Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Great. (Score 1) 225

yahoo as search engine is one of their way to earn money, they have to pay everyone! just like you install add-on, you just swap the search engine for whatever you like.

I do not know about mac, but on linux, if i press the customization, i the can right click on the menu bar and select it to always show, no need a add on for that.
They hide the status and menu bars so smaller screens have more space for web pages. Not everyone have high end computers with big screens, and metrics show that both status bar and menu bars are mostly unused. I too restored the status bar in the past, but i finally agree that is not needed. My menu bar is still always visible!

I do agree that they added some trash, but again, it is just some way to get some money without selling the user base

>Dump the new API, then you won't have layers upon layers, just the one that works.
Not one option! Again, multi-process, restrict add-on usage of internal code and servo integration will force the API to change! that or firefox will stop... but then, nothing stops you of using one old firefox version or using pale moon.

Comment Re:Great. (Score 1) 225

Add-on right now can mess with firefox internal and make it leak memory, crash and steal data it should not even have access. They are dangerous! Mozilla tries to review all add-ons. but there are too many, malware can be hidden in code and only major bug may be found in the review.
Also, both API will exist in parallel and the way to "encourage" add-on to migrate to the new API is saying that they will end by year end

About performance, it is not only javascript, the all GUI, web, network, images share the same process. Firefox feal laggy due to that, specially compared with webkit browsers. And again, even if many people do not like javascript webapps (myself included) and prefer plain html pages and native apps, they will not stop existing, quite the opposite, all those java and flash apps will be migrated to javascript heavy pages, many native apps will be migrated to webapps (so they can cash a subscription and more agile developer model). There is nothing you, me or mozilla can do about it. Just look at the speed that gmail took the web and the birth of many heavy webapps in the web, how every site used jquery and/or other js frameworks, even if they do not really need it!

Finally, between flash or java and javascript heavy webapps, i prefer the latest! without it, the web would be full of flash and java, a truly horrible place!

Comment Re:Great. (Score 1) 225

>Doesn't a fast browser with fewer addons basically describe Google Chrome?

Browsers are all the "same", with little different details. Those details are the key
firefox is the open standard champion , flexible, open and protects your privacy. Sync is also a killer feature for many people
chrome is big, open, but tracks you and is not as flexible as firefox (google totally controls it)
chromium track you less, but still tracks you, or will be several missing features. It is open, but google still mostly controls it
edge is closed, tracks you, is little flexible and tries to pull a new IE (lock you up in closed standards, hidden agenda). It also miss some w3c features. It is not cross-platform
safari is closed, not flexible at all, miss many w3c features (simply because they refuse to do it, hidden agenda) and tried to push their closed and patented formats, it is also not really cross-platform (no one really use it in windows)

>Why don't you just switch to that if speed trumps customization for you?

Please notice that firefox is not killing add-on or customization, most of the currently working add-ons will be redone. Most add-on are not happy mostly because they will need to redo it and the more limited API (but needed for security reasons)

>I haven't seen a lot of people complaining about speed for any browser.

firefox single process was "slow", but not in the sense of page load speed, but in small hiccups and lack of smooth operation in certain areas... one heavy tab
affects the all browser, locks and crashes in one tab lock and crash all tabs. Multi-process was set to solve most of this, with rust/servo being the final fix.
Most people report that chrome is faster because it starts fast and each tab (mostly) is a different process, so switching tab is always smooth and heavy tabs do not really lock the other ones in different process. Firefox single process design with javascript heavy pages do not scale and with time, with more javascript, this is getting worse...all the small problems make user prefer webkit browsers

Comment Re:Great. (Score 1) 225

Also, chrome for a couple of tabs is ok, but eats lot of cpu, uses lot of ram with many tabs. Firefox in the past was the worst in resource usage, but now is chrome!
Firefox can scale to many tab without using so much resources. Multi-process is helping more in that too.

Firefox also do not track you, quite the opposite, they are adding several tracking protection to the browser

Comment Re:Great. (Score 5, Informative) 225

Because current add-on design do not work with multi-process!!

They are not ending the add-on, they must be migrated to the new API. Sadly many add-on are abandoned and will not be migrated. Others will not be allowed to do some functions, almost all of then must be rewritten. But the current add-on have fatal flaws and are doomed sooner or later.

