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!

Mozilla's New JavaScript Engine Coming September 1

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the believe-when-it-parses dept.

Firefox 222

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla has reached an important milestone as its new JavaScript engine, 'JaegerMonkey,' is now faster than the current 'TraceMonkey' in a key benchmark. Mozilla wants JaegerMonkey to be faster than the competition and launch on September 1, which means that JaegerMonkey will make it into Firefox 4.0."

cancel ×

222 comments

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

JägerMonkey (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32900512)

JägerMonkey, not JaegerMonkey.

If you don't want to or cant write ä, you replace it with "a", not "ae".

Re:JägerMonkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32900594)

I think you expect too much from CmdrTaco. Hell, this website still isn't compatible with UTF-8.

Re:JägerMonkey (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32900646)

The correct transliteration of German umlauts ä, ö and ü is "ae", "oe" and "ue". JaegerMonkey is correct.

Re:JägerMonkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32900652)

Not in German.

Re:JägerMonkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32900752)

German orthography has long allowed -Ve alongside V+umlaut. That's why we write Goethe as it is, and not with o+umlaut.

Re:JägerMonkey (2, Informative)

shellster_dude (1261444) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901190)

Actually Mozilla uses the same terminology. See any of the data points on the graphs located at the Mozilla run: http://www.arewefastyet.com/ [arewefastyet.com]

Re:JägerMonkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32901912)

Is Mozilla foolish?
  Can't they be sued by anyone with this last name?
  Jaeger is also the trademark of many rich people and companies
I'd say there going to take exception with that name and or especially the Monkey part

IMNAL but can they use peoples last or corporate names and hope not to be sued ?

Re:JägerMonkey (3, Informative)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902088)

"Jäger" is German for "Hunter".

Once again we're treading into the territory: Can you be sued for using a word?

Re:JägerMonkey (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902800)

Especially now than Afghanistan [slashdot.org] has tried patenting it .. (Though it's been tried before (in USSR by Stalin, or who was it?))

Competition (4, Funny)

Dan East (318230) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900600)

I know Firefox is open source, but is it wise to broadcast their intentions so publicly months in advance? Especially when it has to do with competing against other browsers.

Re:Competition (5, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900660)

Please elaborate Why not?

Re:Competition (5, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900858)

Because the Taliban might start training their monkeys to interpret Javascript, too.

Re:Competition (4, Funny)

Big Boss (7354) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901252)

The new and improved TalibanMonkey Javascript engine! It flies code into large webpages and DDOSes any script that mentions Muhamad. :)

Re:Competition (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901368)

Don't forget the IBSOD (Improvised Blue Screens Of Death).

Re:Competition (5, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901280)

It's not exactly a huge leap of innovation, since monkeys already writing Javascript.

I can't explain some of the code I've seen, otherwise.

Re:Competition (4, Funny)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901592)

Because the Taliban might start training their monkeys to interpret Javascript, too.

Silence, I kill you!

Re:Competition (1)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902034)

Nice reference, altho I think rather niche. Ah well.

Re:Competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32901992)

I wish I could mod you up, you made me spit my coffee all over the screen!

Re:Competition (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902792)

Because for years, they've been beaten ten-fold by Chrome, Opera, and Safari. Can they really pull a JavaScript engine out of their ass in a few months to beat the best? If not, they have failed to meet their publicly stated goals.

Re:Competition (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902920)

The engine has already been created - and tested, it is faster than their current engine.

Yes, they hope to beat the best, and of course thats just marketting speak like all browsers do, but it's not like Firefox has set any goals and felt any backlash when they didn't meet them before.

Re:Competition (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900682)

Everybody is trying to improve their Javascript execution speed, so it's really not a big slip. Really, you can't blame them, after all, it lets you play Javascript games like Game! [wittyrpg.com] that much faster!

Re:Competition (4, Interesting)

Keyslapper (852034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900942)

Agreed. The JS engine is probably the only area FF is trailing the rest of the market by a wide margin. It's not like they're announcing they're getting further out in front of the pack. Announcing they're finally coming up to par in this area is the best thing I've heard about FF since ... well ever.

