Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla The Internet Bug

Is Firefox 1.0 Less Stable than Firefox PR1.0? 758

Posted by Cliff
from the software-regression dept.
An anonymous reader wonders: "I had Firefox 1.0PR running smoothly on three different machines and it hardly ever crashed. After upgrading to 1.0, I seem to have at least one annoying crash a day. On one of the machines, using the 'self update' feature caused Firefox to crash in middle of the upgrade and left it in a completely unusable state. Eventually, I had to uninstall it and resort to using IE to download the full installer, again. Is it just me, or are other heavy Firefox users noticing this sort of behavior?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Firefox 1.0 Less Stable than Firefox PR1.0?

Comments Filter:
  • by aws910 (671068) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:37PM (#10877277)
    Why don't you try posting on the Mozilla.org forums?
    • Basic Human Nature (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nwbvt (768631) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:41PM (#10877336)
      Complaining is more fun than actually solving problems.
      • by MC Negro (780194) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:48PM (#10877406) Journal
        Seeking valid tech support from Slashdot is like going to an Adam Sandler film for some deep, subtle wit.
        • by Mad_Rain (674268) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @09:49PM (#10878111) Journal
          Seeking valid tech support from Slashdot is like going to an Adam Sandler film for some deep, subtle wit.

          -------- "lol i had sex w/ ur mom" - George W. Bush


          ...said the man with the "yer mom" joke for a sig.
    • by minus_273 (174041) <aaaaaNO@SPAMSPAM.yahoo.com> on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:54PM (#10877464) Journal
      you know, part of the reason people post things like that here is becasue of the mature intelligent discussion that takes place on slashdot. If you ever went to a specalized or moderated newsgroup and posted a similar question you would never get help. Instead all you would get is angry 13 yearolds in their mother's basement or wrong answers. It is the fact that a specialized newsgroup full of knowledgable folks, developers and regualr users is no use that people post on slashdot for help.
      I expect intelligent and thought provoking replies on this page....
    • Why don't you try posting on the Mozilla.org forums?

      I don't regularly read the Mozilla.org forums. Do you? The article on /. interested me because I was thinking about whether or not I should update Firefox to the new release.

    • Suggestion anyway (Score:5, Informative)

      by Corwyn_123 (828115) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @10:34PM (#10878336)
      Try uninstalling Firefox 1.0PR, don't worry the profile will be left intact, then install Firefox 1.0, this works just fine, and Firefox 1.0 is completely stable.
      • by ImaLamer (260199)
        Don't want to lose your growing Firefox database when you upgrade?

        On Windows machines you can use a utility to backup your profile called, MozBackup [jasnapaka.com]. Test it out a few times and then try upgrading.

        Saves your backup to another file and can import that backup into another installation. Let's you take your passwords and all that with you.

  • yeah (Score:2, Interesting)

    by u-238 (515248)
    I've too noticed more crashes - only one of which (out of maybe 9, 10 since release) was related to the auto update; don't rule that out as a primary factor just yet.
    • CNN will crash it (Score:5, Informative)

      by r00t (33219) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:46PM (#10877386) Journal
      Go to CNN. View a few stories. **CRASH**

      This is:

      Linux 2.6, GNOME, 32-bit ppc, libswf installed,
      multiple windows open, Debian-unstable, the tab
      preferences extension installed so I can go back
      to the old pre-tab Mozilla ways...

      This really, really, sucks. I was one of those
      people that would keep a browser running for
      several weeks at a time. I'd let it sit on one
      virtual desktop with two dozen windows open.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:38PM (#10877292)
    I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't had ANY issues with 1.0, perhaps the author of the article is using unsupported plugins / extensions that haven't been upgraded yet?
    • by Schreckgestalt (692027) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:34PM (#10877738)
      Same here, no issues... Except for the 'download flash player plugin' thingy that kept failing. But crashes? No.

      I've done several upgrades of Phoenix, Firebird and now Firefox on different machines, and I have grown accustomed to letting the new version create a new profile and then copy the stuff you still want back into it. I normally delete "C:\Docs and Settings\MYNAME\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox", then copy the old bookmarks.html into my profile again.