There are several problems with the current^WOLD add-on layer
1- Old add-on have too much access to the firefox internals (security, memory leaks and performance problems)
2- Old add-ons do not know how to work with multi-process and mozilla had to simulate a pool+lock for then to work (big lock, performance problems)
3- Migrating code from Servo to Geko would break many add-on unless there are many compatibility layers (performance and code maintenance problems)

1-They could swap unsafe parts slowly and break many add-on on each release, forcing a slow and never ending add-on update cycle. It is much easier to just swap the API and warn that everyone must rewrite.
2-Add-ons need to be fixed or else the browser will not really use the multi-process well and worse, may be even slower because of the big lock. If they remove the compatilbity layer, add-on stop working, but postponing the removal will keep the browser slower too and the add-on may never be updated (multi-process is already a several years project and all add-ons where flagged to be updated, but many are just abandoned). So wait more is not a solution, they need to be rewrite
3-No one wants layers over layers, it is a maintenance hell, specially because the add-on have access to almost everything. Migrating to a simpler API make mozilla job much easier, firefox safer. Add-on will have to be rebuild and developers need to learn a new API. They will also be unable to do some things they can right now, but on the good side, it will much easier to port add-on between chrome and firefox and the add-on can be run in separated process, so bad add-on will be easier to stop and control.

Yes, i too would like to keep all the add-ons, but between a fast browser with fewer add-ons and a slow one with many outdated add-ons, i prefer the first one. You can not complain about firefox being slow and also complain about keeping old add-ons. To fix one, you need to fix the other too! and you can not delay this, market share is shrinking due firefox being slower.

They were making changes slowly, as they were mostly doing the last few years, and try to not break the add-ons, but you can not postpone a big internal change forever and now it is time to drop some old features, like NPAPI plugins and the old add-on interface

What i hope is that mozilla is now more open to some features, as some features will be blocked to add-ons, mozilla need to be more flexible on certain features. The google design model ("only allow features that at least 80% of people use") is bad for firefox, as many of the users of firefox are the 20% of excluded people in chrome

Comment Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive (Score 1) 87

it's the only power generation, at all, that's pre-funding cleanup..
if you don't even know how much that cleanup will cost, how it is funding it!
they must put some cleanup money now, because later may not be any money for that (company went bust) and the cleanup is REQUIRED due the time scale of the dangers, but you are crazy to think that money will be enough.
Petrol, coal, gas, solar, water, etc may have a "half live" contamination of some years and about 100 years for the structures (maybe a little more for dams). Nuclear is thousand of years... some elements are millions of years. yes, pre-pay that because you will not rise from the dead to pay it later

Rock do not protect you from leaks ->water sheet contamination->food chain.
Also due the time scale, caves can collapse or give alternative open access and spread the radioactive elements
Finally, malicious usage of the waste are also on the table, as again this is a ultimate weapon that can devastate a huge area.
you have to protect this wastes for thousand of years... in containers that were designed to last 100 years (and as we see, are even lasting that long!)

But if it so safe, go live near one of the waste storage.

Recycling the nuclear waste may help, but it is also expensive and still do not solve all the problem, you just get more concentrate and dangerous nuclear waste that you still have to store. Maybe later there is a way to recycle the recycled waste, who knows!
One of the problems of recycling the nuclear waste is that you need to move very dangerous waste all around the countries. Accident may happen and even worse, terrorist attacks

2/3 is legal fees and other shit?! are you high?! there are requirements because this is dangerous, without then companies will sooner or later cut corners. but building a nuclear plan is huge investment due the all things needed, not because legal fees. just check how much it cost to build the protective casing in Chernobyl... there was no legal fees and it is now a full plant

Comment Re:return to profits is easy... (Score 1) 87

True, both ways generate huge profits for the stock owners and CEO at the cost of the common people.

But all new techs have bubbles and from the thousand of companies that show up, only a few will survive and grow, all others will go bust. Those that invest need to know how to choose and what to choose. Nuclear included

Comment Re: Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive (Score -1, Troll) 87

another trump puppet... facts are just annoying details, that can be safely ignored, right?!!
every bad things in the world (including wars, diseases and famine) are because we are not burning enough coal...the bible say that somewhere for sure!!!

Comment Re:Nuclear: too dangerous, too expensive (Score 1, Insightful) 87

buidling a nuclear plant is a HUGE investment... true that it have a long life...but you are just another one that thinks that nuclear waste do not cost any money and somebody else problem. For you and anybody that think like this, you and your family (and all future childrends) should move next to a nuclear waste storage and not leave for thousand of years

Comment return to profits is easy... (Score -1, Flamebait) 87

As this is in the USA, to return to profits is easy... just cut down costs!

example, turn off those pumps... they are pumping water all day in a cycle, it is going no where, just turn then off!
everything is always breaking or cracking, just delay repair one month and you will see that you will save one months of repairs... do this all 10 months and you will save 10 months! pure profit!!
all that space and tech to store radioactive waste... just dump it to the near river, let nature (and the bible) deal with it

Just do not forget to give first some stock to trump and all "tea party" republicans and you will for sure be praised as a great business! :D

Comment Re:someone needs to configure and deploy the robot (Score 1) 369

after that, communism (Carl Max one, not Stalin one!!) will be a good model, robot will do the work, everyone will receive money and do thinks that like and money in the end will be lot less important... think in a Star Trek like world

do not know why, but i have a feeling that i'm missing some "?????" (probably with lot of problems and deads) somewhere :)

Slashdot Top Deals

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre