Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

A programmed abortion

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 4:00

What happens when a former Internet Juggernaut like AOL fails?

They join with the monumental failure of Netscape, and then abort the love child.

That dead fetus is named FireFox.

Sometimes, the truth hurts the ignorant.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 4:16

Feels good man.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 4:21

abcdefg, hijklmnop, qrs, tuv, w, x, y and z

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 4:23

The dead fetus is the Mozilla Suite.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 5:07

‮‫‏>>4
Then what does that make Firefox?‎‭‪‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‎‪‭

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 5:37

Mozilla Suite was ok.
I was using it until maybe 2006 because Firefox was slower.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 5:53

I AM LOVING THE OPERA

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 6:03

I furiously use w3m because I am not a faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 6:25

>>5
Mozilla Suite is the aborted foetus. SeaMonkey is the unaborted twin of said foetus with downs syndrome. Firefox is the village bicycle younger sister with crabs. Camino is Firefox's gay cousin.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 6:46

Excellent logic here guys. 10/10 for creativity.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 12:25

What is arachne?

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 12:29

>>11
Someone living in a particular middle eastern country.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 13:05

>>11

That . . . that must have been a hideous experience.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 13:07

The Mozilla timeline is a fuckin' mess filled with inbreeding and abortions.1

It went from Mosaic to Mosaic Navigator/Netscape Navigator which spawned Mozilla which spawned Netscape and Firefox and then Netscape ended up eating Firefox and spawned SeaMonkey.1

Also, it's Firefox, not your toy representation of "FireFox." In fact, Firefox's own dictionary highlights "FireFox" as a spelling error.

1 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Timeline_of_web_browsers.svg

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 13:56

>>14
I think you are making the possibly-incorrect assumption that >>1 uses said browser.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 14:25

31<<

You know it

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 14:47

While this thread sucks, I'd like to mention that tech-wise, the Gecko rendering engine is rather competitive. It is also very solid and what's implemented is implemented well, instead of whoring to claim support for stuff doing a half-assed job at it like most of the competition does.

Perceived problems with Firefox mostly come from front-end decisions that make some users butthurt (I've suffered this too - it seems they have a special power that makes them likely to change enough stuff to piss off everyone), and from bad structure (all single-threaded crap that blocks everything, which hurts a lot perceived performance).

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 15:22

MORK

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 15:31

>>18
Mork is already dead. That is, unless you use Thunderbird.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 16:01

I do not use a mailing programme because I am not a faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 16:20

I do not spell program like programme because I am not a faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 16:48

>>21
But why? You see, programmers are programmeing, programmes are the result, that's logical.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 17:32

You see, spammers are spammeing, spamme is the result, that's logical.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 18:24

Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programmes.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 18:30

Haxing of aniie

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 18:32

Your gaye

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 18:35

whate aboute mye gaye

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 18:49

Firefail doesn't render the CSS height class correctly.
Firefail constantly makes version breaking changes to its awful rendering (see: legend tag).
Firefail has more security vulnerabilities than IE (look it up faggot).
Firefail still memory leaks.
Firefail continues to poorly implement drafts specs.
Firefail is in perpetual beta requiring updates very few weeks.
Firefail isn't above version breaking changes that make all plug-ins stop working.
Firefail is slow despite the "benchmarks".

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 18:51

Remember how Firefox 2 couldn't correctly wrap long inline elements.

Firefox gets so many basic rendering scenarios incredibly wrong.

At least the furries love it.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 18:59

>>28
Calling Firefoxe ``Firefail'' is not witty.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 19:27

