is seems quite alright...

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (3, Insightful)

Jorkapp (684095) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528129)

They fixed most of FF's memory issues with FF3. I've been using 3.5 since beta 1, and I've never had any issues with memory.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (2, Interesting)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528481)

They fixed most of FF's memory issues with FF3. I've been using 3.5 since beta 1, and I've never had any issues with memory.

As mentioned in a previous comment, i'm currently using 3.0.11, and i haven't seen a noticeable improvement over FF2. If they've fixed everything in 3.5 i'll be very happy. But then everyone told me they'd fixed the memory issued in 3.0 too, and that didn't work so well for me.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (2, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528639)

Well, as long as we're talking anecdotes, I saw a dramatic improvement in 3 over 2...In FF2, the memory creep was constant and dramatic. 30-50 tabs would consume several GIGS of memory after a week or so. But with 3, it levels off. Yea, it uses a lot of memory, but it doesn't leak the way it used to.

Just my personal experience of course.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528713)

Drop the number of cached pages to 0. It'll dramatically drop the amount of RAM FireFox uses.

Be warned, using the back button or "Undo Close Tab" is going to suck as it'll have to pull everything from network again. (Pair it with a local caching proxy?).

I just wish they had a 'purge cache' button somewhere easy. Until then I'll just quit and restart.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528761)

time to stop using your 105 extensions or figure out which one is causing leaks

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528527)

Everyone keeps manically saying "most memory problems are plugin related now" but howcome I don't ever seem to see anyone going "well using adblock $version sites X and Y seem to cause godawful memory leaks even with no browser activity"

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (1)

mikael (484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528151)

Or about stopping the auto-update. I use yum to install firefox automatically, then about 4 hours later I get message telling me that "Congratulations, you have firefox 3.0.11 installed", which breaks Google Streetview - it just remains black and no options actually appear in the Preferences->Clear Private Data popup. Reinstall Firefox using yum install, Google Streetview works again, and the cycle repeats.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (4, Insightful)

Alphager (957739) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528259)

Or about stopping the auto-update. I use yum to install firefox automatically, then about 4 hours later I get message telling me that "Congratulations, you have firefox 3.0.11 installed", which breaks Google Streetview - it just remains black and no options actually appear in the Preferences->Clear Private Data popup. Reinstall Firefox using yum install, Google Streetview works again, and the cycle repeats.

How is this a Firefox-Issue? open a Bug with your distro to set the updates off. And turn off automatic updates in the preferrences.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528273)

Maybe try using a decent distro instead of that RedHat crap? No regular distro I know of sets Firefox to automatically update outside of the OS update mechanism.

Try "Preferences->Advanced->Update" and set how you like.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528685)

oh, come on !! use a real distro

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (3, Interesting)

Freedom Bug (86180) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528391)

I leave Firefox 3.0 open for weeks at a time, and I'm liable to have close to a hundred tabs open across 12 windows. Granted, it uses almost a gigabyte of memory, but I don't think any browser would do any better for that kind of load. The only time I ever need to restart is because Flash has stopped working.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (3, Interesting)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528511)

How do you manage that? I mean, when you want to go to a page, do you really look for it in all of your tabs? What do you gain by leaving the tab open instead of just going back to the site when you want to view it again?

I tend to max out at about 10 tabs because I close them when I'm not actively using them. It's really, really rare that I even actively use that many.

Serious question for liberals (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528475)

I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm asking a serious question of liberals. Why do you flee states like CA and NY where you kept voting yourselves tax increases until your eyes were popping out and no one could afford to live or do business in your state any more, only to land in a much more affordable state and repeat the process all over again? Why do you keep doing the same things and expecting different results? Isn't that the definition of insanity? Could you please stop wrecking the quality of life for people who have modest means but still like to enjoy having a little disposable income? For God's sake, you're like a plague of locusts: once you've devoured all of the tax revenue of one region, you move on to the next, with little thought to the devastation you leave in your wake. You leave behind empty, crime-ridden cities with trashed real-estate markets, crushing taxes on the few producers that decide to stick around for some insane reason, and huge social programs well beyond the state's means to pay for them. But of course those social programs are vital to keep the majority of folks from starving and losing their shelter once you've finished your handiwork.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (4, Insightful)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528515)

... Namely, if i keep a lot of tabs open for awhile (yes, i know, bad habit)

Why is it a bad habit? The browser should facilitate the user, it shouldn't be the other way around.

Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528725)

and how 120 tabs are going to make a user's life better ??

When I have 20 tab I cannot remember what was I doing on most of them, and I often get more confused that enlighted by having to "research" what was I thinking 2 days ago about a topic I'm no longer interested

Softpedia claims to have it already (-1, Troll)

MLS100 (1073958) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528009)

Link: http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Browsers/Mozilla-Firefox-Final.shtml [softpedia.com]

It still brings up the "Thank you for testing this RC" screen though when you restart. Perhaps they forgot to change it?

Re:Softpedia claims to have it already (5, Insightful)

pdboddy (620164) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528433)

Do not download FF from anywhere except the main FF site. :P And FF3.5 is up now for download. Pretty snappy, speed-wise. :)

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528027)

FP! :D

Re:FP! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528065)

Why do you brag about getting the Fourth Post?

due soon (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528047)

ftp://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.5/source/

the announcement could be soon

What makes FF the best browser (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528049)

It has a lot of plugins that provide for effortless retrieval of pornographic image and video content in bulk.

So talk standards and compliance and speed all you want. It's all bunk and you know it.

FF is best because it makes it easiest to pull down naughty media.

HTML 5 and Javascript (-1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528057)

And will HTML 5 videos play if I don't have javascript enabled? Oops! Oh well. Back to flash then.

Re:HTML 5 and Javascript (2, Informative)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528135)

Yeah they will actually, most sites will use javascript to test for the ability to use them however.

Re:HTML 5 and Javascript (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528399)

In other words, "No, they won't."

Re:HTML 5 and Javascript (5, Informative)

ikefox (1566973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528251)

I suggest you take a look at Kroc Camen's "Video for Everybody" HTML5 video element implementation. Not a hint of Javascript is necessary to implement it, and it's very cross-platform. It can play back in OGG, Flash, Quicktime (even on the iPhone), WMA, or alternatively provide a download link. http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody [camendesign.com]

Re:HTML 5 and Javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528315)

You're concerned about running javascript, but not about running the massive bundle of vulnerabilities that is flash?

I give up.

Re:HTML 5 and Javascript (3, Insightful)

Tom9729 (1134127) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528355)

Without installing any kind of plugin JavaScript is supported by virtually every modern desktop browser and a growing number of mobile browsers. Yes some websites use JavaScript to do annoying things like resize/move windows, but most browsers let you limit what a website is allowed to do.

Umm Flash on the other hand requires you to install a 3rd party plugin that may not work well (or at all) depending on what platform/browser you use.

IIRC the HTML 5 spec doesn't even say that JavaScript is "required" to play videos, it's just used for the UI.

Re:HTML 5 and Javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528403)

And why would you have flash enabled but not javascript? If yuou are doing ti for security reasons then you are seriously misguided. If you are doing it for performance reasons then you are misguided as well because nothing chews cpu like flash.

Re:HTML 5 and Javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528461)

Will Flash videos play if I have Flash plug-in turned off? Oops! Oh well, fuck Flash then.

Er.... what??? (1)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528545)

So you are disabling javascript, but allowing flash? That makes no sense whatsoever.

For one, I don't know of many sites whose flash applets will work properly without Javascript to initialize them. For two, flash has MUCH larger potential for security holes and exploits than Javascript, which does not even have write access to the filesystem in any way. One wrong buffer overflow in flash and the thing can actually WRITE to your hard drive.

Re:HTML 5 and Javascript (2, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528719)

Shrug. I block flash too, so what's the difference? Flash player is as big a potential security exploit as javascript.

It's full of stars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528073)

er, there's no there there.

