What is Digg?146 Comments
- zeabu, on 02/23/2009, -25/+186I'd like to see Mozilla start working on an OS.
- Jhiaxuz, on 02/24/2009, -2/+135I wish my last name was Blizzard.
- adderx99, on 02/23/2009, -1/+93So much awesomeness its too much to fathom.
embedded video and audio without requiring any external components or plugins, SVG filters for HTML, cross-site XMLHttpRequest, DNS prefetching, and embedded font support. - asadotzler, on 02/24/2009, -1/+70In just a matter of months, 200+ million Firefox users will have these capabilities. That's a decent sized audience for some pretty awesome new capabilities.
- CynicalTyler, on 02/24/2009, -0/+61Dear Chris Blizzard,
It's confusing when people refer to you by your last name. Please change it.
Yours truly,
Internets - theOster, on 02/24/2009, -6/+64what's wrong with linux in all its flavors?
- Rekutyn, on 02/24/2009, -2/+51flavours :P
- thegreatanti, on 02/24/2009, -4/+42Chrome actually uses more memory than Firefox due to process separation. Before making such claims, figure out the facts. Since you didn't, I did it for you:
http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/web/tested- ... - ptFoe, on 02/24/2009, -2/+40quoote ="used JavaScript in worker threads to programmatically detect motion in a playing video."
how awesome is that. - guinpen, on 02/24/2009, -1/+37Why would they work on an OS? They make browsers... Just because your mechanic is really good at fixing cars doesn't mean he should be designing their engines.
- thephosphorbox, on 02/24/2009, -11/+46I love Firefox.. just wish they'd nail that memory leak bug. I caught Firefox using 1.1 GIGS of RAM the other day with only 4 tabs open (granted I hadn't closed the browser for a couple weeks as I rarely restart my machine, but still).
- MiDri, on 02/24/2009, -0/+32I was thinking that same *****, How awesome would it be to be a Blizzard? Not only are you a tasty mother ***** ice cream snack, you're also a huge billion dollar company, and hell a pretty kick ass storm.
- ironiridis, on 02/24/2009, -0/+26@freqk Seriously?
- xenuxenuts, on 02/24/2009, -10/+35no games.
- pred4tor, on 02/24/2009, -9/+33DIGG THIS ARTICLE TILL IT PASSES THE APPLE SAFARI ARTICLE
- missingnoh4x, on 02/24/2009, -3/+26That's what they've said for every version. The hole may be a bit smaller each time, but water is still flowing out.
- thegreatanti, on 02/24/2009, -1/+23Two very cool demos:
http://www.0xdeadbeef.com/%7Eblizzard/launch/
http://www.mozbox.org/pub/tracker/
These demos are so bleeding edge they'll only work with the latest Firefox nightly's which you can get here:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/
(fresh profile is advised) - graytragedy, on 02/24/2009, -2/+24@freqk: its flavors*, douche.
- ilgaz, on 02/24/2009, -11/+31It is the OS. The kernel is the OS it runs on. That was what made independent Netscape arch enemy of MS. It was heading that way.
We are seeing this stuff 4-5 years late thanks to MS games. - tuxerware, on 02/24/2009, -2/+22Try Firefox 3.1. The "memory leak" you are talking about is solved.
- chedabob, on 02/24/2009, -1/+16Are you using any plugins? I've found Firefox can become a bit of a monster if you've got a lot of plugins running.
- TheDude01, on 02/24/2009, -1/+16None of this really matter if only Firefox supports them. No serious project can be browser specific. The whole idea of the open web is to be browser/os independent!
- HonoredMule, on 02/24/2009, -0/+12Keep in mind that browsers are also frequently used for corporately-deployed software, and that is currently the last fortress of IE. Features like these are a strong incentive for intranet services or private browser-based software to standardize on Firefox instead. There's a lot of joy to be had by developers and niche interests from having these features even just on one browser. As I recall, targeting enterprise usage worked out pretty nicely for IE.
If there's something truly useful that can be done on Firefox and simply can't on others (like intensive background processing), then there will be plenty of situations where software developers will be content to say "use Firefox or this is a no go," either because their specific market conditions allow/favor it, or simply because they are developing something that can't even be done on other browsers anyway. And that latter point is probably the biggest indicator that others will follow in Mozilla's path in offering these features anyway.
Also, where Mozilla is trying to extend open standards while keeping them open, others should be happy to follow. Innovation has to start with someone, and this is a lot different from MS extending open standards into proprietary trade secrets so others /can't/ embrace them (as surely they wanted to then, also). - sith333, on 02/24/2009, -0/+11Yea but aren't you kind of killing the essence of the browser, not to mention in reducing process count you'd theoretically free up memory, sure, but you'd do so at the expense of clock cycles.
