Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Kenneth R Westerback > wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:01:25AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: > >> Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are. ??As you wrote, > >> there are even known workarounds. > > > > There are steps to diagnose YOUR problem and things to try that work for > > OTHER > > PEOPLE. Who knows what your problems are until you tell us. Even if it is > > the identical problem, your problem report could have that single new bit > > of information that reveals all. > > > >> > >> That I did not want to make double bug reports for something already > >> reported should be understandable.?? > >> > > > > Nope. > > > >> Also, somebody new to openbsd will not search the mail archives for > >> workarounds. They expect things to work out of box. Should not the > >> workarounds be enabled by default then??? > > > > Anybody new to OpenBSD will either not report bugs in which case we don't > > know about them or their problems, or be told in the gentle OpenBSD way to > > RTFML. > > Since you bring it up... /or/ when a problem gets reported, even with > great detail, it goes ignored. > > it's a crapshoot. > > at least be honest about the reality of things. YES, let's be honest about the reality of things. Please go away and run a system that *does not ignore problems* Grass greener on the other side, right?
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:24:47AM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: > > Anybody new to OpenBSD will either not report bugs in which case we don't > > know about them or their problems, or be told in the gentle OpenBSD way to > > RTFML. > > Since you bring it up... /or/ when a problem gets reported, even with > great detail, it goes ignored. > > it's a crapshoot. > > at least be honest about the reality of things. that's definitely not true. Problems don't necessarily get discussed further on public mailing-lists, but they're definitely noticed, and looked at. Some problems don't get solved, or don't get solved instantly. There are not that many openbsd developers, and so much crappy software to port out there. but problems don't get ignored.
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:01:25AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: >> Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are. ??As you wrote, >> there are even known workarounds. > > There are steps to diagnose YOUR problem and things to try that work for OTHER > PEOPLE. Who knows what your problems are until you tell us. Even if it is > the identical problem, your problem report could have that single new bit > of information that reveals all. > >> >> That I did not want to make double bug reports for something already >> reported should be understandable.?? >> > > Nope. > >> Also, somebody new to openbsd will not search the mail archives for >> workarounds. They expect things to work out of box. Should not the >> workarounds be enabled by default then??? > > Anybody new to OpenBSD will either not report bugs in which case we don't > know about them or their problems, or be told in the gentle OpenBSD way to > RTFML. Since you bring it up... /or/ when a problem gets reported, even with great detail, it goes ignored. it's a crapshoot. at least be honest about the reality of things. --patrick > Ken > >> >> I would not consider myself to be whiny in this case as I long time ago >> noticed the reports and been patiently been waiting without whining hoping >> the problem would get a solution. Also it is not for own benefit i am >> complaining. I'm managing well (and I do not even run stable at home).?? >> >> ---- Original message >> From: Landry Breuil >> Date: 22/07/2013 08:49 (GMT+02:00) >> To: ports@openbsd.org >> Subject: Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED >> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:56:31AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: >> > I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have >> > been here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this >> > is something everybody knows. I made a misjudgement because I did >> > not want to send a bug-report for something I thought everybody knew >> > already. >> > >> > What I sent to the list today was not a bug report either, I was >> > more raising the concern that the maintainer might need more time to >> > get it stable even though the tree is in lock and no big changes >> > should be allowed. >> > >> > This problem might be related to drivers also. My laptop at home is >> > using i915, which has seen quite a bit of development during the >> > latest cycle. I am using amd64 snapshots. The pictures often get >> > horizontal stripes. HTML5 videos often crashes it completely, so >> > also a bit more intensive java scripts. >> > >> > I can manage with Chromium, as it is not crashing. The problem is >> > not that big deal for me (although it is annoying). I am more >> > concerned about the reputation my favorite OS gets if FF gets >> > released in this shape. >> > >> > I am not a good C programmer (my code can be dangerous) and I am >> > unable of debugging C, but I am willing to do by instruction what >> > anyone wants me to do in order to help in this case. >> >> You just need to use common sense. >> >> - try with a fresh empty profile >> - try to reset your regular profile (see about:support) >> - collect backtraces of crashes, open bugs upstream & cc me >> - gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try >> ?? the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config >> gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled, >> MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see >> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=136560946723949&w=2) >> >> Of course, i'm using firefox all the time on all my computers, and i >> dont see such OMGSOUNSTABLE behaviour. It crashes with OOM sometimes with >> heavy javascript, gobbles all cpu when viewing huge images, but besides >> that it's totally usable. >> >> > >>I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF >> > >>has been since the spring. >> >> Yeah, great timing to come whining... nothing will happen for 5.4. >> >> Landry >> >
