TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Firefox aims for 10 percent of Web surfers
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

taco (sauce)

quote:

When I see a program like IE taking up 25% of my system's memory, I seriously have to wonder what the hell their programmers were thinking.

For the sake of having a complete argument, I should mention that sometimes programmers trade space for speed(ie. programs run faster at the expense of using more memory).

However in Internet Explorer's case, it seems like IE programmers traded both space and speed for the development speed(ie. coded IE quickly and sloppy just to get it to the market as soon as possible). Unfortunately they then forgot to update IE for another 3 years, so it remained slow.

That's the beauty of Open Source software. There is never really any rush. Programmers can take their time, and develop solid code that works.

quote:

Originally posted by dEsidEL seems like Firefox 1.0 isn't compatible with the lastest version of BBCode .. gonna hav to wait for a new release on the extension ..

try again, i updated my copy and it works fine..

quote:

Originally posted by Durafei Well, I just bought(1.5 months ago) a laptop with 256megs of ram, celeron.. and it's FUCKIN SLOW ! I hate it (the only reason I bought it cause it was cheap). But ever since I started using Firefox on it, it became noticeably faster.

dude i said 256 AND less... everyone knows XP to run smoothly needs 512.

quote:

Malek, are you sure you understand what Memory Leakage means? It means that software doesn't deallocate memory, which it allocated earlier. Pretty much all software suffers from that problems(some more than others).

trust me I know what leakage means...

dude, Windows Kernel is risponsible of deallocating that memory... even if a poorly written software doesn't do it proprerly or better crashes, that kernel will free up those resources. (ok thats on paper, nothing is perfect)

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Thank you! From the perspective of an internal developer, I absolutely DESPISE sloppy, bloated code. The point is not whether or not your computer can "handle" it - the point is that it's totally unnecessary! Honestly, a web browser is not that complicated an application; In Delphi I think there's actually a drop-in component that you can stick in any app, free of royalties, which has almost all the functionality of Internet Explorer minus the useless crap like ActiveX and BHOs. Memory DOES MATTER, and so does CPU time. If you worked in an IT department running a *nix network, you'd be laughed out of the office if you made comments like "who cares about memory". Honestly, these comments are almost always made by lazy Windows users who have next to no clue how their system actually functions beneath the pretty little GUI. Even if your computer has 10 gigabytes of memory, it's not just about the numbers! There are tons of other issues you have to worry about - to name just a few: - Swapping (Windows especially likes to page *everything* into virtual memory even when there's plenty of free physical memory) - Other system resources (IE likes to open 15 threads and 410 handles when it's IDLE - why? God only knows... then there's video memory, GDI resources, etc...) - Fragmentation - the bigger the memory footprint, the more fragmented that memory is likely to get, which causes the program to run slowly and may cause OTHER programs to run slowly even after being shut down. Again, from a developer's perspective, I am very much against needless optimizations that save memory or disk space at the cost of maintainability or major functionality. It's annoying to see programmers who crash the whole program trying to rewrite 2 instructions as 1 instruction. But there is NO reason for a program to take up 120 MB unless it's a high-end program like Photoshop or Reason. I have a program that opens several databases and up to 50 threads and never pushes past the 25 MB mark - even with all the debug information left in and several debug processes running! And I don't consider this brilliant programming or amazing optimization techniques - that's about what a modern program SHOULD take up. When I see a program like IE taking up 25% of my system's memory, I seriously have to wonder what the hell their programmers were thinking.

I can guarantee that 90% of the end user's out there, don't give a shit about fragmentation and page files (until I hear their whining and grovelling).
That's not to put down your post DigiNut, I totally agree with everyone that there are better alternatives and those of us with technical savy scream like a little girl when we've finished molding our system specs but most people just don't care about that.
Those people see a computer as a tool like a snowblower is to the driveway (oh gawd did I really just make a snow reference???); a means to an end but that's about it.
Us technophiles know the difference but we are few.
Maybe with a little guidance we can convert the oblivious...

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Thank you! From the perspective of an internal developer, I absolutely DESPISE sloppy, bloated code. The point is not whether or not your computer can "handle" it - the point is that it's totally unnecessary!

blablabla... you're talking as if coders and programmers are all alike and as if they DO control the time they have on their hands to get out that (any) product.

We all know, that Quality insurance is always pushed aside by companies and that delivering the product asap is the first thing in their mind.

So UNLESS your program is an embedded software which is supposed to run a nuclear plant or a peacemaker, memory and cpu usage is the last thing on many companies mind, they're not paying for them anyways...

guys, there's a real world out there

quote:

Originally posted by Durafei However in Internet Explorer's case, it seems like IE programmers traded both space and speed for the development speed(ie. coded IE quickly and sloppy just to get it to the market as soon as possible). Unfortunately they then forgot to update IE for another 3 years, so it remained slow.

why are you puttin the emphasis on the programmers??? they don't control the project. Its a buisness case boys and girls, it works 99.5% of the time, great! ship it!

quote:

That's the beauty of Open Source software. There is never really any rush. Programmers can take their time, and develop solid code that works.

dude those open source guys will grow up and look for a job to put some bread on the table...

quote:

Originally posted by malek dude those open source guys will grow up and look for a job to put some bread on the table...

hehe I'm sure the majority of those open source guys can put more than just bread on the table. You really think for example someone like Linus or Brendan Eich, Mozilla chief architect, have problems putting bread on the table? maybe they are extreme exceptions but like them, most have really well paid jobs during the day

quote:

Originally posted by malek We all know, that Quality insurance is always pushed aside by companies and that delivering the product asap is the first thing in their mind.

