Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:liar (Score 1) 506

Money does him no real good, because there's nowhere to spend it. He's in a prison as it is, though perhaps a more commodious one than awaits him once the Brits get their hands on him.

Like how drug lords continue to run their empires from within prison?

Some people crave ego and power more than money. The alternative to being in the embassy is to go to an actual prison... without Internet access.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 179

Seriously, I've literally been chasing this for years to no avail. If it is just some sort of super-aggressive caching policy, then I'd refer you to the comment by AC below, who hit the nail on the head: "Sufficiently aggressive caching policy is indistinguishable from memory leak."

Well, that depends what tool you use to gauge memory usage. I use both the "about:memory" page and the app working set size in Process Explorer. The two don't often agree with each other. In particular, even though about:memory shows that most memory has been released, the working set still hovers over 1GB. Sometimes you have to sit and wait a while before the memory pooler (or whatever) gives memory back to the OS. However, through various tricks, I can indeed get both to reduce to levels similar to a clean startup. It's well known that Firefox will cache many, many pages in memory "just in case" you hit the Back button, and will even do so after closing a tab/window. Yes, it may be dumb design, but I'm not convinced it's due to leaks.

Slow and jerky scrolling, delayed mouse click events, etc etc.

I've seen this on XP 32-bit when memory usage goes beyond ~1.8GB, including parts of the display not drawing correctly, and even rainbow graphics corruption. I presume its because internally the browser is nearing the application memory limit on a 32-bit OS. On 64-bit, the same version of the browser does not have these problems. The biggest problems I've noticed on 64-bit are the pauses (cycle collections, of course), and sometimes the text caret disappears. Otherwise the browser is perfectly stable and never, ever crashes.

Honestly, if Mozilla doesn't fix this in the next rev or two I'll be switching to Palemoon or Opera or something

I've been using PaleMoon as my primary browser for about 2 years and it's been great... until version 27. Version 26 had absolutely none of the memory hogging or leaking problems of Firefox, and would run perfectly around 300MB or less for days. It was fantastic. Then version 27 was retrograded to a newer version of Firefox, and now it's just as bad, gobbling up a gig of memory and never letting go without using the "tricks". The fact that PaleMoon 26 worked exactly as it should and 27 "leaks" memory is part of the reason I believe it's a configuration issue. Most of my work has been comparing PM 26 an 27 to track down the problem. Alas, there's 40K additional files in version 27 and most of the settings for memory management are now "-1" (for fully automatic) instead of hard values like in version 26. It's proven very difficult figuring out how the code actually works. I wish I were a more experience application developer, and not just a web designer.

A word of warning: many web frameworks test Firefox by brand name, and not whether your browser is Mozilla compatible. As a result, a LOT of pages will show up blank or missing huge chunks of content when viewed in PaleMoon, regardless of how you configure the user agent mode. Alas, life with PaleMoon is very frustrating, as there are way too many web pages that refuse to adhere to standards and will not work properly. It's the same situation with all "unpopular" browsers. Apparently, Chrome, Firefox, and Edge are the only browsers worth supporting these days, and standards-compliance just isn't fashionable anymore.

Comment Re:Wow (Score 3, Interesting) 179

Having done a lot of source comparisons between Firefox and PaleMoon (and especially PaleMoon v26 and v27), it appears that these are not memory leaks, but bad caching policy. Firefox seems to want to cache things indefinitely even if the resources are not needed anymore, but it does not actually "leak" them. I'm still trying to track down how Firefox's automatic management settings work, because this stuff is not controlled with user settings (anything that can be set in user.js).

For a long time I've insisted that if you close all windows and point the last window to about:blank, the browser will still hang on to over a gig of memory. If you do cycle collects and minimize memory usage, the browser still won't release memory. However, if you do a lot of bizarre stuff to flush out the browser history, like open dozens of blank pages and do lots of Backs and Forwards, eventually the browser can be coaxed into clearing caches and you can then cycle collect to get memory usage below 300MB again. The memory does release correctly when it has to. The browser is just designed to use a max, fixed amount of memory, as a percentage of how much RAM you have in your computer. My last tests were with Firefox 47, and on my 16GB Win7 x64 system, that fixed amount appears to be exactly 1.6GB. Firefox 50 uses less memory than 47, but I haven't tested what the max limit is, yet.