      Did so with PR1 -> 1.0, and have had no issues on several machines.

    • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:43PM (#10877792)
      1.0PR had a javascript pop-up crash bug that drove me crazy. 1.0 fixed that.

      Some things to consider:

      1. How did you install 1.0? Did you do an overwrite? If so, do a clean install.

      2. What extensions are you using? Have you disabled the extension version check?

      >On one of the machines, using the 'self update' feature caused Firefox to crash in middle of the upgrade

      When was this? Do you have DNS/network/firewall issues which could be causing this?

      Lastly, to get some real answers from the experts people should asking here. [mozillazine.org]
  • cookies? (Score:5, Funny)

    by x3ro (628101) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:38PM (#10877293) Homepage
    No bugs found here. But I was sad to see the 'Cookies are delicious delicacies' line disappear from Prefs.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Isn't there some kind of firefox mailing list for this kind of stuff?
  • Probs before PR (Score:2, Informative)

    by TFGeditor (737839)
    My PR Firefox version Firefox/0.9.3 has always had the annoying problem of causing the entire system to "lock up" if left running overnight. (Win XP SP2.)
    • if your entire machine is locking up, its not an issue with any single application.
    • Re:Probs before PR (Score:5, Informative)

      by bigberk (547360) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:51PM (#10877435)
      My PR Firefox version Firefox/0.9.3 has always had the annoying problem of causing the entire system to "lock up" if left running overnight.
      Without exception, a regular (userland) application that leads to global locking up is the operating system's fault, not the application's. The goal of a modern multi-user, multi-process, virtual memory OS (BSD, Linux, WinNT) is to keep each process separate on the system. A single application should crash, or run slowly but it should never crash the entire operating system or use up all the operating system's resources. Such a situation indicates the failure of the OS to manage resources, and maintain control over separate processes.
      • Re:Probs before PR (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Smidge204 (605297) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:02PM (#10877528) Journal
        While I'm not going to disagree with you, I fail to see how this absolves the developer's responsibility to build the application such that it doesn't try to absorb all the system's resources in the first place.

        I'm currently using FireFox PR1.0, it's been open for about 5 days straight, running on Win2KPro. It's using 104MB of RAM. Why I don't know... I only have 4 tabs open at the moment and no flash or java running, and no third party plugins... but it's using 104MB or memory right now. It probably would have locked up if I didn't have a gig of RAM in this machine...

        Went up to 108MB when I hit preview, and it's not going down...
        =Smidge=

        • Re:Probs before PR (Score:5, Informative)

          by bigberk (547360) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:17PM (#10877634)
          Interpreting how much memory an application is using is somewhat difficult. Modern virtual memory operating systems page memory into both physical RAM and disk storage (swap, pagefile, whatever). Next, there are operating system features that try to preserve actual memory by not allocating real chunks of memory on an application's request, until that memory is really made use of. Finally, using some system GUI widgets etc can "increase" the amount of memory use as shown in Task Manager etc where really the memory use is within the OS, not the app.

          What this comes down to is: the figure you generally see for memory use of an app is not physical RAM use. It might not even reflect the actual amount of physical+disk memory in use! Finally, memory usage might be overstated due to transient external allocations (e.g. win32 API dialog boxes) that deceivingly appear as memory used by an application.

          What you have to look for is how that memory usage figure changes over time. In most cases, it grows until it hits a ceiling - even at that point, it is way overstated (a conservative measure, so to speak). What is bad is if it regularly grows by 50 MB per day, without limit. Then there is a leak :)
        • Re:Probs before PR (Score:5, Informative)

          by prockcore (543967) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:39PM (#10877767)
          it's been open for about 5 days straight, running on Win2KPro. It's using 104MB of RAM.

          Even worse, there's this System Idle process that's taking up 99% of my CPU time!

          Sheesh. It's called memory caching. That's why TOP differentiates between RSIZE, VSIZE and RSHRD.

