Firefox 57 memory leak code#
Firefox 57 memory leak mac#

Would you feel better if he quoted that? Or should he just put вЂњFirefox Rocks, This Feature Concerning Cached Pages Is Not a Memory Leak: You See, Memory Leaks Occur WhenвЂ¦вЂќ Or maybe he should go with вЂњAn Article Concerning A Supposed Memory Leak In Firefox.вЂќ If ThomвЂ™s title is interpretted with the given article as context: It says вЂњFirefox Memory Leak a Feature.вЂќ All he has to do to make that non sensationalist in any way is quote вЂњMemory Leak.вЂќ Truly sensationalist journalism is when the article following continues the bad pattern of just trying to get you excited and not informing you of true, accurate, unabated facts. TheyвЂ™re trying to get you excited, in some way, about the boredom that is ordinary life. The fact that everyone does it may or may not make it ok but it means that you should take it into context when interpretting it: Sensational titles are expected. Give вЂ™em a frigginвЂ™ break and quit nitpicking.

Firefox 57 memory leak mac#

Now granted I ran this all on a Mac so things may be slighty different elsewhere, but then again IвЂ™m no stranger to Linux, Solaris, Windows, etc, and IвЂ™ve never noticed things being much different on any of those systems.

Everything else happens so fast that my times probably arenвЂ™t even accurate. In fact I just ran a few tests right now just to make sure IвЂ™m not crazy.ДЄbout the only things that stand out here are MozillaвЂ™s load time and KonquerorвЂ™s page load time. Firefox, IE, Mozilla, Safari, Camino, Epiphany, Konqueror, aside from the user interface and subtle differences in page rendering, they all feel about the same to me. While I wonвЂ™t argue that Firefox takes up a good bit of memory, I really donвЂ™t get how people can call it slow. I know, I know вЂ“ provocation вЂ“ thatвЂ™s what it isвЂ¦ How is it, that firefox вЂ“ which has only the browser funcionality has to take 8.1MB in installation binary (bare applicatoin without extensions) is beyond my comprehension. Opera, which is browser, mail client, IRC chat client, RSS news reader and now even has bittorrent clientвЂ¦and widgets, with so _many_ features and customizalbility takes _only_ 4MB in installation binary. One has to find them all after firefox upgrade. If I had to pick another browser, it would be Mozilla itself, not this clumsy, unresponsive slouch firefox.ДЇinally I must say I just donвЂ™t get the extensions idea at all. вЂ“ result ? System (masterpiece Ubuntu Breeze 2.6.12-10-k7) rendered unusable (even getting to command line took some 15 min. Try this: I have 512MB RAM + 2GB swap partition вЂ“ it was devoured (whole of it) by firefox & mplayer-plugin (which by the way works flowlessly on Opera) in some 30min.

After insatlling OpenPGP I couldnвЂ™t uninstall without experiencing most unusual and unacceptable bahaviour (tab with message info would get whole screen high). IвЂ™d really love to love Firefox again.ДЄnd yet they find their way into official mozilla site. Just browse the bug reports and see how many reports have been closed because problems were not acknowledged and downright denied.ДЄnyway, the last two memory leak fixes have slightly improved my browsing experience and since they made better memory handling a priority now I am looking forward to the upcoming releases. What really bothers me is that those memory issues have been known for a long, long time and the developers chose to ignore them. But then, itвЂ™s pretty sad when third-party additions are all that make an application valuable. What really keeps me from switching completely to another browser are a bunch of extensions that I grew accustomed to and that make browsing more fun. I started using Firefox when version 0.7 came out, and though it would crash often it was more fun surfing the web than with 1.5, though to be fair 1.5.0.1вЂ™s memory handling has improved.

Well, I used to really love Firefox, but I find myself using Opera or Konqueror more often now. If you take a look at the comments below his blog вЂ“ guess which question is avoided consistentlyвЂ¦ how does Opera provide the same feature without any вЂњmemory leaks.вЂќ (Or I can ask the same about Konqi: how does it manage to render pages so fast with only 5Mb of cache using less cpu cycles and less memory). I have switched away from ff a year ago вЂ“ both memory use and CPU reqs are ridiculous on any platform, compared to Opera (which I use on WinXP) and Konqueror, which renders most pages just fine (which I use on PC-BSD). I guess we see now the effects of this kind of development philosophy (isnвЂ™t this why we usually bash Microsoft btw?).

Firefox 57 memory leak code#

In his opinion, instead of focusing on code perfection, khtml developers should cut some corners to make khtml render more pages.

Perhaps this is because Opera/Safari doesnвЂ™t вЂњcut cornersвЂќ вЂ“ this is the expression Ben Goodger used when siding with Apple in the old вЂњsafari development not open enoughвЂќ debate.