Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Firefox about to surpass Chrome in popularity   (reviews.cnet.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Firefox, private browsing, download manager, desktops, usability  
•       •       •

8437 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Apr 2013 at 3:27 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-03 05:22:56 AM  

Terrible Old Man: People complaining about Firefox's bloat don't seem to understand it isn't bloated, it's just fully customizable with capabilities the others don't have. Learn how to use it and decide what you want and don't and it's the best thing out there by far.


The basic browser, no add-ons, most options turned off, has memory leaks that will be eating anywhere from a couple hundred megs to a couple gigs of RAM after half an hour of sitting open on the Google homepage with no other tabs open, the specific rate of consumption and snowballing varying slightly from release to release but never actually going away.

Feature bloat is correctable, sure, but most people aren't complaining about the feature creep itself, they're complaining about the browser being a massive resource hog for no apparent reason.  If you look at, say, Opera, there is still bloat/lack of efficiency, but the resource use of the program is consistent over time and proportional to what you've got open in the browser, it doesn't just randomly eat 2/3 of our RAM because it feels like it that day.
 
2013-04-03 06:19:15 AM  

SpaceBison: Pffft. Amateurs.
[www.productwiki.com image 600x600]
http://www.konqueror.org/features/browser.php


You use KDE?

lh3.ggpht.com

If we're going there, I recommend Dillo.
 
2013-04-03 07:27:41 AM  
They are both horrible mobile browsers.
 
2013-04-03 07:36:21 AM  
Make sure you update your extensions right after you update firefox.

//Had a weird right click context menu bug that loaded every possible menu item and wouldn't let me open new tabs..
 
2013-04-03 07:47:21 AM  

phimuskapsi: verbaltoxin: Error 15 (net::ERR_SOCKET_NOT_CONNECTED)

Clear your browser cache and cookies. Close completely (verify with task manager). Re-open.

If it is still not fixed try:

Go to chrome://net-internals/ -> Sockets tab, and clicking "Flush socket pools" and "Close idle sockets"


Cool thanks. I cleared the cache, history and cookies, and it seems to have fixed it.
 
2013-04-03 07:57:10 AM  

IntertubeUser:
I've been using Pale Moon (64-bit Firefox variant) and absolutely love it.  I can customize it in ways that are impossible in Chrome.


*Palemoon Fistbump*
 
2013-04-03 08:15:12 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Terrible Old Man: People complaining about Firefox's bloat don't seem to understand it isn't bloated, it's just fully customizable with capabilities the others don't have. Learn how to use it and decide what you want and don't and it's the best thing out there by far.

The basic browser, no add-ons, most options turned off, has memory leaks that will be eating anywhere from a couple hundred megs to a couple gigs of RAM after half an hour of sitting open on the Google homepage with no other tabs open, the specific rate of consumption and snowballing varying slightly from release to release but never actually going away.

Feature bloat is correctable, sure, but most people aren't complaining about the feature creep itself, they're complaining about the browser being a massive resource hog for no apparent reason.  If you look at, say, Opera, there is still bloat/lack of efficiency, but the resource use of the program is consistent over time and proportional to what you've got open in the browser, it doesn't just randomly eat 2/3 of our RAM because it feels like it that day.


That's funny I keep the same FF browser open at work for weeks at a time with no issues.  maybe you should return your computer, you may not know how to use it.
 
2013-04-03 08:47:46 AM  

neuroflare: www.fark.com##DIV[id="abPleaBar"]


Thank you!

I have Chrome installed, but prefer FF over it.
 
2013-04-03 09:39:43 AM  

Slam Dunkz: Jim_Callahan: Terrible Old Man: People complaining about Firefox's bloat don't seem to understand it isn't bloated, it's just fully customizable with capabilities the others don't have. Learn how to use it and decide what you want and don't and it's the best thing out there by far.

The basic browser, no add-ons, most options turned off, has memory leaks that will be eating anywhere from a couple hundred megs to a couple gigs of RAM after half an hour of sitting open on the Google homepage with no other tabs open, the specific rate of consumption and snowballing varying slightly from release to release but never actually going away.

Feature bloat is correctable, sure, but most people aren't complaining about the feature creep itself, they're complaining about the browser being a massive resource hog for no apparent reason.  If you look at, say, Opera, there is still bloat/lack of efficiency, but the resource use of the program is consistent over time and proportional to what you've got open in the browser, it doesn't just randomly eat 2/3 of our RAM because it feels like it that day.

That's funny I keep the same FF browser open at work for weeks at a time with no issues.  maybe you should return your computer, you may not know how to use it.


