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 3.0 Makes Leap Forward

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the go-you-crazy-dino-go dept.

Mozilla 401

Kurtz'sKompund writes "Mozilla has announced that Firefox 3.0 has passed a major milestone! The Places feature has been added to the alpha client slated for release next week. Places is a complete re-work of the bookmarking and history browser functions. It was at one point slated for Firefox 2.0, but will instead see release in Mozilla's next major version. '"We enabled the Places implementation of bookmarks on the trunk," said the Places team in a post to the Mozilla developer center blog. "Although there is still much to be done, this is an important milestone for us." Firefox 3.0 alpha 5 is scheduled to launch June 1. Because Places uses the open-source SQLite database engine to store and retrieve bookmarks and history entries, it's incompatible with earlier Firefox editions' bookmarks. Alpha users must convert their existing entries, Mozilla developers said."

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

So how long... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19270833)

Until they decide to remove it and delay it until Firefox 5 (after they skip 4)

Re:So how long... (3, Funny)

Headcase88 (828620) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271049)

They've got to skip 4, 5, 6, and 7 to get ahead of the game. The quality of a browser is directly proportional to its version number.

Re:So how long... (0)

Headcase88 (828620) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271125)

Hey mods, that's known as a joke [merriam-webster.com] .

When? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19270849)

When the hell will the devs address the staggering memory leaks?

Re:When? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19270887)

I'm sorry... what memory leaks??? Were we supposed to do something with that?

Re:When? (2, Funny)

BosstonesOwn (794949) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270925)

Consider it a feature. They want to test all the memory in the machine for you ! Now that is what I call good folks.

All joking aside , isn't it on the bug tracker a lot ? I thought that the whole reason for this write was to fix the various memory issues before they moved on ?

Re:When? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271031)

They're apparently embedding a fucking SQL DATABASE into Firefox 3. Given that SQL databases are not exactly known for being light-weight (in fact, quite the opposite), I'm going to take a guess that the answer is probably half-past never.

If you want a light-weight, featureful browser that doesn't require 100 extensions to make it barely usable, you might consider trying Opera [opera.com] .

Re:When? (5, Informative)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271231)

SQLite [sqlite.org] has this name because it is... lite! It has a very, very small footprint. By your comment, I can tell you have never used it. I have. It is designed to be small and easy to embed into an app with out requiring a bunch of resources.

Re:When? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271345)

According to that page, the DB uses 0.25MB for its code alone. That's not lite.

Assuming Firefox is already 10MB (which isn't that far off) that increases the size by almost 3%, which is not insignificant. Especially when you realize that's leaving off all the bloat that will be included by code that uses a SQL database for bookmarks instead of something sane like a flat file.

They're bookmarks - that's a list of strings. Or at least, should be a list of strings.

Re:When? (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271381)

Yes, everything should be done your way. Heaven forbid features other people find useful worm their way into your software, since you are obviously the anonymous arbiter of all that is technology.

Re:When? (5, Informative)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271515)

You think a SQL db that only takes up 250K is significant? Geez, what do you have like 4MB of memory? The SQLite DB is already in FF 2. So it will not add anything to FF 3. However, the bookmarks will now just take advantage of SQLite, which they currently do not. This will give you plenty of ways to sort your bookmarks and store more info for each bookmark. For example, in FF 2 you can give a bookmark a keyword. This way you can just type that keyword and go to that URL. I use can type "/." and press enter and get to /. with no clicks. I have a lot of keywords setup for my most used bookmarks. Bookmarks in FF are more than just list of strings. They have a URL, name, keyword and description. One big problem with bookmarks in FF 2 is the inability to sort properly. FF 3 should fix that now that FF 3 will be able to use Order By to sort how the user likes.

Re:When? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271715)

However, the bookmarks will now just take advantage of SQLite, which they currently do not.

Oh, goody, so when Firefox next corrupts my profile (and that's a when, not an if), instead of having a nice easy-to-read text file I can easily open with an text editor and copy the bookmarks out of, I'll have a binary blob that I can do NOTHING with.

Yeah, that's really progress right there.

After all, why should things like bookmarks be human-readable? Who would ever want to pull bookmarks off a machine without launching a SQL database?!

