Mark,
[At the risk of starting a thread that won't die...]
With all due respect, your comments really puzzle me... especially in a Linux
forum... Extending your argument, why was it ever necessary to make Linux so
reliable? Users could just "dump and restart" it too...
Just as I hate reboots, especially unplanned ones (including power which is why
all my systems are on UPSs), I too hate browser crashes/restarts.
"Why"...?
Because it destroys my workflow, negatively affects my thought patterns and
forces a [partial] cranial restart too (lost time). Many of us have multiple
browser windows open because we too are multitasking. By your argument, why
bother having business meetings that build on the previous meetings; just "dump
and restart" all the data, knowledge and decisions as one goes from meeting to
meeting...
Linux, and almost every other non-M$ OS, have over the years proven that OS
crashes are unnecessary and that crash avoidance actually improves productivity;
why should that not apply to applications too...? I suspect you've never had a
browser crash while in the middle of a stock trade during a volatile trading
day... many of us have.
And NO! I don't think it is responsible of developers to expect the user to
make "adjustments" just because they can't get it right. In fact, this does
*not scale*... every bug or misfeature which requires user awareness,
*multiply* reduces productivity, *multiply* impacts thought processes, etc. etc.
We don't need, nor want unplanned application restarts any more than we want OS
reboots.
Hope that answers your "why"... :^)
Regards,
Pierre
PS: I'm retired and still feel this way... Why? 'cuz my life expectancy is
surely now shorter than yours... :^)
Mark Weaver wrote:
>
> While I understand this to be a desire of many who use the browsers in
> this manner, I don't understand "why" this is. The browser was never
> designed to do such a thing. Why would one want it to? Why not just kill
> the browser now and then, dump the cache and restart the browser. Since
> linux memory management is already good enough to handle running
> non-stop without trouble it would appear that users, rather then the
> software would have to make an adjustment here.
>
> Mark
>
> Bill Barnes wrote:
> >
> > Well, part of the rush is for what is hoped to be an
> > acceptable browser.
> >
> > Opera, Netscape6, Netscape 4.76 inevitably crash about
> > the time you get a decent mix of websites up. I
> > expect the browser to be up 24/7. Maybe Konqueror
> > Final can do this.
> >
> > -Bill