As of 10:30 EDT if you try to enter the 3.5 directory on a mirror site you get redirected to http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/comingsoon/

Re:It's full of stars (1)

pdboddy (620164) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528465)

It's there now.

Re:It's full of stars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528779)

but without release notes :-D

Re:It's full of stars (1)

acariquara (753971) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528625)

You don't have to. The latest Release Candidate *IS* the final build.

Real geeks (2, Insightful)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528097)

use telnet for browsing the internet.

Re:Real geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528241)

Yeah, I just decode the Theora stream in my head... Don't you?

RMS (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528335)

I'm trying to decide if that's more or less hardcore than using wget like Richard Stallman does.

Re:Real geeks (1)

Alphager (957739) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528389)

use telnet for browsing the internet.

Real geeks look down on lusers who use this fancy telnet; they use netcat!

Re:Real geeks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528727)

Real geeks look down on lusers who use this fancy telnet; they use netcat!

Any respectable geek generates valid SSL-certificates for their website :P

Re:Real geeks (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528757)

genius laught at kids using netcat for web when they can use lynx -dump to actually get somethin done

Truth Filter (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528171)

I ran the title through a truth filter, this is what I got:

Firefox 3.5 Reviewed; Draws Praise For not being made by Microsoft, Google

What about Slashdot? (5, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528175)

the new release is sure to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language

Although, I would be happy if Slashdot would work right with the existing standards.

Let me be the first to say... (1)

McNihil (612243) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528183)

We are all like a bunch of jonzing pirates wanting FF 3.5... Like crack addicts we need our fix... like yesterday... or the day before.

We want it NOW!!!

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

bibos (116554) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528291)

then just get it - replace the original filename of the download link by getting rid of the "rc3", then you've got the final version.

Example for OS X

replace
http://www.mozilla.com/products/download.html?product=firefox-3.5rc3&os=osx&lang=en-US

with
http://www.mozilla.com/products/download.html?product=firefox-3.5&os=osx&lang=en-US

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

McNihil (612243) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528447)

Ofcourse but I am waiting for some important plugins to be fully compatible with it too. Some plugin vendors wait till things are set in stone to update their stuff... yeah I could hack something together on some cases but I'd rather spend time posting on Slashdot ;-)

AwesomeBar much more Awesomer (1)

Duositex (620105) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528213)

I work in a help desk role with four other people supporting a few hundred so I was waiting to pull the trigger for the latest version because I didn't want to lose my workhorse browser in action. But when I started reading about all of the new features I decided I'd dive right into the release candidate given that the headache of backing up profiles and such between upgrades seems to have gone away. Now that the updates to Firefox come automatically and only require a restart of the browser I figured there wasn't really a good reason to wait. I'm very happy with this decision so far. I can't say for sure if it seems faster or not on this setup, but I *can* say for certain that the new features are quite welcome. Especially being able to filter the junk that pops up in the awesome bar with some simple characters. It finally gave me some motivation to properly tag and organize the menagerie of "Unsorted Bookmarks" in Places. I'm quite pleased with the result and I'm already saving a lot of time when revisiting resources related to the support work I do. The only feature that's still missing from the browser that I find myself wishing it has is an advanced interface for creating the smart folders other than the "Save" button in Places. The long and short: If you hated the awesome bar before and turned it off, give it another shot in 3.5 and see if the new features make it bearable. Thumbs up Mozilla.

I hope they fixed printing (0)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528233)

Somewhere in the development of Firefox 3, someone at Mozilla got the idea that printing to a file is more important, or at least as important as printing to a printer. So now, when you click print you then have to select print to file or print to a printer, then click OK. Very, very annoying when printing out a bunch of individual pages. It should default to the printer with an option for printing to a file (the way it used to be in earlier versions). Print still means "send it to the printer", printing to a file is a minor benefit at best.

Re:I hope they fixed printing (1)

SpooForBrains (771537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528375)

I do not observe this behaviour using Firefox 3.0.10 for Windows.

Works for me (1)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528387)

Running 3.0.11 here, print dialog defaults to a real printer, as it always has.

