Surprised you didn't post about how much less le ram it uses on your 8 year old toaster with a insanely large 2gb of RAM, compared to that devil chrome.
Of course, this is with 80 tabs open, like every normal person has
It used to be less stupid when firefox was still decent, chrome allocated RAM like it was its own OS, and internet explorer wasn't officially dead yet.
Last I checked it does still manage to use less than chrome per tab. Chrome used to have being light on ram use as a selling point but then they did the each tab as a separate process thing. It reduced crashes but eats ram.
Good job on disgusting me even further than you ever did before.
The pedophilia I could accept. You being a weeb, I could accept. Having unironically a waifu, I could accept. But being a chrome fag ? I am drawing the line.
They can't get smaller without compromising Firefox. I have no idea why you think they can just 'use money better'. They basically spend everything they receive on engineering Firefox. They gave up on Firefox OS for desktop Firefox.
/u/Ripdog yeah, it really takes hundreds of millions to develop a fucking browser. Mozilla has plenty of money, that's why they're able to piss millions away on diversity initiatives and a failed phone operations system without going bankrupt.
Most people developing software for a living aren't a corporation maintaining a browser. Firefox has 10 million lines of code. Android has 12 million lines of code.
Modern browsers are actually complex pieces of software.
Sure. "Hundred million dollars per year" complex? Eh, at that point concerns about scope creep and corruption are reasonable.
Those concerns are strenghtened by the large amount of money mozilla spends on what is fairly long term R&D, blatantly stupid adventures like FirefoxOS, questionable wheel reinventions for their main product, and of course completely off mission projects such as the diversity initiatives the other dude mentioned.
culture war bullshit informs your opinions, not reality.
Did Mozilla invest millions of dollars in those projects? Yes.
Are those projects tangential to the development of a web browser? Yes.
"reality" has a meaning, and it's not "my favourite version of the story".
Regardless of your opinion on those projects by themselves, they are a reason to be worried about scope creep at best.
Sure. "Hundred million dollars per year" complex? Eh, at that point concerns about scope creep and corruption are reasonable.
How much experience do you have supporting a major web browser? I, personally, have no idea how much that shit costs but that won't stop me from calling out someone who is talking out their ass like the OP.
Regardless of your opinion on those projects by themselves, they are a reason to be worried about scope creep at best.
Scope creep on what? The company's overall mission? They took risks and those risks didn't pay out. They could do nothing except support Firefox, but that's the executive direction of the company, not scope creep. I really don't have an opinion on the various initiatives Mozilla has pursued. My only point with my second comment was to highlight the stupidity of listing what is ultimately an insignificant PR stunt alongside a major product push that failed.
I have none so I do not have an idea how much that shit costs
I have some experience working with expensive processes, and I have seen lots of money being wasted just because it was within reach of an incompetent, dishonest, or confused manager.
Opening inspect element on a google page is all I need to know developing a web browser is not easy, but that's exactly what I worry about.
It's hard, ambitious and expensive projects that attract corruption and scope creep, not easy ones.
Scope creep on what? The company's overall mission?
Pretty much. Company values like giving the consumer a choice, respecting privacy, and the likes lost the spotlight. They weren't challenged like now, but they weren't given the usual amount of attention either.
They took risks and those risks didn't pay out.
Let's say that some of those risks looked like they were not expected to pay out.
They could do nothing except support Firefox, but that's the executive direction of the company, not scope creep.
Executive directions can be scope creep in itself, and some of the choices regarding Firefox itself are an example of that: Introducing new features out of the blue, removing other features in a similarly unexpected fashion, backtracking on decisions without any warning, and terrible long term planning.
The extension API switch is basically a textbook case of scope creep: what should have been a logical necessity of switching to a multithreaded model became a nightmare of broken promises, missed deadlines, placeholder implementations, a hundred changes planned and deployed in the most illogical order possible, and a complete overhaul of what extensions are supposed to be and do that was uncalled for and done at the worst possible time.
