Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
Michael Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 12/17/05, [KS] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Well the trademark issues reason is understandable as there has been >> lots (yes lots) of discussion on that topic. So if firefox is >> available as 1.4.99+1.5rc3, why is it that an apt-get dist-upgrade does >> not replace my mozilla-firefox with firefox? Some info on when/if this >> will happen or not would be appreciated. > > At the moment, I'm very glad that it doesn't. Aside from a few > extensions which didn't have 1.5-compatible versions yet, I couldn't > get java working in 1.5. That's bug #342316. Basically the java plugin is not being copied to the firefox/plugins directory. Here's how I fixed it: # ln -s /etc/alternatives/firefox-javaplugin.so /usr/lib/firefox/plugins/libjavaplugin.so Cheers, John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
On 12/18/05, [KS] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Same here. Keeping Firefox running for long hours eats up more and more > memory. The experiment I report earlier was done on a new instance of > each browser, so it does not show the effects of long term use. Also the > test did not involve opening pages with lots of huge images on them. > Those are the real killer if you want to keep the same session. They > stay in the memory even after you close the tab!! I've found improvements in Firefox's performance by clearing the download manager. Nothing quantitative, though. -- Michael A. Marsh http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh http://mamarsh.blogspot.com
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
Marc Shapiro wrote: > Micha Feigin wrote: > >> My experience is that initially firefox uses less memory then opera >> (around 25 >> MB). The memory seems to grow comparable to the amount of time its >> been open >> and the number of pages opened (even in the same window, not in >> parallel). I >> just opened several pages of the same news site one after the other in >> the same >> tab. While initially the memory usage was about 25-28MB now with a >> single tab >> open it uses 60MB. It seems that firefox just doesn't know how to >> clean up >> after itself. With opera, even if the memory requirements go up with a >> lot of >> pages open, they come back down when you close the windows. > > Well, yesterday, my wife (who uses Firefox) complained that she could do > nothing. Links didn't work. Tabs would not change. Nada. > > I looked, and, indeed, Firefox was completely unresponsive. Everything > else was still functioning reasonably, however. I ran top and the > javavm was NOT running, but Firefox was shown as using 47% of my memory. > > Something is rotten in the State of Firefox! > Same here. Keeping Firefox running for long hours eats up more and more memory. The experiment I report earlier was done on a new instance of each browser, so it does not show the effects of long term use. Also the test did not involve opening pages with lots of huge images on them. Those are the real killer if you want to keep the same session. They stay in the memory even after you close the tab!! I wonder how Konqueror reponds to such usage and testing. I don't have in installed, could someone contribute with Konqueror results? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
Micha Feigin wrote: My experience is that initially firefox uses less memory then opera (around 25 MB). The memory seems to grow comparable to the amount of time its been open and the number of pages opened (even in the same window, not in parallel). I just opened several pages of the same news site one after the other in the same tab. While initially the memory usage was about 25-28MB now with a single tab open it uses 60MB. It seems that firefox just doesn't know how to clean up after itself. With opera, even if the memory requirements go up with a lot of pages open, they come back down when you close the windows. I agree. Firefox just keeps using more and more memory and the only solution is to shut it down. I had posted earlier about Firefox and javavm bringing my system to a halt and needing to be closed down (freeing up several hundred MB of memory and swap) to bring any usability to the box. (The full Mozilla suite does NOT have this problem.) Well, yesterday, my wife (who uses Firefox) complained that she could do nothing. Links didn't work. Tabs would not change. Nada. I looked, and, indeed, Firefox was completely unresponsive. Everything else was still functioning reasonably, however. I ran top and the javavm was NOT running, but Firefox was shown as using 47% of my memory. I have 256MB of RAM and 512MB of swap. Of that, 2MB of RAM was free (that is not a problem, in itself) and only about 11MB of swap was free. The combination is a killer! I killed Firefox, which freed up enough memory and swap that I could do a swapoff -a. I then did a swapon -a and looked at the output of free. I had about 30MB of RAM free and ALL of my swap. That means that killing Firefox (with NO other changes made in between) freed up about 530 MB of memory and swap! I just recently increased my swap from 256 MB to 512 MB thinking that would help, but all it does is give Firefox more memory to gobble up. Something is rotten in the State of Firefox! -- Marc Shapiro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:12:56 -0500 "[KS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Micha Feigin wrote: > > > > On the other hand, its still a crazy memory hog (almost 100MB with a single > > window, that can not be good coding, its about as bad as explorer). I stick > > with opera for the moment. > > > I heard that 1.5 was using more memory than 1.0.x because of the new > feature of fast back and forward buttons. But I haven't tested those > claims yet! > > I tested firefox 1.5 (official linux) and Opera 8.51 with about 30 > random websites(not really random but just as they came to my mind). At > start Firefox used around 100MB and Opera about 40MB. Each of them used > more memory with more number of sites visited which seems obvious as > they are adding to the cache. Firefox settled at around 110MB of memory > usage whereas Opera settled around 70MB. However, Opera's plugin wrapper > also comes into play when needed and was using around 21MB of RAM and > operaplugincleaner about 2MB. > > If you do the math, it comes out that firefox was using about 18% more > RAM than opera! But this could be just me. Please contribute