Re:I hope they fixed printing (1)

pdboddy (620164) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528497)

Nope, I don't get this behavior either.

Have you checked that off in your default printer settings?

Re:I hope they fixed printing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528547)

Printing is broken, but not for the reason you say. I've never seen that problem.

The problem with printing is that 50% of the time, the page is cut off on the right side so you don't get everything. Firefox developers don't pay attention to printing. I use another browser for printing.

Re:I hope they fixed printing (1)

pdboddy (620164) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528717)

For me, 0% of the time the right hand is cut off. I doubt it's FF.

Re:I hope they fixed printing (4, Informative)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528579)

It's a setting in your OS, dude, not in FF. Like most programs, FF just implements the existing PRINT framework.

Non-profit? (1, Interesting)

koreaman (835838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528253)

Since firefox is funded almost entirely by Google, it's a bit of misdirection to claim that it's "run by a nonprofit organization". Yes, that claim is technically true, but it hides the truth about how Firefox is really kept afloat.

Re:Non-profit? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528411)

You're an anus!

Re:Non-profit? (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528423)

Yes, that claim is technically true, but it hides the truth about how Firefox is really kept afloat.

The fox has waterwings on, he can't swim.

Re:Non-profit? (1)

pdboddy (620164) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528549)

I don't see how Google being a larger benefactor means they're running the show.

Re:Non-profit? (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528641)

The point is that it wasn't just some nebulous group of hackers who made Firefox in their free time, like GNU or something. It was funded by a major business. And it's not like no one is making money off Firefox either.

Re:Non-profit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528691)

Many giant US health insurance companies are nonprofits. It's a legal construct, that's it. If you or the submitter are construing it to mean something else, that's your problem.

"A nonprofit foundation" (0, Redundant)

BuR4N (512430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528281)

"an astonishing achievement for a project run by a nonprofit foundation"

According to (unconfirmed information) Wikipedia they pulled in 75 million USD during 2007 alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing

Re:"A nonprofit foundation" (4, Insightful)

christopherfinke (608750) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528445)

"Nonprofit" doesn't imply a lack of revenue.

Re:"A nonprofit foundation" (2)

pdboddy (620164) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528593)

Uhm, yes, they pulled in 75 million. So?

"A nonprofit organization (abbreviated NPO, also not-for-profit) is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization [wikipedia.org]

Nonprofit does not mean "doesn't make any money".

A Bug No One Mentions (1)

DirePickle (796986) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528297)

Did they ever resolve this [launchpad.net] ? It's still present in 3.0 for Linux. Basically, instead of being polite and letting the OS keep the disk spun down until data needs to be written, Firefox spins up the HD for writing every single time it does anything. So if you have an aggressive spin-down policy (like Ubuntu Jaunty does, at least) and you're web-browsing, your HD will spin up and down every twenty seconds or so.

Re:A Bug No One Mentions (4, Interesting)

RebelWebmaster (628941) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528431)

Yes, they've done a lot of work to reduce the number of fsync() calls used. There are numerous bugs filed tracking that work. More work is still planned, but it should already be in better shape than 3.0.x was.

Re:A Bug No One Mentions (1)

DirePickle (796986) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528493)

Hey, that's excellent news. I gave up and just set my HD to never spin down so it didn't eat itself.

Re:A Bug No One Mentions (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528681)

Basically, instead of being polite and letting the OS keep the disk spun down until data needs to be written, Firefox spins up the HD for writing every single time it does anything.

But this isn't a bug, it's a feature: the ext4 developers keep telling us that Posix requires that you fsync() any file that you actually want to find on the disk after a reboot.

More seriously, this may be a response to the earlier problems on Windows where you would reboot after a system crash or power outage and find all your bookmarks had been eaten by scandisk because they weren't properly written to disk before the crash.

Don't you mean: "...sure NOT to prompt..." (2, Interesting)

AbbeyRoad (198852) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528305)

Correction: "...and because it's the second-most-popular Web browser in the world, the new release is sure NOT to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language..."

(That's better.)