          RSIZE is the amount of ram being actively used by a process. I doubt RSIZE is 104megs.
          • Re:Probs before PR (Score:3, Interesting)

            by rabidcow (209019)
            In Windows, Task Manager has a number of columns related to memory usage, notably "Mem Usage" and "VM Size." (Process Explode, "bin/winnt/PView.Exe" from Microsoft's Platform SDK, gives FAR more memory stats.)

            "Mem Usage" is the only one on by default, thus most likely to be read by someone who doesn't know anything. (Unless they use something other than Task Manager, which would surprise me.) It corresponds to the application's Working Set, aka how much physical memory it is actively using. (not necess
        • Re:Probs before PR (Score:5, Informative)

          by meanfriend (704312) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @09:38PM (#10878061)
          I'm currently using FireFox PR1.0, it's been open for about 5 days straight, running on Win2KPro. It's using 104MB of RAM. Why I don't know...I only have 4 tabs open at the moment and no flash or java running, and no third party plugins...

          I'm going to guess that over the five days, you have opened and closed a whole bunch of tabs (probably dozens). It's a known issue in Firefox that when you close tabs, it doesnt release the memory.

          See the bugzilla: bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131456

          I've had FF running for a week straight and using upwards of 200MB and only one tab open :). The only remedy is to restart FF. This has been an issue for over two years now. Dont expect it change anytime soon though, if it was a simple fix, I supppose it would have been done by now.

  • zerg (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lord Omlette (124579) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:39PM (#10877301) Homepage
    I'm horrified that this is a front page post. What is wrong w/ you people?

    Also, you are reporting the crash data back to the developers, right?
    • Re:zerg (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tumbleweed (3706) *
      What's wrong with this being a front page post? He'll reach more people, and thus get more responses, that way.

      I don't know if 1.0 is less stable than 1.0PR, but it's definitely not 'stable,' for me, and that's across three machines, one of which is a newly built machine.

      And yeah, I've got it set to report crash data back to the developers. Hope that works. Firefox is still leagues better than IE, of course, in both features as well as stability. And speed. And beauty. Oh nevermind, this could get embara
      • Re:zerg (Score:4, Funny)

        by thammoud (193905) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:01PM (#10877512)
        Would have been juicier if the story read:

        I had IE 1.0PR running smoothly on three different machines and it hardly ever crashed. After upgrading to 1.0, I seem to have at least one annoying crash a day. On one of the machines, using the 'self update' feature caused IE to crash in middle of the upgrade and left it in a completely unusable state. Eventually, I had to uninstall it and resort to using FireFox to download the full installer, again. Is it just me, or are other heavy IE users noticing this sort of behavior?"
    • Re:zerg (Score:2, Insightful)

      by reallocate (142797)
      Given the ballyhoo surrounding the release of 1.0, this is a legitimate issue for Slashdot. (Remember, its a discussion board, not a news outlet.)

      A 1.0 release is supposed to be ready for primetime, not another in the seemingly endless testing releases common to open source.
      • Re:zerg (Score:5, Insightful)

        by artemis67 (93453) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:20PM (#10877654)
        Considering the size of the Slashdot audience and the fact that Slashdot is a "news" site (in theory) and not a "tech support" site... a larger question might be, Is it irresponsible for Slashdot to post a bug report of a single user as a story for a million people to see? How many people will just read the headline and not read the comments, and automatically think that Firefox is having widespread problems?

        Are there really a bunch of people who have problems with Firefox? Without even looking at Mozilla's tech support forums, I can tell you, unequivocally, YES. When you distribute a program to millions of users, some people are going to run into problems, that's a given. But how do we know that this fella's problem is really with Firefox, and not with, say, a memory chip he installed last week? Or maybe he has some spyware installed that is screwing it up?

        The REAL question that Slashdot ought to be concerned with is, Does the number of people having problems with Firefox 1.0 appear to be statistically significant? If it's not, then this whole story grossly exaggerates the problems and gives Firefox a lot of unnecessarily bad PR.