This might give me reason to hold out for FF4 rather than switching to Safari or Opera.

Re:Competition (5, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901064)

Nah. The best thing would be if they finally separated everything into their own threads so that the entire UI would not lock just because Javascript in some tab is busy, or some download stalled, or a big table is being rendered, or whatever.

Re:Competition (1, Informative)

Keyslapper (852034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901322)

I was under the impression that's what 4.0 is doing. On MacOS, I get an extra FF icon in the Dock when I run into sites with Flash ...

Did I miss something?

And yeah, 3.6.x was so bad I upgraded my primary browser to the beta. Since then, no CPU drain at random, no out of control heat issue until I force kill it, and no framework lockup when I'm editing a long response on FB. It still freezes the edit box momentarily, but only rarely, and never crashes out or kills performance on the whole machine. To be honest, if the handful of extensions I use in FF had been ported to Safari, I'd already have jumped ship.

Re:Competition (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32901466)

Flash et al are in their own processes. But despite it's multi-threading claims, FF still uses one big thread for UI and javaScript. So when loading /. the entire UI freezes until the js is done. This is quite obvious if you have a /. live book mark. Try to open 5 stories quickly using middle-click (open in new background tab for me).

Re:Competition (3, Insightful)

marsu_k (701360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901684)

While this is true, partially it's not FFs fault. However /. managed to get from a convoulted mess of nested tables and font tags to a convoulted mess of some of the worst performing javacript I've ever seen is beyond me.

Re:Competition (3, Funny)

drachenstern (160456) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902194)

And yet here you are posting!

At least the trains ran on time in Italy eh?

Re:Competition (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902722)

While this is true, partially it's not FFs fault. However /. managed to get from a convoulted mess of nested tables and font tags to a convoulted mess of some of the worst performing javacript I've ever seen is beyond me.

If a Net facing application, which is meant to process data acquired from untrusted sources freezes because it's fed bad data, it's entirely that application's fault. I don't care if Slashdot was coded by the Devil himself, if Firefox freezes on Slashdot then Firefox has a bug.

Not that I would know about Slashdot's Javascript, I'm using the "classic" interface since the "new" one is unsusable.

Re:Competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32901894)

It's coming eventually as electrolysis [mozilla.org]

'Only Area'??? LOL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32901210)

Tell us your were joking...

The stinking pile of fail that is Firefox isn't ever going to compete with modern browsers like Chrome until the festering garbage of a source code base is thrown away and the browser is started over from scratch.

Re:'Only Area'??? LOL! (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901434)

There are indeed some severe flaws in the current Firefox, but what makes you think that the entire codebase needs to be discarded? There are still some issues with the current development process -for example, standards don't seem to have been Job One for some time- but in general they seem to have good plans for fixing most of the issues, and IE9 looks like it may be able to shame the dev team into doing the rest if it can follow through with its Acid3 support and leave Firefox as the last browser not at 100/100.

Is there really a need, given all of this, to abandon the entire code base? Or are you just looking for bites?

Re:'Only Area'??? LOL! (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902546)

> for example, standards don't seem to have been Job One for some time

Standards have in fact been Job One, but the nice thing with standards is that there are so many to choose from. If you don't have the resources to implement them all, or think some of them are actively bad for the web (P3P comes to mind), you don't implement them. See also http://dbaron.org/log/2006-08#e20060818a [dbaron.org]

For the specific thing keeping Mozilla from a 100/100 score on Acid3, see http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/06/not_implementin.html [mozillazine.org]

What has _not_ been Job One, unlike Apple, is making up new functionality and proposing it for standardization. Maybe it should have been; it's certainly an effective marketing technique for making it seem like you're ahead on standards.

Re:Competition (2, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900980)

Everybody knows that everybody is trying to buff their JS scores; both because the Web2.0 gods demand it, and because not having the best sunspider scores causes your e-penis to shrivel. It isn't exactly a skunkworks secret weapon kind of feature.