I agree and that is why ...

quote:

Originally posted by Durafei That's the beauty of Open Source software. There is never really any rush. Programmers can take their time, and develop solid code that works.

quote:

Originally posted by malek dude those open source guys will grow up and look for a job to put some bread on the table...

just to be replaced by newly graduated university students, or those dissatisfied with their current work.

quote:

dude i said 256 AND less... everyone knows XP to run smoothly needs 512.

Interesting... And I thought that XP was released back when 256MB was most common. Yet another proof that people write software for FUTURE computers, instead of the current ones

quote:

guys, there's a real world out there

Malek, you are talking about this like it's normal to release shit software, just to get it out in the market quickly.. You are right - it is real world.

But fuck, if everyone continues to think that it's acceptable to release shit software fast, companies will continue releasing shit software.

In other news..

In other news.. Microsoft Australia's Director says Microsoft does not see Firefox as a threat. He goes onto say that IE is no less secure than any other web browser out there and that it does not lack any features that users wants and thus Firefox is not a threat. He says features such as tabbed browsing are not important to IE users.

source:
http://news.com.com/Microsoft+says+..._3-5448719.html



This gentleman reminds me of this other guy ..


Iraqi Information Minister

Re: In other news..

quote:

Originally posted by loconet This gentleman reminds me of this other guy .. Iraqi Information Minister

There are NO security hole infidels in IE!

(on this issue) you guys suck.

Re: Re: In other news..

quote:

Originally posted by goodnet There are NO security hole infidels in IE!

I posted this a while back:





Firefox will own 25% of the browser market by the end of 2005.

Basically I'm hearing two arguments here:

1. End users don't care about things like fragmentation and memory leaks.
2. Programmers don't control their projects, business people do, which means that code is rushed out before going through any QA.

Neither of these points even come close to addressing the real issue here.

#1 is the Ostrich Argument; just because end users don't care about the issues doesn't mean the issues don't exist. This is why in the IT world (all facets of it, not just coding), "user" means "idiot". They may not care about fragmentation, but they will care about piss-poor performance coming out of their brand new PC. And they may not care about page faults, but they're going to care when one of them causes an illegal operation and the program decides to go bye-bye. And they may not care about threads, but they're going to care when some of those horribly-written threads start to deadlock and their computer locks up. Users may not care about the technical DETAILS, but they sure as hell care about the EFFECTS - and if users knew a little more about the details, there's no way they'd stand for these jokes they call "software".

#2 is both irrelevant AND false! In effect, all you are saying is that the business people are stupid and have no concept of a real software timeframe (sort of like the Dilbert boss - "If I don't understand it, it means it's easy"). But this also implies that it's standard sensible business practice, and it's not, because (a) the support calls will cost the company a lot more than they save on development time, and (b) unless it's a company with monopoly power like Microsoft, users aren't going to want upgrades.

But that ignores the much larger issue which is that as nice as it is to blame the management, it is NOT always the management's fault. The real problem is that there are THOUSANDS of IT/CompSci grads out there who call themselves programmers and can't do shit, they get hired by companies to write professional high-end software, and what they produce in 3 weeks of lead time looks and functions much like the "test programs" I hack out in 3 hours. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm tooting my own horn, that's not the intent and I know there are probably hundreds of programmers out there better than I am, but there are also thousands of worthless wastes of skin out there who can't understand basic concepts like a Linked List or a Hash Table.

It's only about 50% the fault of management. Yes, it's true, they sometimes give unfair deadlines, but good programming teams can usually come up with at least half-decent code in that time by following simple OOP rules - that way they end up with maintainable, reusable, debuggable code.

So I'm sorry but these arguments don't fly. Many of you will remember that I defended Microsoft in the whole silly anti-trust thread, and I stand by that, but that does not mean there's any excuse for such a big company to be cranking out worthless, unreliable and insecure crap like Internet Explorer.

Open Source is the way of the future. Maybe you don't realize this Malek, but a lot of Open Source contributors aren't little kids who have yet to grow up and get a real job - rather, they DO have jobs, often IT-related jobs, and their contributions are somewhat of a hobby (I say "somewhat" because the end result is something they can actually use, and not a stamp collection or a model airplane). Open Source also forces developers to tighten up security because any idiot could wade through the code and find the gaping holes. Security By Obscurity (Microsoft's well-known model) does not work and is known not to work!

quote:

But that ignores the much larger issue which is that as nice as it is to blame the management, it is NOT always the management's fault. The real problem is that there are THOUSANDS of IT/CompSci grads out there who call themselves programmers and can't do shit, they get hired by companies to write professional high-end software, and what they produce in 3 weeks of lead time looks and functions much like the "test programs" I hack out in 3 hours.