Same thing happens to me across three different computers/platforms. A Win XP VM will eat into the RAM (all of 1 GB) when I turn on to debug and/or rest in FF. Neither Chrome nor IE happen to do the same. My T61 (4 GB) running Ubuntu and later Pear Linux suffered from the same problem. My X1 runs Win 7 and has 8 GB of RAM. FF does the same thing on it. If it were the same computer with my same usage patterns, I would likely agree with you. It's not. The only constant is that FF will eat RAM on all my computers, and I don't keep a ton of tabs open at once (maybe 4-5 max).

I'm not particularly concerned about losing the RAM (except the limited Dev box), but personally I think it shows a sloppiness with program design/coding that I don't particularly are for.
 
2013-04-03 10:09:51 AM  
My work has IE 8 and Firefox 5.0.0 installed.

We are well behind the times.
 
2013-04-03 10:54:48 AM  
phimuskapsi
jQuery is COMPLETELY cross-browser compatible.


Yeah, but what people do with it might not be. I fear people rely on that claim without ever actually confirming it or at least testing whatever _they_ have created.
There are sites where I can disable all blocking and still won't get a working video/slideshow/whatever.


People want speed, ajax IS speed; and ajax is just a small part of the jQuery library.

Yeah, but the way some sites use it, it can also slow shiat down by a couple of magnitudes - yeah, no full page reloads, but when every click on "next" on your slideshow triggers 30+ AJAX requests to mostly 3rdparty sites before the one that's swapping the image can finally get executed, even a full page reload would have been faster (this is no exaggeration..I only wish I had bookmarked that page for future reference).

Mind you, I know there's stuff that can only be done with Javascript or where it simply makes sense.

But if you analyze sites, most of the time when it isn't used for eye-candy, it's just used to track people in the background.
And when browsing sites like stackoverflow, I also get a strong feeling of "if all you know is a hammer.." from replies where jquery and other JS libraries are concerned.

Maybe it's my lack of practical experience with it, but if the first thing a site does is to use jquery's "onload" to swap the CSS classes of half of its (hidden!) content, I do a WTF and wonder why they didn't generate the page with the way they want in the first place.

Security is also often fun on AJAX-heavy sites where the developers didn't imagine that people might manually query their backend. Or where the site itself sends out stuff in JSON objects which people have no business of knowing and it just isn't displayed - like, a comment system where an AJAX response not only contains the comments and the usernames of the people who made the comments, but also the users' email addresses and other data (hello, Washington Post).
 
2013-04-03 11:47:13 AM  
johneaves.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-03 11:47:50 AM  
BarkingUnicorn
Problem seems to be the combination of Firefox with my ISP's Microtik router firmware. I get "Mikrotik HttpProxy Error: 400 Bad Request." Copy the URL to Chrome or IE and it works. Copy and paste it into FF and it doesn't.
[..]
I wouldn't know a request header from a request for head. :-)


Ah, this makes things a bit complicated. ;)

The way I figured things from your posts is that there's a transparent proxy somewhere between you an those sites (e.g. on the modem/router you got from your ISP).
If that proxy only throws up when you request an URL with FF, there has to be a difference in the way Firefox requests those sites (very likely) or in the response the server sends back (less likely, because it says "bad request").

There are addons for FF that let you watch (e.g Live HTTP headers) and even modify (e.g. Modify Headers) what your browser actually sends and receives when you request an URL.
There has to be something odd or at least different(*) compared to the other browsers.

Although I don't know how accurate those are if the cause isn't something Firefox itself does, but another add-on or some browser-hijacking malware screwing around with the requests (like, if you use both of those add-ons, would "Live Http Headers" show you the headers before or after "Modify Headers" had its go at changing them).

---

(*) one difference unrelated to your problem as an example:
if there's an image hotlinked in a website with <img src="someurl.jpg">, all browsers send a request header saying something like "I would prefer an image as response for this URL"

Should you follow a link to an image ("click here for bigger version") or copy&paste an image URL directly into the address bar, most browsers figure from the URL ending in e.g ".jpg" that this will be an image and still send "I want an image in response".
But Mozilla browsers like Firefox instead send "I've a very slight preference for receiving an HTML page as a response, but if you send me an image, I'll gladly take that, too".

That usually doesn't make a difference, but as Fark photoshoppers learned the hard way, Photobucket's redesigned website will honor FF's slight preference for HTML when requesting an image that way. So photobucket doesn't respond by sending the requested image, but forwards all FF users to a poorly working website containing the image.
 
2013-04-03 11:50:07 AM  
The Voice of Doom: [trimmed]

- I agree that many developers need to work on testing what works/doesn't work.

