What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
41 Comments
- LycoLoco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23I never understand wanting to put every program inside your browser. Whenever you want to restart Firefox after installing an extension or removing one or whatever, you have to stop chatting on IRC, bittorrenting, whatever. As Borninda said, just go with uTorrent.
- scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Solution that fixes a non-problem.
- borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24it's a good idea with a few problems.
First of all, remember the FF memory leak issue? Still exists. When i use BT i leave it on for days at a time. Leaving FF on for days = 1gig+ mem usage, at least by my experience. One more thing, when I am surfing I either slow the BT speeds down or turn it off completely (utorrent btw). Anyway, It's a good idea and the option should definitely be there, but i don't think it's too practical. - fikle, on 10/12/2007, -6/+25So this is like what Opera already does? Okay.
- joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14nah, the opera crowd has had this and many other 'new' firefox extensions for a while. Check it out borninda818, it's quite a nice browser. I don't think you can really say one or the other is better, opera has ALOT more stock, but firefox has essentially limitless expandability...
All I'm saying is to not to silence the opera crowd, they have a good browser too. It's more important to not use IE than it is to use firefox. - filefly, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13"Alot" is not a word.
/nazi - nubtard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11How you are able to use 1GB with firefox alone is beyond me. I leave mine open for days and it doesn't pass 200MB.
- goatomatic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The one benefit I know of is if you are using portable firefox. This way, no matter what computer I'm on I can have bit torrent, ftp, and other things added on as extensions without putting a bunch of different programs on my portable drive.
- fikle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I use both, on a very regular basis. I was just stating a fact, not inciting an argument.
And to be perfectly honest in-browser torrent clients are a waste of time. For torrents I really suggest a dedicated client. :) - TomFrost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Just because it's a plugin for Firefox doesn't mean it uses the ports reserved for HTTP. You'll have the same results with this plugin that you get with any other Bittorrent client in terms of firewall blocking.
- vafada, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6with all that bloat, your Portable Firefox might not be portable after installing all those extensions.
/sarcasm off - airmind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5He is just showing off because he knows what PyXPCOM means ;)
Then he can go to his friends and say he is building a project on Python, on top of the Mozilla framework, using the PyXPCOM interface to communicate with the XPCOM interface of the XUL framework used by Firefox, and they'll all say WOW! - ernieoporto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is an awesome idea! Now if only this extension could be broken off into a dedicated applet that didn't require a dependency on a huge application like firefox. Perhaps a mini-torrent application, or if I may be so bold - a microtorrent! Then we could host it at a site that would serve up this delicious little applet. But since the ยต symbol doesn't show up in URLs we could simply call it utorrent.com. What a fine thing that would be!
By the way, I'm thinking of basing a doctoral thesis on a Firefox extension that would show a little mouse on the screen that you would control with your real mouse, only that little mouse would have to be used to work the pointer, and not your real mouse. Or maybe one that displays a page when you type a URL in the address bar. Isn't pointless redundancy fun???! What does everyone think?!?!?! - DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As with all unreleased software, it's hard to know what kinds of features will be included. For example, the torrents could be throttled down when you're browsing, or be disabled all together, and then resume when your system goes idle. But, I'm with you all the way on the memory leak thing.
- TomFrost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5...NAT has absolutely nothing to do with your web browser. Sorry bud. You're going to need access to your router / DNS Server to fix that one.
- MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Am I the only one who thinks that this is a stupid idea?
Every time you close your browser, it would stop.
An ideal system would involve a service running the background that a front end communicates with. THEN, I'd be ok with Firefox having a frontend to such a system. - KielKilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Dear borninda818,
I have always found the firefox interface interesting but the opera interface allows quick clicks to every option. Also you obviously haven't played around with it... you could change every aspect of it if you wish you just have to learn how too and I've always seen the opera crowd alot more helpful and less interested in converted everyone.
Sincerely, kielkilla - psilanthropist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3no. this is not for downloading the whole 3rd season of lost off demonoid. i would love to have an extension like this for downloading smaller files.
say i need to download something less than 100mb, firestorm would be a quick and seamless way to do that. but for the real heavy stuff, i would go to utorrent. - cap11235, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm with nubtard. I've left Firefox open for about 10 days, and it is currently using 187 MB.