Re:When? (2, Interesting)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271569)

Firefox currently stores bookmarks in an XHTML file so it currently uses an XML parser to load bookmarks, I don't think you'll notice any negative performance hit from SQLite.

Bookmarks were strings 10 years ago, now they are multi-field records, especially things like live RSS bookmarks. The hole point of the "Places" component is to give more state and functionality to bookmarks and history.

I also think the SQLite engine is going to be used for the new client-side persistence framework which does need database capabilities, so it would be there regardless.

Re:When? (4, Informative)

althea19 (1084593) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271369)

They're apparently embedding a fucking SQL DATABASE into Firefox 3. Given that SQL databases are not exactly known for being light-weight
Because of course SQLLite isn't a light-weight SQL DB library or anything..

Re:When? (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271459)

They're apparently embedding a fucking SQL DATABASE into Firefox 3. Given that SQL databases are not exactly known for being light-weight

There's a big difference between an embedded database like Berkely DB or SQLLite and an enterprise DB like DB2 or SQL Server... And embedded SQL Database is VERY lightweight.

Re:When? (-1, Troll)

lib3rtarian (1050840) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271513)

Regardless of how "light" this is, it really sounds like feature creep to me. Why don't the work on improving the existing code and making it faster and have a smaller footprint? I don't see myself upgrading to some SQL based web browser. Maybe they're also going to rewrite firefox 3.0 in java?

A....A.... *A clue!* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271475)

Apologies for sneezing at you, there must be an air leak in my nose.

Firefox Memory Leak is a Feature [slashdot.org]

Re:When? (4, Informative)

adiether (615494) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271661)

How do you know it has memory leaks? Seriously, have you done a exhaustive memory profile? Opening a few webpages, closing them, and looking at MemUsage in the task manager before and after is hardly conclusive. Of course, I am assuming you are doing this, but if you have concrete data, please share. I can leave Firefox running for weeks averaging 50+ tabs at all times.

Thunderbird 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19270869)

I hope they also modify Thunderbid 3.0 to use SQLite as a backend. Using a lightweight SQL backend has a lot of benefits over ugly mailbox files.

Hrm.. (3, Interesting)

nametaken (610866) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270873)

I'm not the usual jerk that complains about FF's feature bloat, but I wonder if this new feature is optional.

Re:Hrm.. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270991)

Mork!

Sqlite will be there regardless.

Re:Hrm.. (1)

chaosite (930734) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271149)

Meh. SQLite is in fact rather nice. What I want them to get rid of is Mork (if they haven't already): http://jwz.livejournal.com/312657.html [livejournal.com]

Re:Hrm.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271319)

Meh. SQLite is in fact rather nice.

Except that you have to construct SQL queries instead of the leaner unabstracted way of function calls. Constructing a scripting query and parsing the resultls is always going to be extremely slow compared to a dedicated function call. Abstraction for abstraction's sake is never a good idea, especially when the job is so simple and the data set so tiny (typically no more than a few hundred bookmarks with 2-5 fields).

Re:Hrm.. (1)

Ikcor (676683) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271577)

And by "wonder" you really mean "hope."

Memory use (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19270901)

Who cares?

Until they make fixing the massive memory use a priority, FF will be just another bloated beast not worth wasting my time on.

Re:Memory use (1)

BosstonesOwn (794949) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271165)

Well now it seams like they are starting to move into Microsofts style of software writing. To bad too I really liked firefox and it wasn't to bad on my solaris box.

I don't have enough bookmarks to need a db to track them.

memory leak FUD #2 .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271469)

The alleged leak is to do with Firefox using memory to cache pages. The solution is simple. Type about:config in the address bar and change browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer , browser.cache.memory.capacity and config.trim_on_minimize.

Firefox here .. 37 MB with 2 windows and 2 tabs open and any increase is to do with the size of the cache. --

I like Firefox except for $RANDOM.FUD ..

was; Re:Memory use (Score:1)

Re:memory leak FUD #2 .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271745)

The alleged leak is to do with Firefox using memory to cache pages.

Alleged? What is this, the Mozillazine Forums? Everybody who's not a FF fanboy acknowledges the leak. The leak is real, the page caching preference doesn't fix it, and the devs are completely delusional.