        Me, I just recently reformatted my hard drive, installed Win XP and Firefox 1.0, and have not had any problems with it.
        • Re:zerg (Score:3, Insightful)

          by reallocate (142797)
          I don't comnsider Slashdot a news site. It is simply a BBS dressed up in web clothing. The /. staff doesn't engage in collecting or writing news, or any other kind of reporting. (We see ampole evidence every day that they don't even bother with simple editing.) They simply choose from story suggestions those items they believe will attract the most traffic.

          So, as far as I'm concerned, questions about Slashdot's responsibilities are off target.

          If /. did engage in journalism, then, yes, they should have c
  • by Linker3000 (626634) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:40PM (#10877309) Journal
    Welcome to Slashdot, now being used as an alternative for official software support sites and usenet newsgroups.

  • Running smoothly (Score:2, Informative)

    by th3d0ct0r (707205)
    Up until now, under windows xp sp2, firefox 1.0 final is running very smoothly, no crashes, im using it all the time.
    Under linux also, there are no issues, exept maybe with the mplayer-embedded plugin, but that is the plugins fault actually, experiencing the same problem with epiphany, konqueror and opera. So no, from my point of view firefox is as good as it gets!
  • Why? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dalamarian (741404)
    I don't want to come off as rude (of course but) but, why is this considered newsworthy?

    • .......scraping the barrel.

      It must be a slack day for the slashdot editors.

      Really tho, this sort of thing is better reported to Mozilla.org and then they can diagnose any supposed problem.

      *Then* when we know what (any given) problem is, it can be posted to the front-page of Slashdot and *that* is news
  • It just randomly goes away and leaves core file in my home directory every so often. Since I started keeping track, I've noticed that I often get a core file after intentionally exiting. If there's a pattern, I haven't glimpsed it.

  • Really? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zx75 (304335) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:42PM (#10877343) Homepage
    I had the opposite occur. With 1.0PR I was having rather regular crashes when I opened the browser, and an annoying one that occured everytime I attempted to open any sort of streaming media. (I resorted to IE to watch the SpaceShip One launch).

    However, with the full 1.0 I haven't had a single crash yet, and I've been using it a lot since the first day it was available.
  • Nein (Score:3, Informative)

    by MC Negro (780194) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:42PM (#10877352) Journal
    No problems whatsoever. The search function finally works and updates are a breeze. On my Windows and Mac machines. HOWEVER, my Linux box was not quite as rosey. I upgraded my source-built FireFox 1.0PR to FireFox 1.0 binary. I unmerged the 1.0PR and downloaded the binary from the FireFox website, installed it, and rebooted. At first, things were smooth sailing, but after an hour or two of usage, FireFox would become unusable and eventually crash. Same problem under SuSE. I uninstalled the binary and emerged FireFox 1.0 from source and everything was great.
  • What makes the way people with alternative body images use firfox different from the way the rest of us use it? Or are you tring to say I'm fat because I have 5 firefox installs?
  • Uninstall first! (Score:5, Informative)

    by hazed (699134) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:43PM (#10877358) Homepage
    Make sure you uninstall any old versions before installing the new version. Its in the faq.. well hidden, but i've had no problems when uninstalling then re-installing. Make sure to back up, but your savings should be saved as they are not held in the same area as the executeables and whatnot. I have had problems just upgrading, but i've been problemless since i've done the above.
  • Cheesey Creezey!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by barfy (256323) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:48PM (#10877404)
    If you need to mod me down now, but I am starting to get PO'd!

    Just what in the F*CK is going on with Slashdot???

    Is there any justification what so freakin' ever this is a frontpage story? As far as anyone can tell this is about as informative and useful as 85% of the Usenet.

    The quality of frontpage postings has gone down dramatically. After weeks of every story just being a heavily editorialiazed piece of crap, we now have, "Hey, does anyone elses FF 1.0 crash?".

    Editors, Taco, Cowboy Neal?!? Is anyone awake here? Have we totally lost our standards?

    Cripes.
    • by Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:04PM (#10877539)
      Is anyone awake here?

      Supposing they're not, is there any interest in the community to possibly fork Slashcode and start a new Slash-based website with the same intent but better editors?
    • by Jugalator (259273) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:08PM (#10877568) Journal
      I agree, this is a strange article.