The only way that they could really hide from a remotely sophisticated adversary(ie. a group that includes anybody remotely capable of making a competing browser), would be to sacrifice openness in a pretty huge way and make it so that only internal devs could see commits and things being made. If they aren't doing that, they aren't actually hiding much of anything.

Plus, since JS performance is such a point of competition, pre-announcing your coming-real-soon-now feature is a way of encouraging people not to defect to competing products before the feature is actually released.

Yes (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900990)

I know Firefox is open source, but is it wise to broadcast their intentions so publicly months in advance? Especially when it has to do with competing against other browsers.

Answer is simple: Yes, because it's open source.
If they want my help as a developer, then I need all the info about the product I can get.

It's not as if their new JS engine has been developed behind closed doors...
This announcement just informs us open source developers that we should focus our efforts
on improving JaegerMonkey instead of TraceMonkey because its scheduled to be included in FF4.

Re:Competition (5, Insightful)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900998)

Mozilla is not just open source, it's also open. Open in the sense that all project management (and indeed everything else) is done in the open as much as possible. There are no secret project crash landings of the sort that Chrome was or the current iteration of the Safari JS engine, unless there are external requirements for such (as there were with WebM).

This has the benefit that project contributors who are not Mozilla employees can fully participate in goal-setting and development. It does have the drawback that competitors can borrow the ideas, and possibly even ship them first; this happens all the time. This is viewed as an acceptable cost of doing business in an open way.

Re:Competition (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901306)

The foundations finances aren't open.

Re:Competition (2, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901522)

Which part? Exact sources of revenue? Those are as open as the various revenue sources will allow, last I checked. Exact spending? The general categories are published; the exact salaries of particular people are not. Something else?

Re:Competition (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902074)

Where is such information? The information here is getting stale:

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/ [mozilla.org]

Re:Competition (2, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902150)

> Where is such information?

On the page you linked to.

> The information here is getting stale:

The 2008 information is there. The 2009 information can't be put up until the 2009 tax returns are filed, at the very least, which may well not have happened yet (depending on the exact fiscal year and extension situation; I'm not privy to the details).

Re:Competition (2, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902398)

The 2008 auditing report and form 990 both use the calendar year, so there is a fair chance that they are using the calendar year for taxes.

It also mentions that the IRS is investigating their classification of certain income. It is sort of entertaining, their status as a public foundation is in question, so they have to ask people for donations (to try to be publicly supported), but they get far more money from their deal with Google than they are currently able to intelligently spend.

Re:Competition (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901820)

You just said in the beginning of your statement that it's open source. Everybody can already see what they're doing, just like with WebKit.

Re:Competition (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902326)

Sort of. There have been several projects developed behind closed doors and then crash-landed in Webkit when done. In fact, that's happened with Safari's JS engine.

September 1 (1)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900612)

They are trying to conquer the browser market.

JägerMonkey Promo Video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32900628)

Free as in Beer (5, Insightful)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900680)

It really blows my mind that there is such fierce competition between internet browsers. It's rare to see this level of intense drive and innovation for a free product.

Re:Free as in Beer (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900756)

As long as they keep racing towards a standard it is a great thing, there was definitely equally fierce competition a decade ago but it was far less productive

Re:Free as in Beer (1)

path411 (1850004) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900774)

They are fighting over how people view the internet, it's a pretty important battle. Whoever wins gets to set the pace of the internet for several years.

Re:Free as in Beer (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900966)

But there will be no winner. The people producing the software already know that. At least I would like to think that they do. I hope they're not as hung up as most Slashdot users who continue to insist that their OS/Phone/Browser/IDE is the best and is the leader in the market.

The market is fluid and we should all be thankful for that even if it bursts our fanboy bubbles.

Re:Free as in Beer (3, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901102)

> But there will be no winner.

No winner in terms of market share, right?

If that happens, it's a win for Mozilla, at least, since their goal here is a free and open web, not controlling how users get information. Firefox having 100% market share would be a loss for Mozilla....

Re:Free as in Beer (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901918)

But there would a winner be if people gave up. Thus since everyone is trying so hard, there is an equilibrium stalemate which is good for everyone.