Maybe all that Google loot has gotten to their heads? They don't care about the common user's memory issues. IMO, it's been downhill ever since the NY Times ad. Marketing is what FF is now about. The overriding goal is to increase market share.

"You peasant users will like the bloated software we give you! Don't even consider installing Opera!"

Re:Memory use (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271657)

No, but offloading it to SQLite means they can slowly remove the horrible parsing, storing, etc mechanisms for the current data formats. And it also means that, hopefully, tools will be developed for IT managers to easily sync bookmarks with their employee desktops, e.g, updating home pages, etc remotely.

Re:Memory use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271321)

A big part of the issue is that most of the FF zealots refuse to acknowledge the existence of the problem in the first place and sometimes even come back and blame the user.

Bloat or Performance Issues? (1)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270929)

Ok someone give me details on this "SQLite database engine" please.

I don't know anything about SQLLite but will this add any bloat/performance issues/etc the firefox 3.0? I mean a database engine to manage bookmarks seems like overkill to me.

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271067)

I mean a database engine to manage bookmarks seems like overkill to me.

Well, it is a 'lite' database engine...?

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (1)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271151)

But what does "lite" mean. At the cheesecake factory they have a "lite" cheesecake, it *ONLY* has 800 calories and like 35 grams of fat vs. its counterpart of 1300 calories and 70 grams of fat. Sure the 1st one is "lite" but by itself it's a whole lot of stomach and ass growing.

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (3, Informative)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271305)

But what does "lite" mean.
Well according to the SQLite homepage [sqlite.org] it means that the entire database engine fits inside of 250KiB fully configured, or less than 150KiB with optional features removed. That seems pretty light to me. If you're concerned about the impact of 250k of memory then you probably have a lot of things you should be worrying about before SQLite inclusion...

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271347)

1/3 less calories.

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (1)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271071)

I was going to make the same comment: it seems totally overkill to put a "bookmarks" or "favorites" feature into even a scaled down RDMS. I just hope they make it easy to back the damn things up and move them between machines. (yes, I know I could just use some online service). However, it is my end users who want to have them backed up and restored to other machines, etc.

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (5, Informative)

richwklein (767820) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271157)

SQLite is developed for embedding so it is miniscule (less than 250KiB). It was already included in Firefox 2.0 so it does not add any size to Firefox 3.0. It also allows for some interesting ideas that are being played with for the new release, like site annotation and full text indexing.

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (1)

Bandman (86149) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271649)

It also allows for some interesting ideas that are being played with for the new release, like site annotation and full text indexing.

GREAT. And with the way this project has been headed, they're going to be SURE that storing the text of the last 200 pages I've looked at in memory, so I can be sure to search through everything my browser has seen in the last week, in addition to the utterly crappy caching of the last however many pages I've had open since I opened my browser, and the memory footprint of my browser being open will somewhere around 80% of my 2GB of memory. ARGH.

I already have to close firefox if I look at totalfark then read a slashdot thread nested. It was worse, until I did the about:config hacks to kill the memory retention. Stupid bloated crap. Can I get Netscape 2 again, but with up to date CSS and JS? Please?

SQLite (1)

rjmx (233228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271243)

Try looking at http://www.sqlite.org/ [sqlite.org]

In essence, sqlite is a file-only rdbms. No networking. No user permissions (apart from those of the host filesystems, of course). Works with mostly standard SQL. Very lightweight and easy to use (I've used it for a couple of projects of my own, so it can't be too hard).

On my Debian lenny systems, the sqlite executable is around 35k, and the library file around 150k. That's pretty small.

Backing a database up involves copying the file somewhere else. That's all. Add to that the fact that it's well-documented (unlike most previous FF and Thunderbird data files), and it'd be silly NOT to use it.

.....Ron

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271083)

I don't know anything about SQLLite but will this add any bloat/performance issues/etc the firefox 3.0? I mean a database engine to manage bookmarks seems like overkill to me.

Yes, it's using artillery to shoot sparrows. It's messy, overkill, orders of magnitude bigger than a hash table, and slower too.