      To actually answer him, you can basically just say "I agree", "Doesn't seem so here" or "I don't use Firefox". I think the point with the article is to discuss Firefox 1.0 stability, but I can't see much fun in that. It's extremely system dependant too so someone having it crash numerous times a day may just be spyware infected and have it conflict, a bad driver, or whatever.

      I, like some others, suggest this:
      www.mozillazine.org.
    • by Brandybuck (704397)
      Have we totally lost our standards?

      Sorry, but Slashdot never had any standards. I've been around Slashdot as long as you in another identity, and I simply do not recall the standards you are alluding to.
      • Re:Cheesey Creezey!! (Score:3, Informative)

        by digitallife (805599)
        I must agree. I have had many different identities and have been around since very close to the beginning (damn master passwords - always make me lose passwords!). As far back as I can remember people have been complaining about this very issue. Actually /. has stayed relatively the same over the years IMHO, other than a few joke evolutions :)
    • I believe that your post implies that we ever had standards around here.

      Please reevaluate your post and adjust accordingly.

      kthx.
  • Short answer: no.
    Long answer: yes, although the complete results were inconclusive.
  • by duckpoopy (585203) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:49PM (#10877421) Journal
    I left the lights on in my car the other day and then my car wouldn't start. Could these two events be related? Did anyone else ever have this happen?
  • My wife and I have been using Firefox 1.0 heavily since release. I have not had a single crash that I can remember. Granted, I don't use the update feature due to past experience with it not doing anything, and I followed the instructions and completely uninstalled 1.0PR before installing 1.0 (wonder if they will ever fix this, shouldn't be too hard to auto-uninstall previous versions before installing the new version).
  • Firefox 1.0 on Panther is much more stable than previous versions.

    Quicktime will randomly crash and take down the browser, but that's quicktime's fault.. it does the same thing in Safari, and has ever since Quicktime 6.4

    I have the flash click-to-play extension (poor little Pismo already suffers on Panther, flash just makes it worse) and the web developer extension installed.
  • This is something that instead of being asked here should be asked at the Mozilla Firefox forums [mozillazine.org]. There are lots of people who will be happy to help you.

    If you believe you have found a bug, you should search if anyone has reported that bug, and if not report it here [mozilla.org].


    Sorry, but its almost offensive to see this at slashdot.
  • I had lots of crashes with the preview release (mostly on opening media files and when sites opened a new window with javascript).

    1.0 on the other hand runs stable as a rock for me. ( both installed it on my 2 linux computers)

  • No problems here. I use a copy of 1.0 for about half of the day every day. I used PR1.0, 1.0 RC1, and 1.0 RC2 about as much. 1.0 has yet to crash on me.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I use a mature, stable browser [microsoft.com] that hasn't crashed since I installed it.

    Couldn't resist

  • I get the occasional segfault, likely from bad HTML (yes, we've been over this before), and I'm having a few problems with extensions failing to install and with the preferences dialogs reseting options every time I bring it up.

    (Disclaimer: this is my own build from CVS.)
  • Browing MapQuest... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZorinLynx (31751) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @07:59PM (#10877495) Homepage
    I've had random crashes browsing MapQuest. It seems around one out of every ten times I refresh a map, Firefox goes boom. I actually suspect it may be some Javascript/Java/DHTML/etc. in an advertisement that's in their rotation.

    -Z
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:04PM (#10877538) Journal
    Which is -- no crashes here. :-P

    Maybe you're a victim of some bug that's caused by something else in your system. It sounds strange otherwise, since under normal circumstances, I don't really think 1.0 shouldn't crash "often". :-/
  • Is this news?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Magickcat (768797) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:08PM (#10877564)
    Is this really news? A single user's negative experience of Firefox hardly seems to me to be worth reading - more like a troll instead.This belongs on the Mozilla forums.

    Next off, someone will post an article saying that they wish that their graphics card was faster for HL2. Purely subjective information, and not really worth repeating.