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:01:25AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: > Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are. ??As you wrote, there > are even known workarounds. There are steps to diagnose YOUR problem and things to try that work for OTHER PEOPLE. Who knows what your problems are until you tell us. Even if it is the identical problem, your problem report could have that single new bit of information that reveals all. > > That I did not want to make double bug reports for something already reported > should be understandable.?? > Nope. > Also, somebody new to openbsd will not search the mail archives for > workarounds. They expect things to work out of box. Should not the > workarounds be enabled by default then??? Anybody new to OpenBSD will either not report bugs in which case we don't know about them or their problems, or be told in the gentle OpenBSD way to RTFML. Ken > > I would not consider myself to be whiny in this case as I long time ago > noticed the reports and been patiently been waiting without whining hoping > the problem would get a solution. Also it is not for own benefit i am > complaining. I'm managing well (and I do not even run stable at home).?? > > Original message > From: Landry Breuil > Date: 22/07/2013 08:49 (GMT+02:00) > To: ports@openbsd.org > Subject: Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:56:31AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: > > I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have > > been here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this > > is something everybody knows. I made a misjudgement because I did > > not want to send a bug-report for something I thought everybody knew > > already. > > > > What I sent to the list today was not a bug report either, I was > > more raising the concern that the maintainer might need more time to > > get it stable even though the tree is in lock and no big changes > > should be allowed. > > > > This problem might be related to drivers also. My laptop at home is > > using i915, which has seen quite a bit of development during the > > latest cycle. I am using amd64 snapshots. The pictures often get > > horizontal stripes. HTML5 videos often crashes it completely, so > > also a bit more intensive java scripts. > > > > I can manage with Chromium, as it is not crashing. The problem is > > not that big deal for me (although it is annoying). I am more > > concerned about the reputation my favorite OS gets if FF gets > > released in this shape. > > > > I am not a good C programmer (my code can be dangerous) and I am > > unable of debugging C, but I am willing to do by instruction what > > anyone wants me to do in order to help in this case. > > You just need to use common sense. > > - try with a fresh empty profile > - try to reset your regular profile (see about:support) > - collect backtraces of crashes, open bugs upstream & cc me > - gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try > ?? the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config > gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled, > MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=136560946723949&w=2) > > Of course, i'm using firefox all the time on all my computers, and i > dont see such OMGSOUNSTABLE behaviour. It crashes with OOM sometimes with > heavy javascript, gobbles all cpu when viewing huge images, but besides > that it's totally usable. > > > >>I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF > > >>has been since the spring. > > Yeah, great timing to come whining... nothing will happen for 5.4. > > Landry >
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:01:25AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: > Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are. As you wrote, there > are even known workarounds. We're talking about different issues here. And as marc stated, no trace/proper report/homework -> the bug doesnt exist. > That I did not want to make double bug reports for something already reported > should be understandable. > > Also, somebody new to openbsd will not search the mail archives for > workarounds. They expect things to work out of box. Should not the > workarounds be enabled by default then? Because the workarounds improve things in some situations, and break things on previously working configuration. That's why they're called 'workarounds'. Do you want to be the one responsible for breaking 95% of the working configurations, when trying to fix the few broken setups ? Not me. Landry
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:32:06AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: > [Sorry for another top-posting. Already the last mail I intended to not > top-post but my phone does not allow anything else and I can not reach any > computer with decent client at the moment] > > Is there a chans this slow behavior is leading to crashes in old equipment > with little CPU and 1Gb of RAM? I almost always notice this slowing down > before it crashes. I'm using ffx on an i386 atom N270 w/ 1gb ram and on a macmini g4 w/ 1gb ram, and it's usable there. It was still usable on my i386 xp 1800+ from 2003 6 months ago. Landry
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:32:06AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: > [Sorry for another top-posting. Already the last mail I intended to not > top-post but my phone does not allow anything else and I can not reach any > computer with decent client at the moment] > > Is there a chans this slow behavior is leading to crashes in old equipment > with little CPU and 1Gb of RAM? I almost always notice this slowing down > before it crashes. I'm pretty sure there was some fuck-up with the excessive storage of server-side (X server) images that has since been fixed. You've got to realize, a huge pile of poo like firefox + the X server + the modern web needs some proper diapers. Or, more accurately, something resembling a bug-report. That would probably include: - firefox snapshot used - x driver used (and probably x snapshot) - reproducible starting with empty profile - what sites were open at the time. without that, it's mostly worthless. There are enough complex pieces in there that you will always always chase a rabbit. Heck, you can grab proper equipment, or keep wadling around with a peashooter. And now, you're talking about "old equipment". Well, guess what ? Other OSes don't care about old equipment. I'm not even sure a recent linux distro will run on 1GB of ram, not comfortably anyways.