My only point with my second comment was to highlight the stupidity of listing what is ultimately an insignificant PR stunt alongside a major product push that failed.
But it's not stupid to criticize Mozilla's hefty secondary investments when they are playing the "we need money" card.
I have seen lots of money being wasted just because it was within reach of an incompetent, dishonest, or confused manager
Sure, but this applies to pretty much any enterprise software project. At this point one should just automatically factor in every 3rd manager as a liability and adjust cost estimates accordingly.
But it's not stupid to criticize Mozilla's hefty secondary investments when they are playing the "we need money" card.
Never said it isn't. I only said it was stupid to include a diversity PR stunt alongside a major push like a cellphone browser.
Yes, modern browsers are that complex. They're about as complex as operating systems. Android, an operating system, has 12 million lines of code. Firefox has 10 million lines of code. For comparision, windows 10 has 50 million lines of code.
I know browsers are complex, but keep in mind that open source projects are free to use and modify a LOT of libraries made by others, so codelines is not that good of a complexity measurement if most of the code is developed by someone else: for example, large parts of android are basically copypasted from older versions of linux and slightly adapted(the kernel is a big one). Commit size per time might be better, but it's still not great.
Anyways, half a billion per year is still an enormous amount of money that could pay for thousands and thousands of skilled developers. Even if you think everyone in there is honest, it's easy to worry about them wasting money by mistake just by looking at the enormous costs and meager results, and the non-browser projects aren't encouraging.
Android is not basically a modified Linux. It is its own operating system which happens to also use the linux kernel.
Firefox is amazingly complex behind the scenes. It's not like they aren't doing work either; Quantum involved a complete rewrite of important parts of the browser in Rust.
Generally libraries and stuff aren't included in the LoC count. Even if they aren't writing 10 million lines, they still have to deal with maintaining a codebase containiong 10 million lines of code.
and Android does quite a few innovative things with Java in their custom userland.
They have their own virtual machine and even a drop-in java replacement iirc, a good part of it because Oracle was bitching about copyright and sued them at one point.
It's interesting for sure.
I thought I should just off myself after being unable to figure out how to modify QuickBand so that it would compile on Linux.
Eh, failing to build on Linux is the norm IMO. Goes triple when there's dead links in the docs.
Apparently the QuickBand developer was using some kind of IDE on Windows, with the compilation instructions being to either use the windows binaries or put in the source files manually into a GUI linker. There was no makefile I could use, and I don't know enough about Angband to build one myself.
It does. Modern browsers are absurdly complex, basically operating systems themselves. There is a constant stream of new web standards coming down the pipe which Mozilla must implement to prevent Firefox falling behind, there is a mountain of technical debt in Firefox which must be paid down, performance improvements, bug fixes...
Firefox OS was another huge project, and IMO was basically the reason that desktop firefox fell behind so much. Mozilla did not have the resources to develop both at the same time without compromises. 400m isn't a gigantic sum in the browser wars. I'd love to know how much Google pours into Chrome - I bet it's much higher.
45 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-05-02
MRW
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 YameteOniichanItai 2018-05-02
Using Firefox unironically
1 LemonScore 2018-05-02
I already stopped after Quantum broke a lot of the add-ons I was using. Fuck Mozilla.
1 JTBebe2 2018-05-02
Surprised you didn't post about how much less le ram it uses on your 8 year old toaster with a insanely large 2gb of RAM, compared to that devil chrome.
Of course, this is with 80 tabs open, like every normal person has
1 LemonScore 2018-05-02
Since when is using less RAM a Firefox stereotype? It's had horrendous memory leaks forever.
1 JTBebe2 2018-05-02
It used to be a common post 1-2 years ago around pc focused subs, just saw it recently again in the pcmustard sub. It's always been stupid
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-05-02
It used to be less stupid when firefox was still decent, chrome allocated RAM like it was its own OS, and internet explorer wasn't officially dead yet.
1 AntiLuke 2018-05-02
Last I checked it does still manage to use less than chrome per tab. Chrome used to have being light on ram use as a selling point but then they did the each tab as a separate process thing. It reduced crashes but eats ram.