Re:Free as in Beer (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900842)

To be fair, the same argument that is used against Google could be leveled against Firefox. The browser/search is not the product, it is merely the means to generate the real product: users. The users are the product and they and their habits are sold to the advertisers. Obviously Firefox is still largely community driven, but when you get down to brass tacks it takes money to run a project as large and complex as Firefox has become, that money comes from selling user behavior.

Re:Free as in Beer (2, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901056)

> it is merely the means to generate the real product: users.

No, the real product is an open web not tied to a particular technology. Users are just a means to that end.

> and their habits are sold to the advertisers.

What does Firefox sell, exactly? I'd really like to know.

> that money comes from selling user behavior.

Not quite. That money comes from partnerships with search engines. The only thing "sold" is whatever you decide to submit to a search engine, and only if you use the little search bar at the top right of the browser, iirc, and is only "sold" to the search engine provider (who is obviously getting that data anyway; you want them to have it so as to actually do the search).

Re:Free as in Beer (1)

Haffner (1349071) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901784)

I would imagine they also get some chunk of any of those bloatware toolbars idiots install...

Re:Free as in Beer (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901906)

Nope.

Re:Free as in Beer (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901986)

Actually, I thought FF sold competition vs IE to Google. With Chrome the future of FF looks bleak when contract renewal comes up. http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/28/mozilla-extends-lucrative-deal-with-google-for-3-years/ [techcrunch.com]

Re:Free as in Beer (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902098)

> Actually, I thought FF sold competition vs IE to Google.

FF doesn't "sell" anything to Google. Google pays for any searches that are done on Google via the FF search bar. So do other search providers.

> With Chrome the future of FF looks bleak when contract renewal comes up.

Does it? Google has search deals with FF and Opera. Why does Chrome change that calculation?

Google is not in the business of building a browser to build a browser. They're in the business of selling advertising; everything else is just a means to have more opportunities to sell said advertising.

Re:Free as in Beer (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902236)

Google won't do that unless Firefox disappears from the charts. Google isn't interested in promoting Chrome, it's interested in promoting their search engine that shows their ads. Cutting Mozilla's money would probably give some competitor (Yahoo?) the opportunity of serving web searches for all the Firefox users, which are still buttloads more than Chrome.

Re:Free as in Beer (4, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901382)

It might be because they're free that there is competition to innovate. It doesn't take anything for someone to switch to a different browser, so getting them to stick with one is a bit trickier. No one is going to go into purchase rationalization mode over a free download like they might over a car that turns out not to be as cool as they hoped. From the perspective of a Microsoft or a Google, once you can lock in the loyalty of the end users, then its easier to steer them towards your other products, including for-pay products. Hell, even Netscape was giving away Navigator hoping people would pick up their server offerings to go along with it. Mozilla, on the other hand, needs to keep people in the open, standards-based ecosystem because that forces all the vendors towards the center and creates are more cross-compatible environment.

Great... JUST GREAT (3, Funny)

revlayle (964221) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900746)

Drunk monkeys are going to be running the new JS engine.... still better than IE

Re:Great... JUST GREAT (2)

paradxum (67051) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900886)

The Internet ... built by and ran by Drunk monkeys....

Ok, some of us are not drunk.... all the time.

Re:Great... JUST GREAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32902740)

The Internet ... built by and ran OVER by Drunk monkeys....

Missed a word there

Re:Great... JUST GREAT (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32901070)

> Drunk monkeys

"Jaeger" is German for hunter. Yes, there's also a drink that has this name.

Re:Great... JUST GREAT (1)

revlayle (964221) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901426)

Professional hunting monkeys sounded scarier then drunk monkeys - also, drunk monkeys are funnier. Also, EITHER is better than IE.

Re:Great... JUST GREAT (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901618)

Professional hunting monkeys sounded scarier then drunk monkeys - also, drunk monkeys are funnier. Also, EITHER is better than IE.

Indeed. I'd rather browse the web with a pack of drunken armed monkeys in the room than have to use IE.