>>28
Although replying to trolls will just make them stronger,
doesn't render the CSS height class correctly.
I can't comment on this but I hear much worse complaints about the other browsers.
constantly makes version breaking changes to its awful rendering (see: legend tag).
What's a “version breaking change”?
has more security vulnerabilities than IE (look it up faggot).
But it attracts less attention. Good luck exploiting my minefield nightly build. Specially since it's unlikely you'll be in my NoScript whitelist. In any case, if you really care about security, it does allow you to do more stuff than the other browsers to try and protect yourself.
still memory leaks.
[citation needed] - It works great for me. Specially since some of the stuff in 3.0 hit, such as storing the images compressed on their original format, so opening a page with 10MB of JPEGs will only end up consuming 10MB of RAM, instead of the hundreds of megabytes you'd get elsewhere. I've run very long and hard sessions, with literally hundreds of tabs open, and memory management has never been an issue. I really think it does great, better than IE and Opera for sure. Chrome is interesting because it actually terminates the processes freeing everything, but that model isn't really useful with 100 tabs open since it's limited to 20 processes.
continues to poorly implement drafts specs.
Can't comment on that one, but really makes me wonder how, say, IE fares in that respect, since last time I checked it was still missing a lot of basic stuff, such as SVG (yes, shit sucks, but people still want it so enjoy your Flash shit).
is in perpetual beta requiring updates very few weeks
The 3.0 series hasn't seen a lot of releases, in fact, less than one very month (this is relevant because that's the rate MS packs fixes together). And installing them is pretty painless and doesn't require a FULL SYSTEM REBOOT and assorted continuous nagging or dataloss scenarios that are typical in other ENTERPRISE-QUALITY update solutions.
isn't above version breaking changes that make all plug-ins stop working
I think you are mistaking extensions and plugins. The great versioning system it has is to preemptively prevent trouble, you can disable it and 99% of the extensions will, in fact, work perfectly. Otherwise you can have it the IE way: lots of crashes until it hits the topcrash list and MS releases an update to blacklist the older versions. In any case, due to the nature of extensions, this is not really fixable without basically anchoring the browser forever. Also, when comparing update hassle, you should consider that IE has been basically frozen for a fuckton of years, and new versions when they do come out have similar problems.
is slow despite the "benchmarks"
When people misreport Acid3 scores because the test freezes for over a minute and therefore seems to have finished, you know you're really in trouble. In all seriousness though, I do believe in general it's faster on most stuff, and you can tweak it (mostly network settings, also rendering) for it to be as fast as you want. Some extensions also contribute to improving performance via selectively blocking crap (ads and even javascript) - this is hardly an exclusive feature though. Its single-threaded architecture is a problem though, IE and Chrome have a clear edge there.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 19:28

>>31
YHBTE

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-07 23:28

>>31
Apparently to some, the memory leak problem is either due to leaky plugins (Flash) or Firefox's memory fragmentation problem[1].

[1]http://blog.pavlov.net/2007/11/10/memory-fragmentation/

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-08 0:10

>>33
That "problem" is not Firefox's. It's the standard C libraries, on both Windows and Linux, that provide a incredibly shitty malloc() implementation.

Had you read more of that blog, you'd have noticed these two posts:
http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/02/05/jemalloc-now-on-the-trunk/
http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage/

I recomend you read http://people.freebsd.org/~jasone/jemalloc/bsdcan2006/jemalloc.pdf - that's what I call a half-decent allocator. You can malloc() two bytes of memory, and the amortized cost will be... 17 bits. I'm not making this up. Fuck those retards who say "you should request a big block and manage it yourself". What's the point of malloc() then? If I wanted to do that, I'd use sbrk() or mmap() or VirtualAlloc() directly.

And yes, having a decent allocator in the standard library would suddenly make all applications run faster and smaller. Of course something like Firefox is very sensitive to this compared with other apps, but still...

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-08 6:18

i malloc my anus

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-08 6:29

What's the point of malloc() then? If I wanted to do that, I'd use sbrk() or mmap() or VirtualAlloc() directly.
malloc() is a lot more portable than any of those alternatives.
also, freebsd uses jemalloc. stop complaining and use a decent operating system already.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-08 7:02

>>36
prooforstfunoob

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-08 7:25

PRO OF ORST FUN OOB

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-08 19:21

>>1
>>2
Same person.

>>2

Feels good man.

Back to /b/, please.

Name: Anonymous 2009-02-25 7:22


Really easy shit to   a lot of   languages which you   use depending on   the given name   Code is include.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List