1 HINDBRAIN 2018-05-02
You should have tried to harness the power of quantum spookiness.
1 InferiorShortage 2018-05-02
I had a perfect video downloader. Quantum fucked it into oblivion, it's still not at the same.
1 dogDroolsCatsRules 2018-05-02
Good job on disgusting me even further than you ever did before.
The pedophilia I could accept. You being a weeb, I could accept. Having unironically a waifu, I could accept. But being a chrome fag ? I am drawing the line.
1 v_is_one_person 2018-05-02
But cans they spells?
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-05-02
Enjoy your botnet browser pedo
1 LemonScore 2018-05-02
/u/Ripdog yeah, it really takes hundreds of millions to develop a fucking browser. Mozilla has plenty of money, that's why they're able to piss millions away on diversity initiatives and a failed phone operations system without going bankrupt.
1 automatic_chuck 2018-05-02
RUBE LUBE
TICK TOCK
1 saddertadder 2018-05-02
Wow you must not develop software for a living
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-05-02
Most people developing software for a living don't have hundreds of millions per year of budget.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-05-02
Most people developing software for a living aren't a corporation maintaining a browser. Firefox has 10 million lines of code. Android has 12 million lines of code.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-05-02
You are definitely talking out of your ass because modern browsers are actually complex pieces of software.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-05-02
Sure. "Hundred million dollars per year" complex? Eh, at that point concerns about scope creep and corruption are reasonable.
Those concerns are strenghtened by the large amount of money mozilla spends on what is fairly long term R&D, blatantly stupid adventures like FirefoxOS, questionable wheel reinventions for their main product, and of course completely off mission projects such as the diversity initiatives the other dude mentioned.
Did Mozilla invest millions of dollars in those projects? Yes.
Are those projects tangential to the development of a web browser? Yes.
"reality" has a meaning, and it's not "my favourite version of the story".
Regardless of your opinion on those projects by themselves, they are a reason to be worried about scope creep at best.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-05-02
How much experience do you have supporting a major web browser? I, personally, have no idea how much that shit costs but that won't stop me from calling out someone who is talking out their ass like the OP.
Scope creep on what? The company's overall mission? They took risks and those risks didn't pay out. They could do nothing except support Firefox, but that's the executive direction of the company, not scope creep. I really don't have an opinion on the various initiatives Mozilla has pursued. My only point with my second comment was to highlight the stupidity of listing what is ultimately an insignificant PR stunt alongside a major product push that failed.
1 t-r-s2 2018-05-02
That PR stunt insignificant if it took a position against half the country.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-05-02
lol
Anyways, it's insignificant. If you held any professional position you would know this.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-05-02
I have some experience working with expensive processes, and I have seen lots of money being wasted just because it was within reach of an incompetent, dishonest, or confused manager.
Opening inspect element on a google page is all I need to know developing a web browser is not easy, but that's exactly what I worry about.
It's hard, ambitious and expensive projects that attract corruption and scope creep, not easy ones.
Pretty much. Company values like giving the consumer a choice, respecting privacy, and the likes lost the spotlight. They weren't challenged like now, but they weren't given the usual amount of attention either.
Let's say that some of those risks looked like they were not expected to pay out.
Executive directions can be scope creep in itself, and some of the choices regarding Firefox itself are an example of that: Introducing new features out of the blue, removing other features in a similarly unexpected fashion, backtracking on decisions without any warning, and terrible long term planning.
The extension API switch is basically a textbook case of scope creep: what should have been a logical necessity of switching to a multithreaded model became a nightmare of broken promises, missed deadlines, placeholder implementations, a hundred changes planned and deployed in the most illogical order possible, and a complete overhaul of what extensions are supposed to be and do that was uncalled for and done at the worst possible time.
But it's not stupid to criticize Mozilla's hefty secondary investments when they are playing the "we need money" card.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2018-05-02
Sure, but this applies to pretty much any enterprise software project. At this point one should just automatically factor in every 3rd manager as a liability and adjust cost estimates accordingly.