Any software will expand until it uses SQL-like databases and incorporates at least one scripting language of its own. No matter whether that's useful or not. It's a desire for abstraction of everything which has been the bane of programming since Djikstra became more popular as a reference for programming than Knuth.

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (5, Informative)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271137)

It's a very lightweight C library which basically enables "on the ground" SQL queries and such. No client/server mechanisms to worry about, no middleware (other than sqlite.dll, and even then you can just take the source and compile it in), and the security of the database is handled by security permissions on the file. That's right, "the" file. A single file contains the schema and data.

It fully supports transactions and is appropriately ACID. For someone who's had his Firefox bookmarks hosed before, this is very welcome for me.

The benefit of this will [hopefully] be fully searchable bookmarks and easy to move the bookmarks around to other computers.

I've used it in the past and it's been great for me. Check it out: http://www.sqlite.org/ [sqlite.org]

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (3, Informative)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271177)

Oh, and, it's fully cross-platform public domain, too. The database file is also equally portable. ^^-b

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271653)

Not to rain on the parade ( I dig sql lite ), but sql lite is most appropriate for light database work ( ha! who'da thought? ). I have attempted to run it in a more demanding environment ( greylisting on a semi-busy mail server ), and after a few days it tends to puke all over itself ( multiple ins and outs concurrently ).

For bookmarks, I'm sure it will work just fine. However, what I'd like to see from firefox are more corporate friendly features. Shared bookmarks, for example, to an sql backend. Group settings ( proxy address, home pages, look and feel, security to name a few settings I'd like to set group-wide ). These are just a few of the things I'd like to see centrally managed.

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (4, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271187)

Ok someone give me details on this "SQLite database engine" please.


Details [sqlite.org] .

I don't know anything about SQLLite but will this add any bloat/performance issues/etc the firefox 3.0?


SQLite by itself, I imagine, won't. How much else they do with it may or may not.

Re:Bloat or Performance Issues? (2, Informative)

blindd0t (855876) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271523)

Have you ever used a Linux music player such as Rythmbox or Amarok? These use SQLite, and do exceptionally well with dealing with a sizable database. Basically, SQLite is what MS Access was *supposed* to be in terms of a portable database file format, but instead it is a very good, successful implementation.

Thank God! (2, Insightful)

OwenMarshall (779270) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270939)

The Mork file format was one of the most braindead database systems ever. Coding to access it is ridiculously difficult.

Mork is dead... thank the gods.

Re:Thank God! (1)

jopet (538074) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271217)

Mork is indeed braindead, but it is as far as I understand not used for bookmarks (which uses essentially a plain HTML file), it is used for email metadata in Thunderbird (and Seamonkey).

Unfortunately, there is no indication that any work is done to move the backend for storing emails and email metadata in Thunderbird to something sensible. The way how this is done now prevents a lot of useful functions and extensions from getting implemented -- it is just not worth the hassle with a back-end that is based on mbox and mork.

Think of his loved ones, for cryin' out loud! (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271461)

Mork is dead... thank the gods.
Poor Mindy...

Leap? (1, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270947)

It's hard to leap when you're that big[1]. A few small steps, sure, but to qualify for a leap, I'd say one would have to replace HTTP or TCP/IP. And whether the direction is forward is also open for debate. If the browser takes up several times as much memory as the OS, I personally think it's time to find the axe and use it. Others may disagree -- which is why it's good there's more than one browser.

[1]: Obligatory "Look at the size of that thing!" quote.

Regards,
--
*Art

Reinventing the wheel? (1, Flamebait)

Rethcir (680121) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270951)

Look, I love firefox, but I can't really think of anything wrong with regular-ass bookmarks. I have no idea why they need to be in a database of any sort. This seems like a bloat feature to me.

Re:Reinventing the wheel? (1)

SquareVoid (973740) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271185)

That is great that regular booksmarks work for you. However, many people feel differently about it and is why they are reinventing the way we think about bookmarks. The feature will either sink or swim, but I welcome the attempt at change. Currently I am using google bookmarks, but that is not as fluid as I would like it to be.

Re:Reinventing the wheel? (1)

Rethcir (680121) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271249)

Care to elaborate? Are you talking about networking bookmarks directly thru firefox?