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
On 2013/07/22 10:32, Lars Engblom wrote: > [Sorry for another top-posting. Already the last mail I intended to not > top-post but my phone does not allow anything else and I can not reach > any computer with decent client at the moment] > > Is there a chans this slow behavior is leading to crashes in old > equipment with little CPU and 1Gb of RAM? I almost always notice this > slowing down before it crashes. That sounds different, maybe something like you could be running out of physical RAM and going into swap, and then perhaps running into login.conf datasize limits. A full report including console output might help clarify that. Watching top(1) while it runs into problems might be interesting too.
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
On 2013 Jul 22 (Mon) at 07:56:31 +0300 (+0300), Lars Engblom wrote: :I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have :been here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this irc is not a place to report bugs. The only place where you could expect developers to view them is on the mailing lists. bugs@ or misc@ for system stuff, ports@ for ports bugs. http://www.openbsd.org/mail.html has all of the details of what the mailing lists are. http://www.openbsd.org/report.html has the info on how to report a bug. -- Mathematicians do it in theory.
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
[Sorry for another top-posting. Already the last mail I intended to not top-post but my phone does not allow anything else and I can not reach any computer with decent client at the moment] Is there a chans this slow behavior is leading to crashes in old equipment with little CPU and 1Gb of RAM? I almost always notice this slowing down before it crashes. Original message From: Stuart Henderson Date: 22/07/2013 10:20 (GMT+02:00) To: Lars Engblom Cc: Landry Breuil ,ports@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED [quoting reformatted. there are times when top-posting makes sense but this is not one of them] > Original message > From: Landry Breuil > - gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try > the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config > gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled, > MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=136560946723949&w=2) On 2013/07/22 10:01, Lars Engblom wrote: > Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are. As you > wrote, there are even known workarounds. This is not for crashes, it's for slow behaviour processing images (especially browser-scaled images).
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
[quoting reformatted. there are times when top-posting makes sense but this is not one of them] > Original message > From: Landry Breuil > - gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try > the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config > gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled, > MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=136560946723949&w=2) On 2013/07/22 10:01, Lars Engblom wrote: > Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are. As you > wrote, there are even known workarounds. This is not for crashes, it's for slow behaviour processing images (especially browser-scaled images).
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
Then I was right regarding how well known the bugs are. As you wrote, there are even known workarounds. That I did not want to make double bug reports for something already reported should be understandable. Also, somebody new to openbsd will not search the mail archives for workarounds. They expect things to work out of box. Should not the workarounds be enabled by default then? I would not consider myself to be whiny in this case as I long time ago noticed the reports and been patiently been waiting without whining hoping the problem would get a solution. Also it is not for own benefit i am complaining. I'm managing well (and I do not even run stable at home). Original message From: Landry Breuil Date: 22/07/2013 08:49 (GMT+02:00) To: ports@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:56:31AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: > I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have > been here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this > is something everybody knows. I made a misjudgement because I did > not want to send a bug-report for something I thought everybody knew > already. > > What I sent to the list today was not a bug report either, I was > more raising the concern that the maintainer might need more time to > get it stable even though the tree is in lock and no big changes > should be allowed. > > This problem might be related to drivers also. My laptop at home is > using i915, which has seen quite a bit of development during the > latest cycle. I am using amd64 snapshots. The pictures often get > horizontal stripes. HTML5 videos often crashes it completely, so > also a bit more intensive java scripts. > > I can manage with Chromium, as it is not crashing. The problem is > not that big deal for me (although it is annoying). I am more > concerned about the reputation my favorite OS gets if FF gets > released in this shape. > > I am not a good C programmer (my code can be dangerous) and I am > unable of debugging C, but I am willing to do by instruction what > anyone wants me to do in order to help in this case. You just need to use common sense. - try with a fresh empty profile - try to reset your regular profile (see about:support) - collect backtraces of crashes, open bugs upstream & cc me - gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled, MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=136560946723949&w=2) Of course, i'm using firefox all the time on all my computers, and i dont see such OMGSOUNSTABLE behaviour. It crashes with OOM sometimes with heavy javascript, gobbles all cpu when viewing huge images, but besides that it's totally usable. > >>I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF > >>has been since the spring. Yeah, great timing to come whining... nothing will happen for 5.4. Landry