- I also agree that ajax requests to 30 different places is ridiculous as well. 
   - I typically do Web Application development so I'm doing a bunch of minor PHP/MySQL functions and want a responsive GUI

- The real problem here are content providers. News companies in particular do this a lot and while I get why (attribution for copyright holders mainly). The fracturing of the content as well as not all providers being equal in capabilities (e.g. bandwidth) is a huge problem.

- Eh. SO tends to recommend jquery in a lot of situations and in some cases jQ plugins (like LiveQuery). Depends on what you are looking for.

- I don't get that with CSS either. CSS should already be configured before hand. But I do build dialogs and tables dynamically fairly frequently
  - Occassionally I'll use .toggleClass()/.toggle() or even add/remove class but this is usually for specific highlighting sometimes from deleting from the DOM

- Security CAN be an issue, but most of this is resolved by doing POSTs over GETs. As for responses, if they are 'echoed' that way then sure, but this can be resolved by encoding the 'at-risk' response with an MD5 or Base64 or some kind of obfuscation.
 
2013-04-03 12:09:42 PM  
Meh... I tried all browsers at some point... sticking with FF because it works fine, easy to use, the extensions are fun to have, and I don't feel like throwing my computer against the wall like I do when I use anything else.

But that's just a detail.
 
2013-04-03 01:33:27 PM  

LoneVVolf: IntertubeUser:
I've been using Pale Moon (64-bit Firefox variant) and absolutely love it.  I can customize it in ways that are impossible in Chrome.

*Palemoon Fistbump*


Love me some Palemoon.  Nice and fast without the clunkage of FF.
 
2013-04-03 02:22:37 PM  

brandent: enik: AdBbemused outsider: neuroflare: enik: bulsd: Anyway have a plugin that will stop Drew's Money Message from appearing on every page?

It's really easy to AdBlock it when you're using Chrome.  www.fark.com##DIV[id="abPleaBar"]

thats works for FF as well

Oooohh!  I like this!
Thanks muchly!

Yep just got it to work in firefox.  Thanks.  I suppose I could have done it weeks ago and figured it out but was too lazy.


I don't get it on my list of blockable items at all. What the hell?
 
2013-04-03 02:23:31 PM  
FF has gone to shiat in the past few years. I had to switch to chrome after experiencing at least half a dozen hard crashes every day with FF.

Aint nobody got time for that.
 
2013-04-03 02:28:56 PM  

crab66: FF has gone to shiat in the past few years. I had to switch to chrome after experiencing at least half a dozen hard crashes every day with FF.

Aint nobody got time for that.


Interesting...

I, and I'm sure many others, never had more than a crash of FF per 6 month or full year.

Heck I can't even remember the last time FF gave me issues.

The closest I'd say would be when I got on some messed up site that required a process close as it was trying to load a bunch of crap videos or something, froze the browser, but tried it with other browsers and it did the same thing.

You should have looked into the actual cause, possibly a registry issue, which, something like Glary Utilities would clear up real fast.

Maybe uninstalling and re-installing would have cleared things up.

Crap can happen to just about any hardware/software, but it could be the silliest thing.
 
2013-04-03 02:48:36 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: stewbert: Smeggy Smurf: Chrome has a porn mode.  It's called look at porn without being ashamed.

Yeah, by using Incognito. Very ITG

Who would you hide your porn from?  A boss?  Work is for farking.   Porn is for home to share with whoever you have waiting for you.


Obviously you don't have kids, or you'd need a seat over there.

But the primary reason is that most of the people involved in porn seem to be assholes with no ethics or morals. So, Incognito it is.
 
2013-04-03 02:54:02 PM  
I like btw that the keystroke for porn mode is Ctrl-Shift-P, so if you fark up and hit Ctrl-P you've just printed out your porn for the world to see.

/not that i know anything about that.
 
2013-04-03 03:48:16 PM  

crab66: FF has gone to shiat in the past few years. I had to switch to chrome after experiencing at least half a dozen hard crashes every day with FF.

Aint nobody got time for that.


I have had exactly zero crashes with FF.  My guess is that one of your plugins was causing the problem.
 
2013-04-03 03:51:50 PM  

macadamnut: brandent: enik: AdBbemused outsider: neuroflare: enik: bulsd: Anyway have a plugin that will stop Drew's Money Message from appearing on every page?

It's really easy to AdBlock it when you're using Chrome.  www.fark.com##DIV[id="abPleaBar"]

thats works for FF as well

Oooohh!  I like this!
Thanks muchly!

Yep just got it to work in firefox.  Thanks.  I suppose I could have done it weeks ago and figured it out but was too lazy.

I don't get it on my list of blockable items at all. What the hell?


It's not on your list of blockable items.  You have to enter that line into a new filter.  copy/'paste exactly.
 