with your > experiences. > My experience is that initially firefox uses less memory then opera (around 25 MB). The memory seems to grow comparable to the amount of time its been open and the number of pages opened (even in the same window, not in parallel). I just opened several pages of the same news site one after the other in the same tab. While initially the memory usage was about 25-28MB now with a single tab open it uses 60MB. It seems that firefox just doesn't know how to clean up after itself. With opera, even if the memory requirements go up with a lot of pages open, they come back down when you close the windows. With both browsers there also seems to be a memory leak with the flash plugin (I believe opera is using the firefox plugin) and the acrobat reader plugin is also a problem. BTW, what I check is the amount of memory actually freed after closing down the browser (using free, memory+swap) and not the memory shown by ps (which can be misleading). > /ks > PS: The test involved random websites typed in address bar of each > browser and no links were clicked on the pages visited. Both browsers > were tested with same websites and had only 1 window with 1tab open. > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > +++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. > +++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
On Saturday 17 December 2005 5:55 pm, Scott wrote: > I had gotten Diggler to work on some of the Firefox betas either by > editing the file or using Nightly Tester Tools. Frankly though, it's > apparent that the developer has long ago abandoned this extension, so I > decided I just had to find an alternative. > > I found it. It's one of the features of the official Google Toolbar. > I've dragged and dropped the "up one level" button from the Google > Toolbar to where Diggler used to be. It's not as good, but it will have > to do. I simply edited the xpi file works just great -- MAIOR RISUS, ACRIOR ENSIS: QUADRAGESIMA OCTAVA REGULA QUAESITUS.
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
Scott wrote: > I found it. It's one of the features of the official Google Toolbar. > I've dragged and dropped the "up one level" button from the Google > Toolbar to where Diggler used to be. It's not as good, but it will have > to do. > Google Toolbar seems to be a bloat to meatleast the windows version. If you compare firefox 1.0.7 with firefox 1.0.7 provided by google (toolbar included), the sizes are 4.7MB and 5.1MB. That is 300KB just for the toolbar(in the compressed installer). No wonder that firefox becomes a bloat again by adding extensions like these. /ks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
Micha Feigin wrote: > > On the other hand, its still a crazy memory hog (almost 100MB with a single > window, that can not be good coding, its about as bad as explorer). I stick > with opera for the moment. > I heard that 1.5 was using more memory than 1.0.x because of the new feature of fast back and forward buttons. But I haven't tested those claims yet! I tested firefox 1.5 (official linux) and Opera 8.51 with about 30 random websites(not really random but just as they came to my mind). At start Firefox used around 100MB and Opera about 40MB. Each of them used more memory with more number of sites visited which seems obvious as they are adding to the cache. Firefox settled at around 110MB of memory usage whereas Opera settled around 70MB. However, Opera's plugin wrapper also comes into play when needed and was using around 21MB of RAM and operaplugincleaner about 2MB. If you do the math, it comes out that firefox was using about 18% more RAM than opera! But this could be just me. Please contribute with your experiences. /ks PS: The test involved random websites typed in address bar of each browser and no links were clicked on the pages visited. Both browsers were tested with same websites and had only 1 window with 1tab open. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
On 12/17/05, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had gotten Diggler to work on some of the Firefox betas either by > editing the file or using Nightly Tester Tools. Frankly though, it's > apparent that the developer has long ago abandoned this extension, so I > decided I just had to find an alternative. That's too bad. > I found it. It's one of the features of the official Google Toolbar. > I've dragged and dropped the "up one level" button from the Google > Toolbar to where Diggler used to be. It's not as good, but it will have > to do. I'll check that out. > The automatic upgrades on Firefox only work if the installation > directory has user write privlidges. That can be easily changed but it > can also be considered a security issue by some. I took the plunge myself. In this case, I mean "automatic upgrade" in that today's sid update now has mozilla-firefox migrating to firefox, so I've told aptitude not to upgrade mozilla-firefox. -- Michael A. Marsh http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh http://mamarsh.blogspot.com
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
Scott wrote: > > This is what I don't understand.: Isn't Firefox a trademark too? Why > is using that name acceptable but using "Mozilla" unacceptable? > > > I'm sure renaming mozilla-firefox to firefox is not the end of the trademark problems with mozilla.org. I haven't heard anything lately as to what "debian" is doing about the trademark issues. This could be just the starting of the adaption..hopefully Eric or Mike can add to this so that d-u can know what is going on! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
[KS] wrote: Darryl Clarke wrote: the 'mozilla-firefox' package is changed to 'firefox'. Due to trademark issues of course. the only 'firefox' package should be the 1.4.99+ one, the 'mozilla-firefox' should be 1.0.7 -- they conflict, because 'firefox' is a replacement for 'mozilla-firefox' Well the trademark issues reason is understandable as there has been lots (yes lots) of discussion on that topic. This is what I don't understand.: Isn't Firefox a trademark too? Why is using that name acceptable but using "Mozilla" unacceptable? -- Scott www.angrykeyboarder.com © 2005 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
Michael Marsh wrote:
On 12/17/05, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Marsh wrote:
> At the moment, I'm very glad that it doesn't. Aside from a few
> extensions which didn't have 1.5-compatible versions yet, I couldn't
> get java working in 1.5.
