Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

And so I'm giving up the Mozilla project - Jamie Zawinski (1999)

jwz.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: And so I'm giving up the Mozilla project - Jamie Zawinski (1999)

#31

Post by alnayyir »

Simucal wrote: post #5
daimyoyo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"When I found a machine that could compile it, it took about 8 hours." Thank you. It never occurred to me that you need a lot more processing power to compile code than you do to run the software you're creating. You just saved me a lot of heartache in a few months once it's time to start compiling. I love HN. /srsly

This isn't always the case. It is highly dependent on the language, the compiler used, the size of the code-base and many other factors. Most of the small to medium sized project I have worked on compile in what seems like an instant. However, I work on a medium-to-large code-base at work and it takes around 8 minutes to compile on our build server and around 12-15 minutes on my dev machine. Even these speeds seem tr…

ccache. Come on guys, this is basic tooling.

Re: And so I'm giving up the Mozilla project - Jamie Zawinski (1999)

#33

Post by pcwalton »

lovamova wrote: post #11
asadotzler wrote: post #8

Lots of things on the Internet can move quickly but browsers are not Internet software the way that Google or Facebook are. Browsers are still desktop software and things don't move as quickly there thanks to slow PC upgrade cycles and the absolute dominance that software like Windows, Office, and Internet Explorer had a decade ago. Turning that massive ship took longer than many imagined but it is happening. Jamie g…

When Firefox 1.0 came out, it was one of the lightest browsers available on the market. What happened until version 4.0? Even the latest Firefox beta is one of the slowest browser available. I’m not talking about the JavaScript engine, I’m talking about the user experience of your product.

What in particular about the UX of the latest beta do you find slow? We should fix it.

Re: And so I'm giving up the Mozilla project - Jamie Zawinski (1999)

#34

Post by kungpaobeef2 »

glenjamin wrote: post #20
lovamova wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Firefox 1.0 came out, it was one of the lightest browsers available on the market. What happened until version 4.0? Even the latest Firefox beta is one of the slowest browser available. I’m not talking about the JavaScript engine, I’m talking about the user experience of your product.

I'd say that in the 10 or so years since firefox 1.0, the average computing power and requirements of the firefox user have shifted enough that the goalposts have moved. Firefox 1.0's USP at a time when browsers were bloated was its lack of bloat. IMO thats less of an issue now.

Actually, 6 years and about 3 months.

Re: And so I'm giving up the Mozilla project - Jamie Zawinski (1999)

#35

Post by lovamova »

pcwalton wrote: post #33
lovamova wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Firefox 1.0 came out, it was one of the lightest browsers available on the market. What happened until version 4.0? Even the latest Firefox beta is one of the slowest browser available. I’m not talking about the JavaScript engine, I’m talking about the user experience of your product.

What in particular about the UX of the latest beta do you find slow? We should fix it.

Here are couple of things:

1. Sync slows down the interface of the application a lot. There should be an option to completely disable Sync. Or Sync should have been an add-on installed by default. If I want to sync only the bookmarks, do just that, nothing else. Sync should also be activated only when I save a new bookmark, not every now and then.

2. SQLite slows down the application and complicates things with those default smart folders. You can't even create a smart folder for bookmarks. Mozilla should have write a faster database for bookmarks and history — they are just soem lines of text after all.

3. Live Bookmarks are useless now since the RSS icon was removed. It was useless before. I think by removing the code for Live Bookmarks and treating bookmarks and history in the same way will make things work faster.

4. Tab Groups also slows down the interface. It is useless since you can manage multiple tab groups by opening new windows.

5. Moving the status bar in the address bar was a bad idea. It complicates the user experience. Status bar should be shown only when something new happens — a download stars, a new page is loading, etc.

I don't know what happens under the hood, but Firefox is heading in the wrong direction.