Re:Reinventing the wheel? (2, Interesting)

remmelt (837671) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271197)

Tagging? Sorting in more ways than alphabetically? Adding notes, relationships/links, sharing bookmarks, grouping, etc. These are off the top of my head, I'll stop here before this post tips over into buzzword land.

Re:Reinventing the wheel? (3, Funny)

RandomPrecision (911416) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271353)

Regular ass-bookmarks? Ew.

Felt the same about tabs (4, Insightful)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271413)

I felt the same before i tried tabs for a while, "I can't see anything wrong with just opening a new window for each new link i want to open separately".
I wouldn't judge it before i try it for a while.

bookmarks and history (1)

thegnu (557446) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271445)

I rather think that integrating bookmarks and history into a light database would be pretty decent. They can then put all my passwords, phone number, SSN, pictures of my penis, and home address in a database, and my life will soon be very Convenient(tm).

But really. /.ers seem very reluctant to apply Reading for Comprehension to the summary, which clearly states a restructuring of the system. Maybe this new feature will make us all happy and the genocide will stop. Speaking pragmatically, probably not.

I for one welcome our query-driven overlords.

In case none of you have guessed, I'm visiting a friend who is having lady trouble, and I am therefore drinking. w00t!

Re:Reinventing the wheel? (5, Interesting)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271447)

Look, I love firefox, but I can't really think of anything wrong with regular-ass bookmarks. I have no idea why they need to be in a database of any sort. This seems like a bloat feature to me.
Obviously you've never used Epiphany's bookmark system, with searchable tagging instead of hierarchical folders. It's rather nice and, due to searchability, you bookmark a lot more pages without worrying about getting an unmanageable mess of bookmarks. The tagging is nice because it lets you associate a bookmark with several different categories (which is pretty common). In general its just a nicer way to work with bookmarks. As to bloat -- you are aware that SQLite uses less than 250k for the entire database engine? That's hardly bloat, and the gains in bookmark management (presuming the Firefox guys put as nice a frontend on it as Epiphany did) are tremendous.

SQLite is in Firefox 2.0; What about SeaMonkey? (3, Informative)

Noksagt (69097) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270953)

Because Places uses the open-source SQLite database engine to store and retrieve bookmarks and history entries,
But SQLite is in Firefox 2.0 (and is already leveraged by extensions like Zotero). If Mozilla wanted to have the feature in the 2.x branch, I think they technically could (or, if a developer wanted to write an extension that allowed Firefox 2 to see both the old bookmarks and the new ones, there doesn't seem to be any critical impediments).

However, the Mozilla SeaMonkey suite doesn't yet have SQLite. Will it be unable to share bookmarks with the new Firefox? Or will it get SQLite before Firefox 3 is released?

Changes (4, Informative)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270961)

For anyone wondering what's going to change in FireFox 3.0 (Wikipedia quotes):

The largest known change for Firefox 3 is the implementation of Gecko 1.9, an updated layout engine. It will also provide CSS3 columns.[90] Firefox 3 will include features that were bumped from Firefox 2, such as the overhauled Places system for storing bookmarks and history in an SQLite backend, according to the wiki.

Also, what's expected to come in FireFox 4.0 (also Wikipedia):

On October 13, 2006, Brendan Eich, Mozilla's Chief Technology Officer, wrote about the plans for Mozilla 2.0, the platform on which Firefox 4.0 is likely to be based. These changes include improving and removing XPCOM APIs, switching to standard C++ features, just-in-time compilation with JavaScript 2 (known as the Tamarin project), and tool-time and runtime security checks.

How much memory does it consume? (1, Informative)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270975)

Hmmmmm, 285Mb with 2 windows and 2 tabs open. Only 18Mb shared too, which isn't a good sign for our multi user machines.

  4331 me 15 0 285m 67m 18m S 1.7 3.4 0:27.10 firefox-bin

I don't know, is it windows guys developing it these days?

 

Re:How much memory does it consume? (1)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271119)

Must be, since on Windows Vista it is currently taking 48 MB with three windows and 10 tabs. Doesn't seem to be a problem here. Of course, I hear a lot of the issues are with extensions and I only run one: adblock plus.