Re:Great... JUST GREAT (1)

jshark (623406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901622)

Considering my one and only encounter with Jägermeister, it's not just "drunk" monkeys, but "holy crap hammered out of their everlovin godddamned mind and whythefuck are they puking all over my desktop" monkeys.

ymmv.

Re:Great... JUST GREAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32901850)

Your experience shows that you're a lightweight. That is some of the lamest alcoholic shit I've ever had.

Re:Great... JUST GREAT (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902762)

I think you misspelled Trunk Monkey [youtube.com]

Nightly benchmarking (4, Interesting)

Mr. Spontaneous (784926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900798)

For those of you who want to track the progress of Mozilla's JS efforts, visit the self-descriptive ARE WE FAST YET? [arewefastyet.com]

Re:Nightly benchmarking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32901668)

I really wish they'd look at the browser by itself and not focus so much on benchmark comparisons with other browsers. Yes benchmark comparisons can point to areas that could use improvement and are interesting in that respect. However there are lots of areas for which there is no benchmark comparison to demonstrate the need for improvement. Some parts of Firefox are just awful slow in ways that don't show up on a typical browser vs browser benchmark. They'd do well to profile it and see what code paths are frequented and do some real optimization.

Very often, when people say Firefox (or some other product for that matter) is slow they aren't talking about A vs B benchmark scores.

Also sometimes all these benchmarks optimizations negatively effect the users experience. There are tweaks that one can enable that lower some benchmark scores but, at the same time, make the browser feel more responsive to the user. The strong focus on benchmarks actually hurts the user experience.

Re:Nightly benchmarking (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902086)

The page is hosted by Mozilla JS team, all they care about is JS performance and JS features.

Re:Nightly benchmarking (1)

Mr. Spontaneous (784926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902206)

In addition to what the above poster said, they aren't putting all of their eggs in one basket. They've been heavily focused on making sure the entire UX is fast/responsive, not just benchmarks.

Re:Nightly benchmarking (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902218)

How are you supposed to compare the performance of different browsers without using benchmarks? Anecdotes? Impressions? Guesses?

Re:Nightly benchmarking (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902060)

For the colourblinds amongst us... can you describe the graph please.

Re:Nightly benchmarking (1)

Mr. Spontaneous (784926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902160)

Hovering over a datapoint should show which engine is being tested.

What Windows is to PC, Browser is to Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32900916)

Browsers are the gate ways for the global online market and are a very important role in the growth in every direction. Next and soon mobile browsers will take their share too

Keyword: fast*ER* ... sometimes (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#32900978)

This is a welcome improvement, sadly it's still miles behind competing browsers... They still have to slash their benchmark stats in half to beat existing performance of Chrome, Safara and even IE9! Highly interactive webapps still won't run as smoothly in Firefox as in other browsers, which is a shame. I really love FireFox as a developer, but I have to say the slow speed is the biggest drawback. This is something that deserves proper attention from experts who really care about it, but now they have given themselves an impossible deadline to create these massive improvements... September is close by, and while these guys are miracle workers in my book they should not ask too much and create big expectations they (probably) can't meet.

Re:Keyword: fast*ER* ... sometimes (4, Informative)

sd.fhasldff (833645) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901266)

I think you're missing the point of what is being benchmarked. Mozilla hasn't released benchmarks of their new JS engine with both "method" and "tracer" JIT combined. They are being evolved separately, but are (according to Moz) complementary. Thus, we don't know how far they actually are from their goal yet.

Check out http://www.arewefastyet.com/ [arewefastyet.com] for benchmarks and description.

From what I can gather from the associated bug report, the "fatval" optimizations are also not applied to the portions of JS code that is traced... which would imply that the better job the tracer engine does, the less the "fatval" optimizations are applied.

The result is that an unknown "free" speed increase is waiting in the wings. What the magnitude of this increase is... well, that's the question, isn't it?

Does 1 September seem like a really tight deadline? Yes, sure does, but more in terms of stability and robustness than actually getting to a specific speed milestone.

