I agree that Chrome is more responsive that Firefox. (Note that I didn't say "faster"...) But to say that it uses less resources is bollocks. Chrome consumes vastly more memory than Firefox and I have less than 10 tabs open. Go ahead, browse for a day and measure it; the total memory usage of Chrome tops Firefox by quite a bit. The UI responsiveness is the only reason why I use Chrome over Firefox.

What are you talking about? Works fine on my Mac.

What if a woman gets raped by a man carrying HIV? What if you get in contact with an HIV-infected needle by accident?

Did you even read the article? It talks about things like broken hard drives.

Maybe a semi-automated attack in search of more zombie machines for sending spam.

I used to sell a software product for $11. Customers got lifetime free upgrades and lifetime free email support. Licensing terms were very relaxed and it was allowed to install the software on multiple computers and even to share it with family members. People still pirated it.

With "annoying windowing issues" do you mean that clicks on unfocused windows don't do anything, and you need to explicitly focus a window before clicks have effect? That's actually a setting in OS X's X server. You can change it in the Preferences dialog. I found out about it recently and Gimp is now sooo much more usable on OS X.

After all these years, all I've seen is complaints about the name but nobody steps up and actually forks it and changes the name.

A garbage collector can compact memory in order to fight memory fragmentation.

So you're switching to Chrome 13?

If those 20% of users are the dedicated ones who tell their friends 'why are you still using IE? You should be using Firefox, it's way better' then pissing them off means you're fscked.

The 1% Linux users are extremely hardcore about the command line and tell their friends to use Linux. Has optimizing the UI for those 1% helped Linux gain more market share?

Where did this 'clutter' bullshit come from anyway? [...] Major FOSS developers seem to have gone insane in the last year, abandoning the markets they have in the hope of gaining markets they don't. It's retarded.

I wonder how much of your opinion would hold when under scrutiny of a professional usability expert.

I can understand it when people complain that extensions break, but banking websites dropping support for Firefx? Banking websites are built plain HTTPS, HTML and CSS and Firefox isn't breaking any of those with any upgrade. I also don't see banks releasing Firefox extensions.

But the question is which users? If a UI changes makes things better or easier for 80% of the users but pisses off 20% of the users, then I'd say go for it. The back button history dropdown makes the UI look less cluttered and saves screen real-estate. Most average users never use the dropdown. It's an overall win. Only the vocal 5% minority chooses to scream death instead of rightclicking and moving on.

Slashdotters always complain about stupid minor things like version numbers. I upgraded to Firefox 5 and Thunderbird 5 a while ago and holy shit it's insanely fast! But no, Slashdot prefers to complain about the version number. I'd say Mozilla should ignore the complaints. If that means the people who complain about Firefox's version number are driven away to Opera then good riddance. That'll just filter out all the bikeshedding so that Mozilla can focus on what really matters, like standards compliance, security and performance.

Yeah and all those people who are listening to music while browsing are out of their minds and are only imagining that they have a problem, right?