- Qwiggalo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Someone needs to make a torrent system for websites. Some people download the website from the server and then if the website starts getting a lot of hits the server redirects you to other peoples connections, everyone else going to that site will download the content from the people who saw it first. Will solve the problem with websites like this (Digg) and having to find mirrors.
- KoZo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2no FF will not take up too much memory if you set it to minimize memory usage when minimizing the window.
- Hexxagonal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5True Opera is years ahead of competition. You know that new spell checker you love in Firefox... sorry, Opera had one first.
- smackhero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2word. i used to have a serious problem with compulsively installing firefox extensions. it got to the point where firefox now took much longer to start than internet explorer ever did. and on top of that, even with the firefox memory leak problem fixed, i was still have major memory issues due to one or more extensions using poor memory management.
sure, a lot of them are useful and quite handy to have in your browser, but you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise it becomes counter-productive. - Makubex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Who in their right mind would use that font color with that background?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3you're brave enough to attack the geeks on digg yet too scared of your own mum?
- kahrn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The original idea for firefox was to develop a lightweight, barebones browser. That way you could use it on all platforms, old and new - while still being able to have bleeding edge features.
So yes - opera may have it already. But if firefox had it already, then years worth of work to make firefox lightweight would go down the drain.
Then again, if the social-bs-crap gets put into firefox 3, then it'll all go down the drain anyways. And it's already using too many resources to be a viable browser for platforms with < 128MB RAM.. so the entire firefox project is kinda pointless.
But anyways, I use both browsers. In short: Opera users should stfu about how many features opera has on a default install. Firefox users should take notice of the original reason firefox was designed, and get back to the job of designing it for ALL platforms for use by ALL people - and not just the rich people that have > 256MB RAM and such. - vagarach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That *sounds* wow-worthy, if nothing else :D.
- airmind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Or you need cross-platform UPNP NAT trasversing, or only a crappy windows. UPNP is just http by the way, so it wouldnt be hard in a browser, but yeah, it has nothing to do with FIrefox.
- EXreaction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You mean the first thing I disable after installing Opera because it is a PITA to control and I don't want my web browser to take over my torrents?
Ya, I hope to hell that torrent support never goes into FF natively, because it is just more bloat. - smackhero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i agree. a bittorrent client is something that deserves it only dedicated process/application. a true torrent client would add far too much bloat to firefox or wouldn't be full-featured enough that i'd want to use it. utorrent is an excellent client and already has a WebUI so you can administer it through your browser if you really wanted to, but that's kinda pointless if you're running a local copy of it. however, it's great for administering utorrent remotely!
- NerdOfPrey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Isn't that Coral Cache, essentially? ;)
http://www.coralcdn.org/
I'd suggest The Anti-Digg/Slashdot Effect (TADSEE) Firefox plugin:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4166 - mrslick4470, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just as an update (I'll post it on the http://firestorm.mozdev.org site later) we probably won't have an alpha release this week. We're hoping maybe by the end of next week.
We have to work on the report portion of this senior project, so I can't spend anymore time on the actual code. I would rather clean up the code and get rid of a few known bugs before we release it. Once the report is done (next Thursday) we'll get the code cleaned up a bit and see if we can simply the installation process.
Check the main site... http://firestorm.mozdev.org for any further updates. - spongebob331, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sounds like a good idea to me. Hope it works well.
- seven1m, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Seems most geeks here don't get the purpose of this extension since they all use BT to pirate really freakin' huge files. But what about normal, legal uses of BT? For me, having BT integrated with the browser could allow me to make a big file available on my home server via BT and not worry that my Mom wouldn't figure it out. Technologies like BT could truly make the Web a place where *anybody* can share *anything* without having huge bandwidth bills.
- TaylorTAP, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Or you could use QOS. I suggest the Tomato firmware.
- borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7I have it. It is faster in almost every way and hasn't crashed on me so far, but after a few weeks i still didn't get used to the interface. Firefox owns because of it's simple, non cluttered interface (IMO). I just don't like it when opera people rub it in that opera is better...it's getting a little annoying.
- tackle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3[Quote]First of all, remember the FF memory leak issue?[/Quote]
I'm sorry, didnt you get the memo? It is not a memory leak. It is a feature. - trippinlikegod, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1This memory leak has existed for a long time, they ever going to fix it?
- Rocketbird, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1So...that means my school's firewall is helpless...? >:}
- nuttybar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1no more nat errors?!!!!!?
- borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4stfu
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is