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 07:56:31AM +0300, Lars Engblom wrote: > I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have > been here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this > is something everybody knows. I made a misjudgement because I did > not want to send a bug-report for something I thought everybody knew > already. > > What I sent to the list today was not a bug report either, I was > more raising the concern that the maintainer might need more time to > get it stable even though the tree is in lock and no big changes > should be allowed. > > This problem might be related to drivers also. My laptop at home is > using i915, which has seen quite a bit of development during the > latest cycle. I am using amd64 snapshots. The pictures often get > horizontal stripes. HTML5 videos often crashes it completely, so > also a bit more intensive java scripts. > > I can manage with Chromium, as it is not crashing. The problem is > not that big deal for me (although it is annoying). I am more > concerned about the reputation my favorite OS gets if FF gets > released in this shape. > > I am not a good C programmer (my code can be dangerous) and I am > unable of debugging C, but I am willing to do by instruction what > anyone wants me to do in order to help in this case. You just need to use common sense. - try with a fresh empty profile - try to reset your regular profile (see about:support) - collect backtraces of crashes, open bugs upstream & cc me - gfx issues with pictures are known and have been discussed here, try the various workarounds devised in the archives. (about:config gfx.xrender.enabled, layers.acceleration.enabled, MOZ_DISABLE_IMAGE_OPTIMIZE=1 in the env... see http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=136560946723949&w=2) Of course, i'm using firefox all the time on all my computers, and i dont see such OMGSOUNSTABLE behaviour. It crashes with OOM sometimes with heavy javascript, gobbles all cpu when viewing huge images, but besides that it's totally usable. > >>I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF > >>has been since the spring. Yeah, great timing to come whining... nothing will happen for 5.4. Landry
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
I have several times seen reports about FF crashing. It might have been here or then on #openbsd (I am not sure where). I thought this is something everybody knows. I made a misjudgement because I did not want to send a bug-report for something I thought everybody knew already. What I sent to the list today was not a bug report either, I was more raising the concern that the maintainer might need more time to get it stable even though the tree is in lock and no big changes should be allowed. This problem might be related to drivers also. My laptop at home is using i915, which has seen quite a bit of development during the latest cycle. I am using amd64 snapshots. The pictures often get horizontal stripes. HTML5 videos often crashes it completely, so also a bit more intensive java scripts. I can manage with Chromium, as it is not crashing. The problem is not that big deal for me (although it is annoying). I am more concerned about the reputation my favorite OS gets if FF gets released in this shape. I am not a good C programmer (my code can be dangerous) and I am unable of debugging C, but I am willing to do by instruction what anyone wants me to do in order to help in this case. On 07/22/13 07:41, Brian Callahan wrote: On 7/22/2013 12:27 AM, Lars Engblom wrote: Something seriously needs to be done to Firefox before 5.4 release. It has been really buggy the latest months. It is almost completely unusable. It dumps core daily for me. Pictures are often distorted. Stellar bug report. Like it is now, if anyone new to OpenBSD would try it, they would never return as they would consider it as a way to buggy system (especially as the ports do not even get upgrades for 6 months if you follow the stable). I hope whoever works on Firefox will be allowed to do whatever he/she needs to do in order to get a stable version. Really? I use Firefox everyday on -current and don't run into problems. I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF has been since the spring. And you waited until now to complain about it? Where's your email when you first ran into problems? Here's MARC's list of all the emails you've sent under this email address: http://marc.info/?a=13003457046&r=1&w=2 Where's the fucking bug report? What were you waiting for?
Re: Firefox and the ports tree LOCKED
On 7/22/2013 12:27 AM, Lars Engblom wrote: Something seriously needs to be done to Firefox before 5.4 release. It has been really buggy the latest months. It is almost completely unusable. It dumps core daily for me. Pictures are often distorted. Stellar bug report. Like it is now, if anyone new to OpenBSD would try it, they would never return as they would consider it as a way to buggy system (especially as the ports do not even get upgrades for 6 months if you follow the stable). I hope whoever works on Firefox will be allowed to do whatever he/she needs to do in order to get a stable version. Really? I use Firefox everyday on -current and don't run into problems. I have been following snapshots the whole time and this problems in FF has been since the spring. And you waited until now to complain about it? Where's your email when you first ran into problems? Here's MARC's list of all the emails you've sent under this email address: http://marc.info/?a=13003457046&r=1&w=2 Where's the fucking bug report? What were you waiting for?
