Once you're in steady state, and if you don't use workers and don't use the new parallel processing primitives people are proposing for JS, you're right.
But during JIT warmup, and any time you have to JIT a new function or new codepath it matters because on multicore hardware you can do background compilation.
Why does everyone assume that Google is the only game in town for funding Firefox?
Firefox has 1 out of 5 users on the internet. If Google lost Firefox it would be significant. They really wouldn't want to lose it.
Microsoft would love to have Firefox's default search area (and love taking it from Google) and they've repeatedly demonstrated their ability and desire to throw gobs of money at a product until it succeeds (or clearly fails beyond redemption) - and Bing is one of those products.
It seems like few people made the connection when Microsoft partnered with Mozilla to release a version of Firefox "powered by Bing search". Just a month or so later Mozilla announced their three year, $900 million search deal with Google. It seems clear that Mozilla either just before, or during, negotiations with Google demonstrated their ability to pull the trigger with Microsoft.
Google does not want to lose Firefox, but further would hate to lose it to MS. Either way, even if they did, Mozilla would not go hungry.
And when they al start failing at the same time with the same fault, and you lose your 3rd drive in your 8 drive raid 6 in a few hours?
Best start praying to the god of whatever alternate dimension you've stepped into because someone just handed the laws of probability an anvil.
After six months, zero progress on fixing it.
According to the bug, it was fixed in an upstream pull request yesterday. Given the usual rate at which upstream pdf.js updates are landed for downstream Firefox, it's very likely the fix will be in Firefox 28. Of course, you can confirm it's fixed in a development build of pdf.js whenever you want: https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js#browser-extensions
Eich often does a good job of intelligently addressing questions in the comments. I strongly encourage looking through them to learn more.
In reply to one question about the binaries he replied:
...because the BSD-licensed source code is available at http://www.openh264.org/, you and others can verify the compiled bits come from that source, no malware or spyware added. We will organize community auditing of this sanity check, and the binary modules will be cryptographically signed so Firefox can verify their integrity.
great question, and it applies to Firefox, Chrome, and other browsers. But in the case of Firefox for Linux at least, and for Cisco’s OpenH264 binary modules, we can audit: get matching revision of the open source, compile with the same (bootstrapped from open source) clang or gcc toolchain, and compare bits.
It appears we can have a good amount of confidence that what's in the code is what's in the binary.
Mozilla fully supports single-line flexbox (that is, flexbox in which the child flex items are all layed out in a single row or column), which is what most flexbox use cases want, and has for a while.
What's missing is support for multiline flexbox.
I'm curious how they will handle the driver situation in Android.
As I understand it the specific drivers for your device's hardware are package (compiled?) with the OS, making it infeasible to swap out parts.
Perhaps drivers could be stored in updatable firmware on the modules?
As far as I know, in Colombia, Venezuela, Spain, Poland, so far.
FirefoxOS performs a lot better on devices at that price point than Android does.
The target audience is people who don't have a smartphone yet, most probably because they can't afford to pay for a $500 phone. Which is most people in the world, so far.
Are you in a market where it's available in stores? The marketing has mostly focused on those markets, obviously.
That said, the launch was covered on Slashdot back in July: http://mobile.slashdot.org/story/13/07/09/1414232/mozilla-launches-firefox-os-devices-in-stores-opens-up-app-payments and several other articles, as well as other tech press. No non-tech-focused marketing in the US so far, since it's not like you can buy one of these in a store in the US right now...
Noise reduction is great. And airlines have no problem with you wearing headphones, except during takeoff and landing. Every single airline I've ever dealt with will ask you to remove headphones then, to make sue you can in fact hear announcements.
No, "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
Oh crap, then what's this pile of brown stuff in front of me?