Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla Linux

Mozilla Starts To Follow a New Drumbeat 226

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the boom-snikt-snikt-boom dept.
ChiefMonkeyGrinder writes "Key, then, to the Drumbeat project is openness, specifically openness as applied to the Internet. That fits in well with the original impulses behind Mozilla and Firefox. The former was about transforming the Netscape Communicator code into an open source browser, and the latter was about defending open standards from Microsoft's attempt to lock people into Internet Explorer 6 and its proprietary approaches. Both Mozilla and Firefox have succeeded, but the threats have now changed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Starts To Follow a New Drumbeat

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Crunchy Goodness! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sajuuk (1371145) on Monday January 11, 2010 @11:55AM (#30723864)
    Tell me about it. The plugins I need for web development push FFox up to 400-500MB of memory usage usually (physical+virtual usage).
  • by fprintf (82740) on Monday January 11, 2010 @12:09PM (#30724034) Journal

    Just look at the Firefox 3.6 news where Mozilla is going to be reducing the size of the sandbox that developers get to play in. Many feel this is a good move, but there are plenty of other developers and users that are going to be left in the cold. As long as they don't impede the function of Adblock+ and NoScript then I will remain a happy Firefox user.

  • Re:Crunchy Goodness! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eltaco (1311561) on Monday January 11, 2010 @01:24PM (#30725076)
    generally you do have a point, but the mentality of just throwing more mem and cpu at inefficient programs is wasteful.
    microsoft went that way with vista - just stuff everything in there, lads! people'll just buy more ram. but this backfired badly, as vista came out just before the big netbook and smaller-is-better hype.

    we shouldnt need a fracking beowulf cluster of powerhouse PCs to run a browser or some other everyday app.
  • Re:bad writing. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mooingyak (720677) on Monday January 11, 2010 @02:29PM (#30725972)

    Maybe you should RTFA yourself and you would realize my comment was entirely correct.

    Your original post was not insightful at all. You were purely poking fun at TFA and the "editor". (Not that there was any editing done, a point that's already been made).

    The mods on here today must have their heads screwed on backwards to give you Insightful and Funny.

    So bitter. If you examined it a little more closely instead of channeling your nerd rage, you might have realized my 2nd comment was self deprecating and not critical of you, unlike this one.

  • Re:Ministry of Truth (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Monday January 11, 2010 @02:38PM (#30726082) Homepage

    Yeah, I remember Firefox before it was Firefox (as I'm sure many others do), and I don't remember such clear, specific, and grand plans regarding IE's lock in. It was more that Mozilla's suite had a relatively small but loyal following, and a good portion of that following was displeased by various problems with the suite. For one, it was slow. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of the blame fell on the idea that too much was being crammed into one app (it was a browser, email client, newgroups, HTML editor, and chat client), and it was bloated. Firefox (I think when I first used it, it was Phoenix) was a very lightweight application that seemed to be little beyond the HTML renderer with a toolbar. It was fast, and its UI looked much more native in Windows.

    As it became popular, Mozilla may have developed much different goals for Firefox. I don't know the internal politics of the Mozilla Foundation. Certainly at a certain point, the whole "Spread Firefox" thing certainly was about increasing adoption and increasing support for web standards, thereby weakening Microsoft's lock-in. I'm not sure it makes sense to call that the "original impulse behind Firefox," but it was a goal for Firefox that many people had. And still have.

  • Re:Crunchy Goodness! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dballanc (100332) on Monday January 11, 2010 @04:52PM (#30728442)

    No, it's not that hardware that is the problem. My netbook with FF under windows spanks the interative performance of FF under linux on my main laptop most of the time. 1G Atom vs 4G Core2 2.5. I'm not talking about render time necessarily, I'm referring to responsiveness when I click a button, or try to type in a field, etc.

  • by Futurepower(R) (558542) <MJennings.USA@NOT_any_of_THISgmail.com> on Tuesday January 12, 2010 @03:26PM (#30741488) Homepage
    Thank you.

    Also, of course, if the grandparent poster had bothered to investigate, Firefox experiences a LOT of crashes, and has for years. Apparently Firefox developers don't know how to debug that kind of failure. Apparently the more than $200 million has not been enough.

    The randomness of failure reports suggests that Firefox writes to a random location memory that is important in some systems and not others. Definitely the way events are handled has degraded in the last few versions. Firefox often takes a long time to process a mouse event, for example, even when Firefox has been the only program in use for a long time.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. -- Francis Bacon

Working...