Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Mozilla off the rails now (Score 1) 170

This has nothing to do with tabs loading. It's about rendering what's already loaded.

Good browser performance already depends on predictive behavior, such as kicking of DNS lookups early when you hover over links. I don't know what you have against predictive behavior, but the alternative is a slower browsing experience.

Comment Re:Feature from Opera 10 years ago (Score 1) 170

If you try the test page in the original article in Chrome, and switch to and from the test page's tab, you can see that Chrome is actually doing exactly that, and it has a huge problem. When you switch to the test page tab, it renders its old version of the page, and then there's major lag (on my Linux system at least) while it renders the up-to-date version of the page (which is animated), then it jump-cuts to the new version of the page. It looks extremely laggy and jarring. Tab warming avoids this problem.

And as others noted, caching images of all tabs is quite memory-hungry (especially if you have lots of tabs and a 4K display). This is one reason Firefox is less bloaty than Chrome.

Comment Re:Great! (Score 2) 170

A huge amount of work was done to stop the Firefox UI from blocking on the activities of content processes, as part of the multiprocess work that shipped up to and including FF 57. It's pretty good now although there are probably a few lingering bugs.

What makes you think loading is "poorly optimized"? A lot of modern Web pages are bloated, but that isn't Firefox's fault.

Comment Re:Great! (Score 1) 170

Most users only ever have a small number of tabs. Unlike you, Mozilla has actual data on this. So in fact it is more likely they are switching tabs.

Showing the tab title on hover doesn't require any interaction with the content process so it's unlikely that would be affected by tab warming, for better or worse.

Comment Re:Because gubbermint! (Score 1) 199

It boggles my mind that anyone, anywhere, with any degree of a tech background, could ever ask "why can Uber find me but 911 can't?"

It's not a technical question. It's a rhetorical question about the requirements. Nobody gives the slightest fuck about the technical answer, because it's irrelevant. The question is obviously intended to criticize how we've approached the problems, our values, etc.

Comment Re:Why did it take 40 minutes to correct? (Score 2) 227

This message ostensibly was sent to every cell phone in Hawaii - didn't the guy who "pushed the wrong button" get the alert as well?

Off hand, I'd expect that the kind of place that monitors for ICBM's and issues that sort of warning probably doesn't allow cell phones or many other kinds of wireless device. In a lot of cases, things like Internet access might also be locked down.

Comment Re:Breakable encryption != no encryption (Score 1) 442

If I need to keep the present I bought my wife a secret until her birthday in April, "large" needn't be longer than 4 months. Using too big of a value for "large" adds complexity which, in turn, increases the potential for errors which may divulge your secret.

Except it doesn't really add complexity. You just turn a knob from 1024 to 4096 and a machine takes care of all the work, while the lazy human just sits there and drools. And you don't really even have to turn the knob, because the first time you touched the machine you just turned it up to max and left it there forever. It's effortless.

Comment consensual crackability (Score 1) 442

You've got a fascinating point, but there's no way you can ever have any idea what all possible adversaries' capabilities are. And you'd have to continuously stay up-to-date on it too, since what costs $10M today is $1M tomorrow.

I think there's also an assumption that "legitimate" adversaries have more power than illegitimate ones, i.e. your own government happens to have the most, fastest computers. Go ahead and try to tell that to a citizen of a poor country. As a citizen of a rich country, I think it's probably true (i.e. the US government is able to brute force my stuff easier than, say, the Chinese government) but I don't really know that's true, do I? And if it's right for me, then it's wrong for everyone everywhere else!


Meltdown and Spectre Patches Bricking Ubuntu 16.04 Computers ( 233

An anonymous reader writes: Ubuntu Xenial 16.04 users who updated to receive the Meltdown and Spectre patches are reporting they are unable to boot their systems and have been forced to roll back to an earlier Linux kernel image. The issues were reported by a large number of users on the Ubuntu forums and Ubuntu's Launchpad bug tracker. Only Ubuntu users running the Xenial 16.04 series appear to be affected.

All users who reported issues said they were unable to boot after upgrading to Ubuntu 16.04 with kernel image 4.4.0-108. Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu OS, deployed Linux kernel image 4.4.0-108 as part of a security update for Ubuntu Xenial 16.04 users, yesterday, on January 9. According to Ubuntu Security Notice USN-3522-1 and an Ubuntu Wiki page, this was the update that delivered the Meltdown and Spectre patches.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gort, klaatu nikto barada." -- The Day the Earth Stood Still