So you'd be taking a hit somewhere anyway.
Firefox and Chrome are kind of incomparable, IMO. - HonoredMule, on 02/24/2009, -0/+11Javascript worker threads!
That alone is made of pure, distilled awesome. With them, your extra idle cores can finally take some load off of the single core being maxed out every time a Digg page loads, and the UI/rendering/input handling can maintain processing priority for smooth operation. If page tabs start getting their own worker thread within the XUL framework, Firefox will be able to start taking advantage of multiple cores in a big way, which will cause netbooks especially to breathe a sigh of relief. Firefox on Linux on Atom is currently just a little painful. - TheDude01, on 02/24/2009, -0/+10None of this really matter if only Firefox supports them. No serious project can be browser specific. The whole idea of the open web is to be browser/os independent!
- zeabu, on 02/24/2009, -2/+12The million flavours it has. It's too scattered to appeal to mum, dad and your sister, therefore it will stick forever at a home-userbase of 1% and therefore uninteresting for companies to make games, etc. for it.
The fact that Mozilla/Firefox has a strong name, makes it an S (or at least an O) in a SWOT. A Mozilla OS could appeal to all those Windows-users using Firefox, but that seemingly cannot be bothered by Linux.
Also, why would an alternative has to be Linux? Why not a ReactOS-(Win32 replacement) alike project? - iSinned, on 02/24/2009, -0/+10I agree, but the idea is for the other browsers to play catch up. Mozilla is setting the standards.
- TVarmy, on 02/24/2009, -2/+12Supposedly, if you use your machine for other tasks, it'll liberate that ram for you. It's never been an issue for me on my computer with 2GB of ram under OSX or Windows 7/XP/Vista.
- ataylor32, on 02/24/2009, -0/+10Yes, but it will definitely help motivate other browsers to implement these features to keep up
- ironiridis, on 02/24/2009, -0/+10If Mozilla doesn't innovate, then the only company innovating is Microsoft. Would you rather that?
- missingnoh4x, on 02/24/2009, -3/+12As much as I love Firefox, just imagine how bad the memory leak would be if your whole OS was from Mozilla. Yeah, I'll stick with the Linux kernel.
- jazgold, on 02/24/2009, -0/+8they're doing this stuff so flash is no longer necessary...
probably one of the most common uses of flash is to display video... which they're trying to cover now.
and the demo with the video motion tracking and enhanced svg...
trying to give adobe the boot... - MtheoryX, on 02/24/2009, -0/+8Aren't the plugins a MAJOR selling point for FF?
If it weren't for those, and you just want speed, why wouldn't you just use WebKit nightlies? - Zain123, on 02/24/2009, -1/+8Its is the possessive form of it.
- h0dges, on 02/24/2009, -0/+7Max Power!
- rakeshishere, on 02/24/2009, -1/+8Mozilla Firefox FTW
- dtfinch, on 02/24/2009, -1/+8The statistic I feel the most is cold start time. Chrome takes under 1/2 second. Internet Explorer takes about 3. Firefox with no extensions takes like 5-10. Everything's scattered into a couple hundred little files that FF loads from its program directory on startup, while Chrome's program directory has about 8, not counting the inspector that loads on demand. Chrome's page load time feels faster too. Firefox just wins on features.
- JasonHaley, on 02/24/2009, -1/+7I wasn't going to digg this until I read that....and then I got all competitive and *****.
- martinaoe2, on 02/24/2009, -8/+14People are moaning about the memory leaks. FF only as strong as how many plug ins you have and how good they are at controling their own memory.
- directrix13, on 02/24/2009, -0/+6It has no problems except for Flash, in my experience. And the Flash support is waaaaay better than it used to be.
- DomZy, on 02/24/2009, -0/+6to demo worker threads...
- raydeen, on 02/24/2009, -1/+6FF is slower on Linux in general. It's not just Ubuntu.
- tux11, on 02/24/2009, -1/+6no mem leaks.
- inactive, on 02/24/2009, -0/+5Sweet. Hopefully people will adopt the open vid instead of using buggy flash videos.
- pilobilus, on 02/24/2009, -2/+6Putting an end to the Adobe SWF monopoly is in the best financial and strategic interests of Mozilla and Microsoft. I for one welcome the death of Adobe's last non-obsolete product line, and with it, the birth of non-sabotaged web video on Linux.
- tushyd, on 02/24/2009, -0/+4I like the push for open video/audio formats.
- thephosphorbox, on 02/24/2009, -0/+4I use AdBlock Plus and NoScript.
- LeviTheSmith, on 02/24/2009, -0/+4Look in the tunk
- Krazeel, on 02/24/2009, -2/+6I'd like to see you becoming a member of Mozilla and achieving that project.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 149 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is