    I'm running windows and linux builds and it's running flawlessly. Check your settings.

    Perhaps in an age of blogging, there's a common tendency in thinking that every single thought that crosses one's mind is worthy of becoming an article. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.
  • by Prien715 (251944) <agnosticpope&gmail,com> on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:35PM (#10877749) Homepage Journal
    I'm a gamer on occasion. And when I play an FPS, I don't like frame loss. I recently noticed I was losing frames on occasion. I brought up task manager to see what was doing it, and firefox is using significant CPU power even when it's doing absolutely nothing. (Thus, closing firefox caused a perfect framerate to occur again). Anyone else have this issue? Why does the web browser need CPU to idle?
    • by pikine (771084) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @09:30PM (#10878024) Journal
      do you leave firefox in a page with flash animations? nowadays many of the animated figures in a web page are flash and not animated gifs anymore. a badly made flash can take up tons of CPU even when you leave it there. also, are you viewing web sites with automatic page refreshing? it will eat up the CPU everytime the page refreshes.

      if that bothers you, you can always use the task manager to set the process's priority to either "below normal" or "low".

      however, games are memory intensive. so as a browser, which uses memory caching to be fast. when real memory is used up, "thrashing" occurs (to swap some memory pages to the disk). even adjusting task priority won't help here, since thrashing is inherently slow. whenever a web page that you leave in the background refreshes itself, the OS has to swap out a few pages of game memory and swap in memory pages for the browser. as the game continues, it needs the memory back, and the OS has to juggle around memory pages again.

      if you see a periodic frame loss, then self-refreshing web pages are definitely the culprit.
  • by casperjeff (757388) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @08:35PM (#10877750)
    My coworker and I just upgraded to 1.0 and have bothed noticed that firefox will eventually eat up most/all system memory, forcing us to kill firefox and restart it. (we ran the beta/pre releases with no issues) The only common factor is that we both had to reinstall the web developer (version .8?) after upgrading to FF1.0.... Could this problem be related to specific extensions and not specifically to firefox itself?
  • by sbma44 (694130) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @09:49PM (#10878105)
    I've been experiencing the exact same phenomenon. So have a few of my friends. I'm sure it's not happening to everybody, but yeah, for me, the PR seemed more stable. On my system the official release goes to 99% CPU utilization and has to be shut down a few times a day, typically.

    It doesn't throw errors to report. I'm not savvy enough to know how to get debugging information out of it, and I don't have the time to spend on mozilla forums trying to get someone's attention and then working it out.

    So I won't put in the time. I don't expect the firefox people to fix it for me, given that, of course. They've already given me plenty, and it's still a great browser.

    But I have been having this problem, and if other people have, too, then I'm glad to see it being discussed. Beyond hoping the problem becomes well-characterized, I think it's worth having a discussion about this because it could have implications for how OSS is perceived by the mass culture. The Firefox campaign is the biggest, most successful open source push in recent memory. Let's not act like it's heresy to talk about it here instead of in a newsgroup somewhere.
  • My experience... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Junta (36770) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @11:08PM (#10878504)
    Firefox 1.0 initially acted like a giant steaming pile... I then blew away my profile from pre 1.0 (saving bookmarks), and started over, and it has been great ever since... Not necessarily what you want to have to do, but I'll accept it since it was technicall 'pre-release' until now.
  • by binarybum (468664) on Saturday November 20, 2004 @11:47PM (#10878682) Homepage
    uhh, try mozilla 1.7.3 - works fine.
  • by mat catastrophe (105256) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @12:08AM (#10878768) Homepage

    "I had to uninstall it and resort to using IE to download the full installer, again."

    What, you don't know how to ftp from the prompt?

  • by Bloody Peasant (12708) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @12:20AM (#10878817) Homepage
    Isn't the full page ad in the NYT that the Firefox people are organising about to come out real soon?[*] If so, one has to wonder why the person with the "complaint" prefers to stay anonymous. Don't they want to be helped? It would appear not.

    Maybe this is just a poor attempt to generate some "bad" Firefox press.

    I smell a rat. Or a troll. Or both.