Re:Keyword: fast*ER* ... sometimes (2, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902418)

The tracer JIT is able to compile most methods into very tight assembly code because it is able to determine the types of each variable at compile time. For the methods that can't be compiled with the tracer JIT, they have been run by the interpreter, which is very slow compared to JIT compilers. With the new method JIT, methods that can't be compiled with the tracer JIT will be run by the method JIT instead of the interpreter. This is the meaning of the statement the tracer JIT (orange) and method JIT (black) are not yet integrated. once integrated, the merged branch will be faster than either branch individually. they are complementary. [arewefastyet.com]

Reference? (1)

Irontail (1346011) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901112)

Is the name a sideways reference to Chuck Yeager (first pilot to fly faster than the speed of sound), or is that just an amusing coincidence?

Re:Reference? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901162)

I imagine it's a reference to this alcoholic drink [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Reference? (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901432)

There is evidence to suggest that George Welch [wikipedia.org] , a Norther American Aviation test pilot, broke the sound barrier testing the F-86 about 2 weeks before Yaeger in the X-1.

Too bad FF may not last (4, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901166)

Don't get me wrong, I love FF but I am worried about what happens after the deal with google expires.

FF doesn't put out an MSI version of their windows package and doesn't do GPO policies *natively*. This stuff is all 3rd party after the fact and FF updates.

Meanwhile I read on /. that Chrome can use the same GPO as IE natively. (I can't find it, though)

Once Google pumps out MSIs for Chrome and its GPO support is common knowledge, FF will have lost the corps for market share.

Re:Too bad FF may not last (4, Informative)

vbraga (228124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901284)

I never understood why Mozilla Foundation refuses to release proper GPO support in Firefox. Why neglect the corporate market?

Re:Too bad FF may not last (4, Informative)

RebelWebmaster (628941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901748)

For what it's worth, there was a session on enterprise deployment at the 2010 Mozilla Summit last week. Official MSI support is coming (there are patches posted to the relevant bug), hopefully for Firefox 4. GPO support is more difficult due to the wide number of settings supported by Firefox and complications with their version numbering and update settings. That said, there are extensions for it at least. Basically, that segment is getting more attention, even if it isn't moving at lightning speed.

Um, is it on? (1)

gmiernicki (1621899) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901232)

Hopefully they haven't enabled it by default in nightly builds because Chrome is still 2X faster in SunSpider by my latest count.

Re:Um, is it on? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32901854)

Hopefully they haven't enabled it by default in nightly builds because Chrome is still 2X faster in SunSpider by my latest count.

7:00am: Wake up.
7:01am: Download and run latest Firefox nightly.
7:10am: Run latest Chrome nightly.
7:19am: Compare results. Must maintain validation of my browser choice at all costs.
7:20am: Job well done. Day is complete.

Seriously, your "latest count"? What does that even MEAN in this case? Are you just redeclaring your live for your favorite browser? Or do you seriously keep testing browsers every nightly release for your own smug assertion of the browser you picked?

Re:Um, is it on? (1)

Cap'n Refsmmat (1003152) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902710)

No, they haven't. It's not fully optimized and tested yet.

Skeptic (1)

naplam33 (1751266) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901272)

I've never seen any of firefox's much publicized JS upgrades perform any better than previously. Why would it happen now? I think Firefox is doomed, Google is going to kill it (and by tossing money at it!, clever move), and impose Chrome in the long run. I use firefox regularly and it's been so-so in terms of performance for years now, lock-ups and slow loading with several tabs or heavy sites are too common in my experience. It's annoying

Wha? (3, Insightful)

ITBurnout (1845712) | more than 4 years ago | (#32901470)

Sometimes when reading Slashdot I find myself taking a step back and marveling at how a sentence like "Mozilla's new Jaegermonkey Javascript engine for Firefox, which will launch on September 1, is faster than Tracemonkey in key benchmarks" actually makes sense to me. It is the 21st Century, and we talk funny.

Re:Wha? (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902090)

It is the 21st Century, and we talk funny.

Quite obviously you don't work in a Unix/Linux environment. Grok, grep, apt-get, rpm -ihv name.rpm, su, man (which has nothing to do with a man), cat (which has nothing to do with cats), tar (which has nothing to do with tar and feathering someone or the LaBrea Tar Pits), or chmod.