Re:How much memory does it consume? (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271571)

No extensions running. I'll have a look at 3.0.

 

Re:How much memory does it consume? (1)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271351)

It's a feature, not a bug. Firefox will cache the last few sites you visit in RAM so you can quickly move back. You can disable it if you want.

Re:How much memory does it consume? (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271375)

I haven't seen Fx2.0 go over 100MB except when I'm really pushing it. 3.0a2 wasn't much different. Right now it's at 60MB.

PID PRI USER NI VIRT RES SHR S CPU% MEM% TIME+ Command
22784 3 ant 0 142M 59704 20028 S 0.0 3.2 3:56.73 /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/firefox-bin

first memory leak FUD of the thread .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271377)

"Hmmmmm, 285Mb with 2 windows and 2 tabs open. Only 18Mb shared too, which isn't a good sign for our multi user machines"

The alleged leak is to do with Firefox using memory to cache pages. The solution is simple. Type about:config in the address bar and schange browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer , browser.cache.memory.capacity and config.trim_on_minimize.

Firefox here .. 37 MB with 2 windows and 2 tabs open and any increase is to do with the size of the cache. --

I like Firefox except for $RANDOM.FUD ..

was: How much memory does it consume? (Score: Firefox memory leak FUD)

Re:first memory leak FUD of the thread .. (1)

svallarian (43156) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271609)

Type about:config in the address bar and schange browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer , browser.cache.memory.capacity and config.trim_on_minimize.

Tell me again what about that is, in any way, simple.

Re:first memory leak FUD of the thread .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271685)

"Tell me again what about that is, in any way, simple"

Firefox's Memory Leak Bug or a Feature ? [blogspot.com]

Re:How much memory does it consume? (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271385)

Yeah seeing as how I only have 5 tabs open (3 slashdot, 2 mostly plaintext sites) and Firefox has steadily increased its memory usiage from 170MB to 187MB now for me... Ooooh 188MB keeps going. 189MB. While I write this post. Please add more features.

FWIW I have no extensions or themes installed, either. (190MB)!!

Re:How much memory does it consume? (1)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271409)

How do you mesure that memory usage?

Re:How much memory does it consume? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271599)

You mean like how Microsoft Outlook uses memory (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/827310)? Maybe its a problem with your OS.

If you're using less than 100% of the memory in your system, its going to waste...

Re:How much memory does it consume? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271391)

disable firebug.

Re:How much memory does it consume? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271651)

285 of VMA. 67 Resident. VMA space may not be linked to anything in particular, for example files opened with mmap() take VMA space but can be removed from memory at will (so sometimes they are resident, sometimes they are not) because you can re-read the data from the file. If you change the file data, it either A) changes in the file; or B) gets copied permanently to memory, depending on how you mmap() it (shared, private).

Bring it on... (4, Interesting)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270977)

I'm looking forward to this going gold for just one reason: some of the sites I visit frequently have a particularly in-your-face usage of auto-refresh which pisses me off (i.e. insisting on re-loading just when I'm in the middle of reading a particular paragraph). FF 3.0 (I heard) is supposed to be able to block this...

Re:Bring it on... (4, Informative)

oldmacdonald (80995) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271123)

The refresh blocker [vakuumverpackt.de] extension might be what you're looking for.

Why not a pluggable API? (0)

jrumney (197329) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271081)

Wouldn't it be a better idea to come up with a pluggable API for bookmark storage and retrieval? This way users could keep the old storage format if they had a reason to prefer it, or write a new backend that shared bookmarks directly with IE, use del.icio.us or other web based bookmark providers etc.

Personally, I switched to del.icio.us about a year ago, and will never switch back to being tied to local storage for bookmarks, no matter what advantages this change brings. The few sites I don't want to post to the web I can easily remember the addresses of, and autocompletion means they are only a couple of keystrokes away.

Re:Why not a pluggable API? (1)

richwklein (767820) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271419)

In the list of features slated for Firefox 3.0 is a sync api to allow for these kind of things. The places apis also allows for something called remote containers. Remote containers let you implement a folder with bookmarks from a different datasource, some examples that come to mind: file system, ie favorites, del.icio.us, etc...

