...etc... Guess Google shouldn't be writing an OS either?
I have three points with this post. My first is that, despite the extremely good marketing, Chrome has faults just like any other large piece of software. The point is that they have good engineers on the problems. So does Mozilla.
My second is claim is that a Firefox-based solution is good for the web. Even if it isn't as successful as Android, it will open up the web more! Android is a farce of open source (I cannot get the kernel code running on my phone. That is a blatant GPL violation. Nobody is doing anything about it. I cannot get the Android userland code running on my tablet. That is just not open source.) At the moment, Android is scarcely more open than iOS.
My last claim is that many of the "memory leaks" in Firefox are either caching--memory which is not being used is memory which is being wasted--and those which are truly memory leaks tend to be from binary extensions. The new extension SDK should mitigate this, since it is sandboxed JS code instead, from what I understand (disclaimer: i do not work on the extension API, nor do I write extensions, and I could by way off here.)
Honestly yes. Google should not be writing an OS either.
But lets be fair here, Google has waaaay more resources than Mozilla (hell, most of Mozillas resources come from Google...), and a comparison between Chrome and Firefox shows that.
There is a law of decreasing returns when it comes to "resources". That is to say, an engineer only makes so much, and throwing additional engineers at a single project only gains you so much, and the gains of each additional engineer are far less.
And the comparison between Chrome and Firefox shows... nothing? In my usage, Firefox works fine and Chrome swaps like hell and crashes even when I can get it working. Clearly other people have different experiences, but I can't reproduce them.
And you would not argue that IE6 was better than Firefox 1.0, I am sure. Microsoft had waaaay more resources than Mozilla then too. That is not indicative of failure.
"And you would not argue that IE6 was better than Firefox 1.0, I am sure. Microsoft had waaaay more resources than Mozilla then too. That is not indicative of failure."
At the time, Microsoft was not providing shit for resources to the IE team (by that time they had already creamed netscape), so really that's just another example of how insufficient resources will starve a browser project.
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=36142
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=68304
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=90484
...etc... Guess Google shouldn't be writing an OS either?
I have three points with this post. My first is that, despite the extremely good marketing, Chrome has faults just like any other large piece of software. The point is that they have good engineers on the problems. So does Mozilla.
My second is claim is that a Firefox-based solution is good for the web. Even if it isn't as successful as Android, it will open up the web more! Android is a farce of open source (I cannot get the kernel code running on my phone. That is a blatant GPL violation. Nobody is doing anything about it. I cannot get the Android userland code running on my tablet. That is just not open source.) At the moment, Android is scarcely more open than iOS.
My last claim is that many of the "memory leaks" in Firefox are either caching--memory which is not being used is memory which is being wasted--and those which are truly memory leaks tend to be from binary extensions. The new extension SDK should mitigate this, since it is sandboxed JS code instead, from what I understand (disclaimer: i do not work on the extension API, nor do I write extensions, and I could by way off here.)