I dunno what web designer in his/her right mind is going to make a web page that only 1 in 4 people can view.

Surely Mozilla developers should be trying to better emulate what the MOST popular browser does so that people won't be discouraged from using theirs; rather than creating yet more incompatibility???? Aren't they just playing into Micrsofts hands? MS is sure to just go ahead and create MSHTML 5.0 which is completely incompatible with HTML 5.0. What will they do then?

Wave there hands madly in the air, I suppose.

It's up now! (1)

anom (809433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528323)

www.getfirefox.com :)

still using iCab ;-) (1)

Herve5 (879674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528329)

indeed, am I the only one still using the mac-only, closed-source iCab -but the one that invented ad-filtering 10 years before Adblock, and still updates almost every month (now with e. g. full screen favorite-sites preview...)?

Re:still using iCab ;-) (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528509)

Yes, because there is no need to use iCab when you can use Safari or Firefox. iCab pretty much renders the same as Safari and all the UI can be done in Firefox (or Chrome or an OSS webkit browser).

But...what happened to Beta 4? (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528337)

According to the official working schedule [mozilla.org] , FF3.5b4 is going to be coming out in the near future--on April 24.

Some may have noticed that April 24 (and 3.5b4) has already passed. I find it sadly ironic that the weekly FF3.5 meetings have talked about branding, evangelizing, and marketing; and yet they can't be bothered to update their own schedule.

Re:But...what happened to Beta 4? (3, Informative)

tuffy (10202) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528559)

Firefox 3.5b4 [mozilla.org] was released on 04/24/2009 11:07:00 PM, according to the checksum dates. Enjoy.

Bloat (1)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528339)

I usually kill off my firefox 3.0 and restart it once it reaches the point where its holding 400 megs of ram and takes a quarter-second to respond to button presses. Wasn't Firefox's advantage over Mozilla supposed to be the lack of bloat?

And more than that! (5, Funny)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528367)

In Firefox 3.5, the bard class has been totally revised, and you no longer need to "intuit direction" to browse the web.

It's here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528381)

Get it now http://www.getfirefox.com

Released!?!! (3, Interesting)

ericlondaits (32714) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528393)

As of now, if you got to Mozilla's page and choose to download Firefox, you get version 3.5 :

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/upgrade.html [mozilla.com]

Re:Released!?!! (1)

redcaboodle (622288) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528715)

NOTE: THIS WORKS.

Just started working with 3.5 De_de. Firebug already has an update, but the ugly dotted borders are not fixed. Sigh....my designer will lynch me.

Re:Released!?!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28528767)

Seems someone updated the Image to Firefox 3.5, but it still links to 3.0.11

Huge update (1)

superFoieGras (1423701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528529)

I always have wondered: How does such a wolrdwide update work ? Supposedly Mozilla is non-profit, so how do they manage extra bandwidth for the huge load of downloads they are going to get in the next few days ? I'm thinking about the Skype crash, where everyone updated and reconnected at the same time and killed their servers for two days.

Re:Huge update (1)

koreaman (835838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528735)

The Firefox project is funded by Google.

Competition (5, Insightful)

koreaman (835838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528585)

Am I the only one who doesn't see the multiplicity of real competition as a threat, but rather as the greatest success of the Mozilla Foundation? Had it not been for Firefox, Opera would still cost money, Google Chrome wouldn't exist, a few people who paid way too much for their computers would be running Safari, and most (l)users would be stuck with the latest version of IE -- IE6. Thank you, Firefox, for reigniting the browser wars, and here's hoping that this time around the wars will be fought with functionality, stability, security, and speed, rather than with a new incompatible extension to JavaScript every week.

Acid (2, Interesting)

Pahroza (24427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528605)

Still only a 93% on acid3. Better, but not good enough.

Here now (2, Informative)

rjolley (1118681) | more than 5 years ago | (#28528631)

I think firefox 3.5 IS here now. I just went to getfirefox.com on osx and ubuntu and both show graphical links to download firefox 3.5. Downloading and going to 'about firefox' shows no indication that it is a release candidate.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>