Re: And so I'm giving up the Mozilla project - Jamie Zawinski (1999)

#36

Post by pcwalton »

lovamova wrote: post #35
pcwalton wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in particular about the UX of the latest beta do you find slow? We should fix it.

Here are couple of things: 1. Sync slows down the interface of the application a lot. There should be an option to completely disable Sync. Or Sync should have been an add-on installed by default. If I want to sync only the bookmarks, do just that, nothing else. Sync should also be activated only when I save a new bookmark, not every now and then. 2. SQLite slows down the application and complicates things with those…

(1) Sync is now on asynchronous APIs as of the latest beta (or maybe the next one). You can disable Sync in the Preferences window, and you can choose to only sync bookmarks if you'd like.

(2) Places (the bookmarks database) is now on asynchronous APIs, which means that, unless you're using esoteric features of bookmarks, they never block the UI thread. SQLite is also now in WAL mode. Smart folders are still slow as I understand it, and there's a plan to revamp and/or remove them.

(3) Bookmarks and history have been treated the same way since Firefox 3 (Places). There is talk of revamping and/or removing Live Bookmarks as well.

(4) Tab Groups is now secondary UI (the icon is gone by default). It is never loaded until you open it.

(5) The status bar is no longer in the address bar.

Re: And so I'm giving up the Mozilla project - Jamie Zawinski (1999)

#37

Post by bzbarsky »

alnayyir wrote: post #31
Simucal wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't always the case. It is highly dependent on the language, the compiler used, the size of the code-base and many other factors. Most of the small to medium sized project I have worked on compile in what seems like an instant. However, I work on a medium-to-large code-base at work and it takes around 8 minutes to compile on our build server and around 12-15 minutes on my dev machine. Even these speeds seem tr…

ccache. Come on guys, this is basic tooling.

ccache only helps so much. On a pretty modern fast machine, typical web browser source takes 5-10 minutes to compile for me even with ccache (depending on what I changed).

Of that, 30-90 seconds is just linking (and no, gold doesn't help all that much).

Re: And so I'm giving up the Mozilla project - Jamie Zawinski (1999)

#38

Post by pnathan »

lovamova wrote: post #11
asadotzler wrote: post #8

Lots of things on the Internet can move quickly but browsers are not Internet software the way that Google or Facebook are. Browsers are still desktop software and things don't move as quickly there thanks to slow PC upgrade cycles and the absolute dominance that software like Windows, Office, and Internet Explorer had a decade ago. Turning that massive ship took longer than many imagined but it is happening. Jamie g…

When Firefox 1.0 came out, it was one of the lightest browsers available on the market. What happened until version 4.0? Even the latest Firefox beta is one of the slowest browser available. I’m not talking about the JavaScript engine, I’m talking about the user experience of your product.

Due to Firefox slowness, I have fully transitioned to Chrome on all my computers. I run adblock plus and often flashblock.

Phoenix was fast. I liked that. I should go try to compile it and run it on W7 and see what it does on modern websites.

Speed and ability to render correctly are my killer features for browsers.

Re: And so I'm giving up the Mozilla project - Jamie Zawinski (1999)

#39

Post by glenjamin »

petsos wrote: post #28
glenjamin wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that in the 10 or so years since firefox 1.0, the average computing power and requirements of the firefox user have shifted enough that the goalposts have moved. Firefox 1.0's USP at a time when browsers were bloated was its lack of bloat. IMO thats less of an issue now.

I'm sorry but this mentality is everything that is wrong with software development. How is bloat not an issue now? We expect that hardware is getting better and better, but it is ok for software to become worse and worse just because it can sort of get away with it? In this case Firefox has even managed to outperform Moore's law. It managed to become slower in a faster rate than computers get faster.

"Worse" in this case is subjective. Perhaps firefox today is objectively not as good for me (as a developer) as it was at 1.0.

My argument is that I'm not necessarily the main target demographic any more, Firefox 3.6 is fast enough and has the features that Joe average wants.

Post reply on HN