Never said it isn't. I only said it was stupid to include a diversity PR stunt alongside a major push like a cellphone browser.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-05-02
Yes, modern browsers are that complex. They're about as complex as operating systems. Android, an operating system, has 12 million lines of code. Firefox has 10 million lines of code. For comparision, windows 10 has 50 million lines of code.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-05-02
I know browsers are complex, but keep in mind that open source projects are free to use and modify a LOT of libraries made by others, so codelines is not that good of a complexity measurement if most of the code is developed by someone else: for example, large parts of android are basically copypasted from older versions of linux and slightly adapted(the kernel is a big one). Commit size per time might be better, but it's still not great.
Anyways, half a billion per year is still an enormous amount of money that could pay for thousands and thousands of skilled developers. Even if you think everyone in there is honest, it's easy to worry about them wasting money by mistake just by looking at the enormous costs and meager results, and the non-browser projects aren't encouraging.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-05-02
Android is not basically a modified Linux. It is its own operating system which happens to also use the linux kernel.
Firefox is amazingly complex behind the scenes. It's not like they aren't doing work either; Quantum involved a complete rewrite of important parts of the browser in Rust.
Generally libraries and stuff aren't included in the LoC count. Even if they aren't writing 10 million lines, they still have to deal with maintaining a codebase containiong 10 million lines of code.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-05-02
I know, I didn't call Android a Linux fork for a reason. In any case, even being able to reuse the kernel alone is a lot of trouble solved.
That makes my ability to fuck up a 1k LoC codebase even more impressive, since that included libs.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-05-02
There's quite a bit to an operating system besides a kernel, and Android does quite a few innovative thing s with Java in their custom userland.
I thought I should just off myself after being unable to figure out how to modify QuickBand so that it would compile on Linux.
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-05-02
They have their own virtual machine and even a drop-in java replacement iirc, a good part of it because Oracle was bitching about copyright and sued them at one point.
It's interesting for sure.
Eh, failing to build on Linux is the norm IMO. Goes triple when there's dead links in the docs.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-05-02
Apparently the QuickBand developer was using some kind of IDE on Windows, with the compilation instructions being to either use the windows binaries or put in the source files manually into a GUI linker. There was no makefile I could use, and I don't know enough about Angband to build one myself.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-05-02
Modern browsers are practically operating systems, m8. Firefox has 10 million lines of code Android has 12 million.
1 Ripdog 2018-05-02
It does. Modern browsers are absurdly complex, basically operating systems themselves. There is a constant stream of new web standards coming down the pipe which Mozilla must implement to prevent Firefox falling behind, there is a mountain of technical debt in Firefox which must be paid down, performance improvements, bug fixes...
Firefox OS was another huge project, and IMO was basically the reason that desktop firefox fell behind so much. Mozilla did not have the resources to develop both at the same time without compromises. 400m isn't a gigantic sum in the browser wars. I'd love to know how much Google pours into Chrome - I bet it's much higher.
1 GymLeaderBlue 2018-05-02
1 kippot 2018-05-02
Imagine being so obsessed by cuckoldry that you label abstract objects cucked
1 saddertadder 2018-05-02
T java 201 babby
1 Tarrock 2018-05-02
I can just go to r/Chapocuckhouse on any browser for that stuff
1 old_grumpy_grandpa 2018-05-02
And of course the mods lock the thread. Can't have goys criticizing the (((privacy focused and consumer friendly))) browser.
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-05-02
I know a bunch of people at Mozilla and they are all fear-face soy-apes.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-05-02
Sure you do.
1 [deleted] 2018-05-02
[deleted]
1 LemonScore 2018-05-02
1 Leftist_Degenerate 2018-05-02
This is fine.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-05-02
They said personalized, m8. You can set it to display nothing but Fox if you want to.
1 infinitude 2018-05-02
Holy shit I was wondering why I kept seeing retarded articles. Today was one about superheroes actually being evil altrighters