Bookmarks (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271103)

my bookmarks collection got so big that i removed them from my firefox profile and created several html pages (categorized) with only the links (without all the other meta info) and bookmarked the pages...

Re:Bookmarks (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271261)

I do the same. I'd love to have an editor that allowed you to drag and drop URLs around the way files can be moved in explorer/konqueror.

Stop bitching, you noobs. (4, Insightful)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271215)

All posts resembling the pattern “why don't they fix this problem instead!?” are off the mark, irrelevant, and just plain whiny. Just because some new feature is being added does not mean your pet peeve is going completely ignored. There is more than one person working on this thing, and as remarkable as it may seem, many software development tasks can be done in parallel! Imagine that: doing more than one thing at once on a project!

And, to the dorks complaining of feature bloat. (4, Insightful)

Lethyos (408045) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271343)

Adding new features is not automatically a bad thing. It does not intrinsically slow down a program or make it cumbersome. Of course, these are two possible side-effects, but are not always certain. With good practices and architecture, new features are a boon, not a bust. Also, think of all the things the computer on your desktop does right now. Would you rather it have the functionality of a machine from a few decades ago because people complained that expanding its usefulness was counter-productive? Let products evolve, let engineers innovate, and let the process for coping with the consequences work.

I cannot believe some of the mundane topics Slashbots will harp on these days. Get over it and try adding some useful dialogue to the stories instead of bitching about things you do not understand or understand only as a result of experience with one particular vendor in Redmond.

Re:Stop bitching, you noobs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271421)

many software development tasks can be done in parallel! Imagine that: doing more than one thing at once on a project!

In this case, "coding" with one hand and masturbating with the other.

Light version? (3, Interesting)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271269)

I love Firefox ( or Iceweasel as it is called on Debian ) but I am running a fairly streamlined xfce install and currently fire.. err... Iceweasel, is using about the same amount of memory as the rest of the system combined. I know there are other browsers, but I really do like Iceweasel, except for the memory footprint. Seeing that I only use a fairly small subset of the features it would be nice to have a light version with just the essentials. I wouldn't suggest axing the features other users love and depend on, but perhaps provide an alternative for those of us who really don't need an advanced database for our 3-4 bookmarks ?

PS: It would also be nice if Firefox didn't highlight "Iceweasel" as a typo.

Re:Light version? (1)

milo_a_wagner (1002274) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271333)

Camino?

memory leak FUD #3 .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271543)

"Iceweasel, is using about the same amount of memory as the rest of the system combined"

I wouldn't have known about the issue except that every time Firefox is mentioned on slashdot it gets talked about. The alleged leak is to do with Firefox using memory to cache pages. The solution is simple. Type about:config in the address bar and change browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer , browser.cache.memory.capacity and config.trim_on_minimize.

Firefox here .. 37 MB with 2 windows and 2 tabs open and any increase is to do with the size of the cache. --

I love Firefox except for $RANDOM.FUD ..

was: Light version? (Score:2)

Re:memory leak FUD #3 .. (1)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271587)

So if that's all there is to "fix" it why don't they release an update then? Seems this is a band aid approach. And what about all the non tech people who use firefox, if you learned it form /. , and they don't read /. How would they know this fix?

Ok, but.... (1)

Interested Bystander (1106793) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271311)

I only just upgraded to 2.0! Sighs and reminds self that only dead products (and people) are static. We now return you to your normally uplifting /.

Firefox became a hog (4, Insightful)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271315)

Where are the times when it was a quick and lightweight browser I loved? Today... Konqueror > FF.

Re:Firefox became a hog (1)

simong (32944) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271439)

There's always Opera. That fits on a floppy. Doesn't it? God, I'm old.

Re:Firefox became a hog (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271679)

There's always Opera. That fits on a floppy. Doesn't it?

Only if you're using a really old version of Opera. Current downloads of the US-English version run 4.0 MB. The download with all available language packs is 6.3 MB.

Fortunately, you're more likely to find a USB port than a floppy drive on most computers these days, so the extra size doesn't make much of a difference.

Alpha 5? (1)

ZOmegaZ (687142) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271331)

Ayi ayi ayi!