    [*] I don't get the NYT, and I won't accept their privacy policy (thphhht!) so I have no idea if it's already come out.

  • by rice_burners_suck (243660) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @02:39AM (#10879381)
    Firefox looks promising, and Mozilla (the monstrosity that it is) looked promising before that, but honestly I have been using Opera since version 3 (now it's version 7.54) and I can tell you that crashes are not a problem. It's multiplatform, has a native FreeBSD build, and once you turn off all the stupid toolbars and fix a few of the default settings (which takes about five minutes to do after installation), it's a really good browser. I have to say that it's been one of the most satisfying pieces of software I've used.

    I would recommend Firefox only if you have a need for 100% free software with source code and the whole shebang. But every time I tried to install and use a Mozilla based browser, I was left disappointed. Opera is definitely worth paying for.

    Disclaimer: I am NOT in any way affiliated with the cool folks who make either of these browsers.

  • Sheesh (Score:3, Funny)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @03:50AM (#10879589)
    All you people get real. Firefox 1.0 on Windows XP SP2 is perfectly sta
  • by theufo (575732) on Sunday November 21, 2004 @07:37PM (#10883641) Homepage
    A few years ago, when Phoenix was first released, I was among the first to try it. Pleased by its relative stability, speed and overall lightweight character, I started using it as my primary browser. Later releases brought further improvements, like extensions. Fast forward to 2004:

    Improvements:
    - Auto-update
    - Improved search
    - Skin
    - Download manager

    Side-effects:
    - Firefox is very unstable compared to Phoenix
    - The development team has started linking Firefox against glibc 2.3

    The improvements are of little to no benefit IMHO:
    - Auto-update is too unreliable and impractical when you're not root. It's actually quicker to do it the old-fashioned way
    - Being a slightly conservative bastard who can't appreciate eye candy if it isn't female, I've never used skins.
    - The improved search is an exception. The colours are handy if you're visually scanning a large document and it eliminates the window blocking your view. It's actually a bit like vim's search.
    - The download manager is not very practical. It gives clueless lusers a harder time infecting their PC's, but it's "hidden" into the browser and the actions surrounding a download take more time now than ever before.

    The decay which has been accompanying all this development is quite severe:

    - The stability issues cause two crashes on an average day for me. Some sites actually cause crashes whenever viewed. In most cases the sites contain buggy html and javacrypt, but that should not crash the browser. Notable examples include WebCT and requested popups.

    - Although most modern distros use glibc 2.3, I'm not going to switch for a while.
    I've tried setting up a chroot for it, but the latest version of gcc appears to be unable to compile [gnu.org]the latest glibc.

    According to the gcc maintainers this is a bug [gnu.org] in glibc.

    According to the glibc maintainers this is a bug in gcc.

    blah rant rave curse slap stab blam, etc

    Even though there's a hack to get it working, I'm staying with glibc 2.2 until both groups have stopped trying to break eachother's code.

    But there's always PLAN B. And after three hours of compiling firefox 1.0, it turns out that the degradation curve since 0.8 has not changed course.

    Some common sense inhibitor snaps in my skull and I ditch firefox. Alternatives:

    Konqueror toy
    Dillo incomplete
    Links rules my console, but it has some
    inherent disabilities
    etcetcetc.

    But there's always the "dead" Mozilla. It turns out that Mozilla is not as dead as commonly thought.

    Mozilla has become much lighter nowadays. The e-mail, news and chat is seperated from the browser package now and doesn't swallow memory anymore and it's noticeably faster than before.
    It can also use extensions, block popups and evil javascript code, and some other features we've started to like about Firefox. Among the differences are a more intuitive download manager and unfortunately the old text search. But the most important differences are its much greater stability and the fact that it is backwards compatible with glibc 2.2 and possibly even older versions.

    So, contrary to the mainstream momentum, I've switched back to Mozilla. Getting it working took a few mouseclicks instead of a full compile and minutes instead of hours. I live happily ever after.

    If you're having nervous breakdowns with firefox, consider this move.

    Steven.

Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.

Working...