2013-04-03 04:55:54 PM  

The Voice of Doom: If that proxy only throws up when you request an URL with FF, there has to be a difference in the way Firefox requests those sites (very likely)


That's what I thought.  Today, it just got weirder.

Now Chrome won't do Foxnews.com.  Not from Fark; not from pasting a URL; not from typing Foxnews.com in the address bar.  But IE still does all of that.

Chrome and IE will still do news.yahoo.com URLs but FF still won't.  Other *.yahoo.com servers work in all 3 browsers.

Goddam liberal developers, I guess.
 
2013-04-03 06:01:21 PM  

brandent: macadamnut: brandent: enik: AdBbemused outsider: neuroflare: enik: bulsd: Anyway have a plugin that will stop Drew's Money Message from appearing on every page?

It's really easy to AdBlock it when you're using Chrome.  www.fark.com##DIV[id="abPleaBar"]

thats works for FF as well

Oooohh!  I like this!
Thanks muchly!

Yep just got it to work in firefox.  Thanks.  I suppose I could have done it weeks ago and figured it out but was too lazy.

I don't get it on my list of blockable items at all. What the hell?

It's not on your list of blockable items.  You have to enter that line into a new filter.  copy/'paste exactly.


Sweet, that was easy. Don't tell Drew.
 
rpm
2013-04-03 08:04:46 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Now Chrome won't do Foxnews.com.  Not from Fark; not from pasting a URL; not from typing Foxnews.com in the address bar.  But IE still does all of that.


That's all you. Works for me, Chrome 26.0.1410.43, Adblock plus installed.
 
2013-04-03 08:07:31 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Lt. Cheese Weasel: IntertubeUser: Lt. Cheese Weasel: IntertubeUser: 32-bit browsers...how quaint.

I've been using Pale Moon (64-bit Firefox variant) and absolutely love it.  I can customize it in ways that are impossible in Chrome.  And the Add-Ons...Chrome is still years behind Firefox.

Enjoy having your surfing habits and personal data havested, Chrometards!

"Top news:

Pale Moon 19.0.2 has been released which is minor update to the new v19 to address a critical security vulnerability. More info in the."


Sounds dreamy.

Did you have a point or are you unaccustomed to people fixing the stuff the make?

It was just snerk.  Don't blow your panties off. I am testing this wondermous new cheese as we speak.

Well, the 64 bit is nice.  Retrieval from cache is considerably faster.  The GUI is of course familiar.  I am still gonna keep two browsers, one for late night study *cough*, and Chrome for the daily nerdiness.
Two caches, two different profiles/security/cookies management etc.....brain is wired that way, not to trust one app for my behavioural problems.


I was thinking of going back to the 64-bit version but had problems with some of the plug-ins as they are not 64-bit.  Some are, some are not.
 
2013-04-03 08:17:19 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: The Voice of Doom: If that proxy only throws up when you request an URL with FF, there has to be a difference in the way Firefox requests those sites (very likely)

That's what I thought.  Today, it just got weirder.

Now Chrome won't do Foxnews.com.  Not from Fark; not from pasting a URL; not from typing Foxnews.com in the address bar.  But IE still does all of that.

Chrome and IE will still do news.yahoo.com URLs but FF still won't.  Other *.yahoo.com servers work in all 3 browsers.

Goddam liberal developers, I guess.


Firefox has the ability to use non-system proxy settings, I have a sneaky feeling your plight lies there.  (Tools->Options->Advanced->Network tab->Settings)
 
2013-04-03 11:03:04 PM  

BumpInTheNight: BarkingUnicorn: The Voice of Doom: If that proxy only throws up when you request an URL with FF, there has to be a difference in the way Firefox requests those sites (very likely)

That's what I thought.  Today, it just got weirder.

Now Chrome won't do Foxnews.com.  Not from Fark; not from pasting a URL; not from typing Foxnews.com in the address bar.  But IE still does all of that.

Chrome and IE will still do news.yahoo.com URLs but FF still won't.  Other *.yahoo.com servers work in all 3 browsers.

Goddam liberal developers, I guess.

Firefox has the ability to use non-system proxy settings, I have a sneaky feeling your plight lies there.  (Tools->Options->Advanced->Network tab->Settings)


Thanks.  It's set to auto-detect proxy settings.  Is that good or bad?  My ISP told me to make it  was set to auto.
 
2013-04-03 11:05:22 PM  

rpm: BarkingUnicorn: Now Chrome won't do Foxnews.com.  Not from Fark; not from pasting a URL; not from typing Foxnews.com in the address bar.  But IE still does all of that.

That's all you. Works for me, Chrome 26.0.1410.43, Adblock plus installed.


And your ISP is using Mikrotik?

'Tis a puzzlement of mild vexation.
 
Displayed 30 of 180 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report