The browser is simply trying too hard to be fast by caching the hell out of everything it doesn't need to -- mostly in the Javascript runtime and heap. I have no doubts this can be easily fixed by tweaking some settings, and not rewriting code. Mozilla just absolutely refuses to do this.

Comment Re:Not news (Score 1) 500

Yes, Win95 received plenty of heat. But it still sold tremendously well and people actually wanted it. People were lined up outside stores to buy it at launch. Despite its problems, it was still a significant -- and obvious -- improvement over 3.1.

Me over 98, Vista over XP, 8 over 7... not so much.

Comment Re:Why dont they open source (Score 1) 70

Never rule out good old ego. I can't tell you how many times I've asked someone to open-source their abandoned a freeware application, and they flat out refused. That's especially true when they know there's a community that depends on a very narrow range of applications, and people need to use a specific application even if it's no longer maintained. Everybody likes to feel important.

Also, hey... if movies, music, and 8-bit game ROMs can still be worth millions when the latest craze comes along, why not deprecated browser code? "If you're good at something, never give it away for free."

Comment Re:Not news (Score 1) 500

people don't rush to upgrade to a new OS if they're happy with what they have.

Sure they do. Everybody upgraded from 3.1 to 95. Most people upgraded from 95 to 98. The benefits from 98 to XP were enormous. The upgrade doesn't have to be spectacular, but it does have to be obviously better.

Everybody knew Vista wasn't better than XP and Win8 wasn't better than 7. If you want people to update -- don't fuck up!

Comment Re:Options (Score 1) 500

I find that unlikely. MS constantly releases new versions of the update client, and if you're not using the latest one, WindowsUpdate can sit there literally for 30+ hours totally maxing out one of your CPU cores. If you get the latest version of the update client, the update scan will take less than a minute and won't even max out a core!

I think most people would call that a deadlock situation or some other massive fuckup where the machine is doing "something" while waiting for a response it will never get. It's not actual computation.

Since I don't check for updates very often, I always have to go to one of the Microsoft forums and search for posts where people run into 100% CPU usage for hours at a time. Somebody will eventually post a link to whatever latest client update you need (by its KB number) to magically fix it. Microsoft doesn't have a consistent web page where you can download the latest version of the updater. You have to manually hunt for it, and it's a moving target. Guess why!

PS - Windows10 has the same problem maxing out a CPU core and sitting around for a couple days when you haven't updated in a while. Why is this, when Windows10 had nowhere near as many updates as Windows7?

Comment Re:And mathematicians, including (Score 1) 372

All of these were market leaders who in many cases once owned 80% or more of their respective markets, til they were out-competed and were replaced as king of the hill.

Looking at that list, I recall most of them became so confident and arrogant about their market position that they felt they were invincible. I'd say laziness is the dominant reason, not misstepping. Every day was just internal politics, useless meetings, stupid ideas customers clearly hated but went ahead anyway, and endlessly pushing paper. My favorite modern example is Mozilla, which interestingly is following the same path as Netscape.

Monopolies fall eventually because they kill themselves through poor management, not because their large size is a liability and they are overwhelmed by more agile competitors. Some companies take a looooong time to enter that downward spiral, and can cause massive amounts of industry damage in the meantime. Then they get replaced by another market leader and the cycle starts again.

Comment Full vs Basic (Score 1) 183

In the screenshot from TFA, the setting for diagnostic data collection says "Full". I assume that means the alternate setting is "Basic", the same as they used to be in the old privacy control panel.

So, this is just a web-based re-skin of the old interface, not an update to their policy which gives you more control. That's not my idea of enhancement.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Well hello there Charlie Brown, you blockhead." -- Lucy Van Pelt