Who hires those stupid programmers though? Management. You'd be amazed how different interview process is in different companies. To get hired full-time for MS or Google person usually needs to pass 5-6 hour-long interviews. To get hired at an average software firm, person needs to pass just 1, which may not even include any technical questions.

quote:

It's only about 50% the fault of management. Yes, it's true, they sometimes give unfair deadlines, but good programming teams can usually come up with at least half-decent code in that time by following simple OOP rules - that way they end up with maintainable, reusable, debuggable code.

When you are given 1 month to implement 2 months long project, there is no time for design. You end up with shitty code, that somehow/barely works. This is management's fault.. I don't even know what "half decent" means. Code is either decent, or it's not. There is no half-way.

quote:

Originally posted by Durafei Who hires those stupid programmers though? Management. You'd be amazed how different interview process is in different companies. To get hired full-time for MS or Google person usually needs to pass 5-6 hour-long interviews. To get hired at an average software firm, person needs to pass just 1, which may not even include any technical questions.

Oh no doubt about that, and that's why I peg the blame at 50/50. You have to be fair though, it's really hard for management to make good hiring decisions when colleges and universities are churning out 50,000 graduates a year who write code like

Form5->ListBox3->Items->Objects[atoi(substr(Form1->Edit2->Text, 4, strlen(Form1->Edit2->Text)))]->QR = App_QR1 + lfunc(x - 5, y+z) + 3,

where App_QR1 is declared as a global variable in a unit called "misc.h", which consists of about 100 different totally unrelated variables and functions with equally cryptic names like "pkStFrmShMLA" and "int getMRblkT(PChar *P)" and is in the include section of EVERY SINGLE source file in the ENTIRE PROJECT. Gee, you're having trouble finding the reason you're getting 13 consecutive access violations when you click the "File" menu? I WONDER WHY!!!

So sure, managers have to hire good programmers, but I think when they're confronted with 50 interviews in a row with guys who can barely remember how to write a "hello world" program let alone write a worker thread, they just assume that all the candidates are like that and give up.

I got a kick out of this essay, by a Microsoft MVP:
http://www.flounder.com/bricks.htm

Goes to show you the quality of labour these days. It's really sad, and yes, part of the problem lies with lazy short-sighted managers, but a MUCH bigger part of the problem lies with the crummy world of academia.

And code is NOT either "decent" or "not decent", there are certainly gray areas. Sometimes you have to cut corners to meet deadlines, but knowing which corners to cut is an art too! Some pieces you can afford to hack together, others you can't. Cut every corner and you'll eventually wind up going in circles.

time for some hairy anus...

http://www.teenhealthfx.com/answers/Sexuality/914.html

Dear TeenHealthFX,

Is it normal to have a hairy anus around that area? Is it in both men and women?

Signed: Curious About Hairy Anus

Dear Curious About Hairy Anus,

It is normal to have hair on the anus and that area. Like any of your pubic regions like your chest and armpits, you will grow hair. Your butt and your genital area are no different. Some men have very hairy chests, arms and legs depending upon their genetics. These men will likely have more hair in the anal region as well.

If you have hair in this region you are not alone. Both men and women get hair on and around their anus and it is completely natural.

Signed: TeenHealthFX

don't kid yourselves, there's only maybe one good programmer out of ten. The other nine will write poor code if they're not well guided by software engineers and project managers. That IS if there's true software engineers in the shop.

nice one Malek !

Just one day after the Mozilla Foundation released Firefox 1.0, the group has revealed that prior versions of the open-source browser pose a security threat to users. According to information released by Mozilla, multiple security holes have been plugged in all beta versions of Firefox to correct flaws that could lead to security bypass, exposure of sensitive data, privilege escalation and DoS (denial of service) attacks.

Research firm Secunia rates the vulnerabilities as "moderately critical". Mozilla warned that successful exploits could also detect the presence of local files, spoof the file download dialog, or gain escalated privileges on vulnerable machines

------------------------------------

People bitch and moan about MS security this, MS security that...

Face it folks - an computer that is connected to another via any means is vulnerable.

IMO - There is no reason to change browsers simply for security purposes (if you have XP-SP2 installed).

quote:

Originally posted by rabbitjoker Face it folks - an computer that is connected to another via any means is vulnerable. IMO - There is no reason to change browsers simply for security purposes (if you have XP-SP2 installed).

I cant install SP2. Style XP changed my boot.ini file, which SP2 needs to run.
Im not so worried about this, I didnt change over security, I changed over stability.
IE crashed, locked and did all other kinds of stupid shit to my computer all the time. Ive been using Firefox since MidJune/July, and in all that time, Ive had my browser crash twice.
TWICE. Thats unheard of using IE. I cant remember how many times you would have to reboot because of IE just freezing the computer. Not so w/ firefox.


That is why Im impressed.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.