I think you'll find people have been talking funny for centuries, depending on what your definition of funny is.

Re:Wha? (1)

ITBurnout (1845712) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902298)

Why would that be "quite obvious"? I don't currently work in such an environment, but I'm well aware of a lot of the commands, which are perfect examples of what I was talking (funnily) about. :)

Re:Wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32902702)

Aye. Thou dost speak indeed with an uncouth tongue.

you FAIL 1t (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32901498)

Too little, too late... (2, Interesting)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902062)

I dumped FF for Chrome a few months ago and I am not looking back... To be honest, the JS performance wasn't the main problem. It had stability and resource issues. We owe a lot to FF for freeing us from the tyranny of IE but the future is with Chrome or Safari (and to a lesser degree Opera).

Re:Too little, too late... (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902644)

It's interesting that no one seems to be able to provide specific information on these supposed stability and resource issues. It's classic FUD [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Too little, too late... (1)

divisionbyzero (300681) | more than 4 years ago | (#32902796)

It's interesting that no one seems to be able to provide specific information on these supposed stability and resource issues. It's classic FUD [wikipedia.org] .

I am sorry. I wish it were but the only FUD around here is your reply to my post. FF's problems are what are known as facts [wikipedia.org] . I'd post screenshots of resource utilization, etc, but rebutting your comment is not worth the effort because it is patently false. FF's continual decline in market share speak for itself.

ESR's Favorite Mixed Drinks (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32902164)

Eric Raymond usually sticks with his Jägermeister, straight up and ice cold. But every so often, when our hero is out and about giving important talks to Linux fans across the globe, he'll have a mixed drink. Here are a few of his favorites.

Chocolate Milk

Perfecting a concoction initially invented by Emad and friends, Eric says it's a favorite of new Linux users. “It's got that young taste.”

Served: On the rocks with novelty penis straw.

Garnish: n/a

Ingredients:

        * 2 parts vodka
        * 1 part diarrhea
        * 1 part semen
        * Chocolate powder to taste

Preparation: Shake and serve. Alternately, may blend with ice.

Golden Shower

On the go most of the time, Eric said this drink has everything needed to give him a stiff kick in the pants. “And you can keep recycling it too, perfect for traveling.”

Served: On the rocks.

Garnish: Lemon wedge.

Ingredients:

        * 2 parts Goldschläger
        * 1 part Red Bull
        * 1 part urine

Preparation: Mix and serve.

Jamaican Cum

Eric was first introduced to this drink while speaking at a JaLUG meeting and he still orders it every time he's in the Bahamas. If you're at the right bar, you'll get the right kind of “cream.”

Served: On the rocks.

Garnish: Two maraschino cherries.

Ingredients:

        * 3 parts spiced rum
        * 1 part "cream"

Preparation: Mix and serve.

Kernel Dump

As Eric told the story, he made this drink one night while bored in bed with dysentery. “It might have been cholera,” he said, “but either way it kicks.”

Served: Straight up.

Garnish: n/a.

Ingredients:

        * 1 part Jägermeister
        * 1 part diarrhea

Preparation: Pour diarrhea first, then Jägermeister. May be served shot-glass-in-tumbler for effect.

Slip'N'Slide

Eric calls this “the summer drink” (italics his).

Served: In an Old-fashioned glass over shaved ice.

Garnish: half banana.

Ingredients:

        * 1 part 99 Bananas
        * 1 part semen

Preparation: Shake and serve.

Used Motor Oil

Eric got the idea for this drink after an argument with Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda. “It's really simple,” Eric quipped, taking a mason jar out of his refrigerator. “You just have to save up ahead of time.”

Served: Straight up.

Garnish: Sprig of mint.

Ingredients:

        * 1 part Jägermeister
        * 1 part semen

Preparation: Mix and serve.

Faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32902288)

I'll believe it when I see it letting me type on Twitter above 1 character per second on a Pentium-class machine, like I already do with today's "fastest" Javascript engines...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?