Go back to the drawing board (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271357)

FF is a fucking fraud! It doesn't deserve to be labeled version 3.0. Even a version like is 0.0.0.0.0.1 is being generous.

This bloated monstrosity has run it's course. How many millions is Google pumping into the idea-bankrupt Mozilla Corp.? And they can't put up a million dollar bounty sum to fix the memory problems? Fuck, even Netscape 4 was better than this shit. At least it didn't take 30 minutes to start up and consume a gig+ of RAM.

Who uses local bookmarks anymore? (3, Interesting)

Wolfger (96957) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271365)

As a user of multiple computers (work, home, friend's house), I use del.icio.us and the Firefox plug-in for it, and all my bookmarks are stored in a database that I can access from any computer. That's superior to this new "improvement". I think browser developers are really scraping the bottom of the barrel, looking in vain for "the next big thing". I'd rather see work done on useful plug-ins. That work well with existing browsers, than see a new browser that has some improvements of debatable worth that break the old way of doing things entirely.

SQLite is brilliant (4, Interesting)

athloi (1075845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271393)

This lightweight, fast, simple database eliminates many of the headaches associated with using a full-on SQL installation, and works just as well for most of what most developers and users need.

If you're a Perl geek, like me, you will find this Perl module for seamless SQLite interface [cpan.org] to be a power tool. The next time you need to get something working by morning, and it's 2am and the person "in charge of databases" hasn't called back, you'll be thanking it.

Why Do We Need This? (1, Insightful)

Blahbooboo3 (874492) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271415)

So instead of having a nice simple bookmarks.html file it is all in some places.sqlite file. A few questions/observations.

1) If this is correct, disappointing that the devs called the bookmarks file places.sqlite instead of bookmarks.sqlite so people know where the bookmarks are if you want to move them. Am I correct?

2) Is this new file now no longer human readable the way bookmarks.html?

3) Someone please tell me how this makes my life better as a normal Firefox user? Sure sounds like change for change sake to me...

Re:Why Do We Need This? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271673)

1) If this is correct, disappointing that the devs called the bookmarks file places.sqlite instead of bookmarks.sqlite so people know where the bookmarks are if you want to move them. Am I correct?


Since "Places" integrates, among other things, bookmarks and history, calling it "bookmarks.sqlite" would be misleading to a certain extent; since the feature in Firefox 3.0 that combines those prior features will be known as "Places", I think "places.sqlite" would be a natural name.

2) Is this new file now no longer human readable the way bookmarks.html?


I believe SQLite files are not easily human readable, though there is a command-line query tool that lets you query them.

3) Someone please tell me how this makes my life better as a normal Firefox user?


You might want to look at the Mozilla Wiki discussion of Places [mozilla.org] as a starting point.

Bloat... (0, Troll)

Eddi3 (1046882) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271437)

Pointless extra bloat (like this) is the reason I still use Firefox 1.5. It's fast, and has all the features I need, and unless these conditions improve, I can't imagine why I would try to fix something that wasn't broken.

I don't want features; I ONLY want speed (0, Redundant)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271477)

scrolling is painful on FF.

I'm using the latest 2.x trunk, built from ports on freebsd.

mouse based scrolling is VERY VERY slow. even on a very fast box (c2duo e6600 3gig ram).

I'm not sure what they are doing to make scrolling so bad but I would think the engine is already too bloated in terms of how much i/o and cpu it needs JUST to scroll pages!

I'm happy with the feature set for 2.0. I need no new features. I DO need usability improvements and that's mostly in terms of screen speed.

(or do I have to give up and go to opera just to get reasonably modern scrolling speed?)

Lightweight browser (-1, Redundant)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271481)

I thought Firefox was supposed to be a lightweight browser, and now they want to ship SQL database with it?

Who has so many bookmarks that they need a relational database to manage them all?

Re:Lightweight browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19271601)

It's not the database in itself that is the bloat here, but the whole query language interface and parsing routines needed to use it. Yes, it causes bloat and is going to be orders of magnitude slower than any well written hash table.

Native Mac UI (4, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#19271503)

It's also worth noting that native form controls for Mac OS X were enabled yesterday [wordpress.com] , something Firefox's Mac users have been clamoring for since the 0.x days.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?