Erunno

14 ms·

1.
by Erunno 14y ago
I doubt that the patch helps in this particular case as all images are present in the DOM, so Firefox will merrily load all of the images, independent of whether they are visible or not. This has been a longstanding architectural problem.
2.
by Erunno 14y ago
No, by their own admission Firefox just sucks at displaying pages with a lot of images such as this one [1]. [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=683284
3.
by Erunno 14y ago
Mea culpa, I didn't want to steal the thunder from the great guys at Opera. From my end user perspective I only remember Opera supporting the <video> tag in a version which was released almost a year after Firefox 3.5 [1]. [1] http
4.
by Erunno 14y ago
I know I start sounding like a broken record for those who read my comments regularly in these kind of threads, but I always feel inclined to point out that Chrome's much-lauded architecture has clear limitations once you start to push it t
5.
by Erunno 14y ago
Firebug is most likely the culprit [1]. Firefox 15 will have a general fix for the kind of memory leaks such as the one caused by Firebug (affectionately called "Hueyfix" after its inventor Kyle Huey by some) [2]. [1] https://bugzilla.mozi
6.
by Erunno 14y ago
This is probably why so many features from Mozilla end up in other browsers: -Notification bar in pretty much all browsers. -Doorhanger panels -Download pane which Safari managed to release first (unfortunately a common pattern) -HTML5 vide
7.
by Erunno 14y ago
Unfortunately one misbehaving extension is enough to break Firefox' memory usage. I ran a fresh profile without any extensions for a few days recently and it was a marvel: Firefox kept releasing all memory immediately once I closed tabs.
8.
by Erunno 14y ago
Unfortunately Google's policy doesn't cause only malicious extensions to be removed from their web store. For instance, All Mangas Reader, a combined reader and management tool for online manga sites, was removed from the store for "copyrig
9.
by Erunno 14y ago
FWIW if you switch Firefox to small icon mode, hide the addon bar (previously status bar) and the bookmark bar, then Firefox only has a few vertical pixel less than Chrome for the content area. That's how I use my Firefox at least.
10.
by Erunno 14y ago
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257061 The bug is 8 years old and nobody seems to be working on it. I wouldn't hold my breath that it will be fixed soon.
11.
by Erunno 14y ago
Depending on the site page loading can still badly affect interface responsiveness. There are a number of projects to alleviate this under the umbrella of the Snappy project[1] but for all the work the Mozilla devs have have put into it, Fi
12.
by Erunno 14y ago
"I think it's a bit more resource-hungry than Chrome" Depends on what you measure and your usage patterns. Firefox runs circles around Chrome with regards to memory usage and features like "load tabs on demand" can further lower the general
13.
by Erunno 14y ago
No, it has nothing to do with loyalty but with utility and how you weigh the different feature sets of each browser (speed et al. being features as well for the sake of this discussion). I find such claims disingenuous because they assume t
14.
by Erunno 14y ago
Once SPDYv3 is enabled in a release channel the Chrome installations which only support an outdated SPDY version will rise suddenly if the current update trend is not reversed in a future version.
15.
by Erunno 14y ago
SPDY is in a better position to dictate the development of HTTP 2.0 as there are already two independent implementation in the wild, unlike S+M which so far only exists as a concept paper AFAIK.
16.
by Erunno 14y ago
The problem with Chrome not having such an option is not just limited to startup time when restoring a session. Having too many open tabs causes the resource consumption to go through the roof (especially RAM and CPU cycles). I can easily h
17.
by Erunno 14y ago
Apparently not. There's an ever growing tail of users who get stuck with an outdated version [1]. It's not as bad as Firefox yet but surprising nonetheless given how much effort Google put into Chrome's update system. [1] http://arstechnic
18.
by Erunno 14y ago
Why is this marked as "Chrome only"? I can't spot any errors with Firefox 13.
19.
by Erunno 14y ago
Earth will easily survive humanity, even if we carpet bomb the surface with nuclear weapons. Even life is very likely to survive in its own niches as it has done during past global catastrophes. So worrying about earth is unwarranted in my
20.
by Erunno 14y ago
I'll just add another data point. After the release of VLC 2.0 I was slightly dissatisfied with the new interface on OS X and used the opportunity to try out a couple of alternative players. In the end I stuck with MPlayerX because of short
21.
by Erunno 14y ago
1. Nature is not "smart", it is not a conscious entity. So neither can we outsmart it nor can it outsmart us. 2. I strongly dislike the dichotomy between nature and humans. Our species is part of the natural world same as any other. Investi
22.
by Erunno 14y ago
Humans, due to their highly evolved brains, have accumulated such a vast amount of knowledge that we can adapt our environment to suit our needs as we have been doing for the past centuries. And if our understanding of genetics deepens to t
23.
by Erunno 14y ago
Yeah, there are probably several factors which assisted Chrome's rise to prominence. Obviously Google's huge marketing power and their bundling deals can't be disregarded easily but in the end Chrome is also a great product. It's fast (real
24.
by Erunno 14y ago
"You can tell if an extension is using the Jetpack API if it doesn't require a browser restart to install." Not necessarily. "Traditional" extensions can be extended to support being restartless as well if they implement the necessary hooks
25.
by Erunno 14y ago
IIRC both Google's and Mozilla's browser metrics showed that a vast majority of users (>90%) never open more than 5 tabs simultaneously. Chrome is optimized for this use case, both from a memory as well as interface perspective. So for
26.
by Erunno 14y ago
Yeah, hopefully this will not go down in history as another too little, too late effort. Firefox still has a sizable market share of about 20%-25% (depending on the source) so Mozilla can still flex some muscle to keep the web open. I dread
27.
by Erunno 14y ago
"I'm unsure of whether the remaining 90% is due to DOM interaction, rendering, or just perceived crappiness but it exists nonetheless." A mix of all of that. For the DOM part Mozilla is developing new bindings (called Paris bindings) to clo
28.
by Erunno 14y ago
Agreed. I wish Mozilla would have left an option to retain the current behavior, even if buried in about:config. Lions native fullscreen mode is so much fail it's almost unbelievable that it ever past any internal testing let alone be rel
29.
by Erunno 14y ago
Maybe Mozilla should consider creating arewetolerantyet.com in the light of Brendan Eich's donations to questionable political campaigns. SCNR ;)
30.
by Erunno 15y ago
Open source is not a specification. Imagine if JavaScript was specified as "what SpiderMonkey does". Then there's the issue that Google didn't make many friends by letting the other browser vendors in the dark until they had a more or less

More ›