I'd give it a another try. 1.5 is much faster than 1.0.x. I've got
Java (Sun) working just fine in it as well.
And now, of course, it does automatically upgrade, so I've got
mozilla-firefox on hold. I was going to upgrade it, since I *did*
generally like the performance when I tried it briefly, but I'm still
concerned about losing the Diggler extension. Sure, I could live
without it (and might have to), but the two features that it has that
I use most often aren't replicated in the new Digger extension ("clear
address bar" and "find in Google cache/archive.org"). There seem to
be mixed results when hand-altering the compatibility string for
Diggler.
I had gotten Diggler to work on some of the Firefox betas either by
editing the file or using Nightly Tester Tools. Frankly though, it's
apparent that the developer has long ago abandoned this extension, so I
decided I just had to find an alternative.
I found it. It's one of the features of the official Google Toolbar.
I've dragged and dropped the "up one level" button from the Google
Toolbar to where Diggler used to be. It's not as good, but it will have
to do.
The automatic upgrades on Firefox only work if the installation
directory has user write privlidges. That can be easily changed but it
can also be considered a security issue by some. I took the plunge myself.
--
Scott
www.angrykeyboarder.com
© 2005 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
On 12/17/05, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Marsh wrote:
> > At the moment, I'm very glad that it doesn't. Aside from a few
> > extensions which didn't have 1.5-compatible versions yet, I couldn't
> > get java working in 1.5.
> I'd give it a another try. 1.5 is much faster than 1.0.x. I've got
> Java (Sun) working just fine in it as well.
And now, of course, it does automatically upgrade, so I've got
mozilla-firefox on hold. I was going to upgrade it, since I *did*
generally like the performance when I tried it briefly, but I'm still
concerned about losing the Diggler extension. Sure, I could live
without it (and might have to), but the two features that it has that
I use most often aren't replicated in the new Digger extension ("clear
address bar" and "find in Google cache/archive.org"). There seem to
be mixed results when hand-altering the compatibility string for
Diggler.
--
Michael A. Marsh
http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh
http://mamarsh.blogspot.com
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
Michael Marsh wrote: On 12/17/05, [KS] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well the trademark issues reason is understandable as there has been lots (yes lots) of discussion on that topic. So if firefox is available as 1.4.99+1.5rc3, why is it that an apt-get dist-upgrade does not replace my mozilla-firefox with firefox? Some info on when/if this will happen or not would be appreciated. At the moment, I'm very glad that it doesn't. Aside from a few extensions which didn't have 1.5-compatible versions yet, I couldn't get java working in 1.5. I'd give it a another try. 1.5 is much faster than 1.0.x. I've got Java (Sun) working just fine in it as well. -- Scott www.angrykeyboarder.com © 2005 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
Nate Bargmann([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said: > * Wayne Topa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005 Dec 17 13:09 -0600]: > > > do > > apt-cache policy firefox > > and > > apt-cache policy mozilla-firefox > > > > The light will shine > > What exactly does this prove other than mozilla-firefox is installed > and firefox is not here and that firefox has a long version string with > dsfg appended? > In your case, nothing, because I track experimental as well as testing and unstable. firefox: Installed: 1.4.99+1.5rc3.dfsg-2 Candidate: 1.4.99+1.5rc3.dfsg-2 Version table: *** 1.4.99+1.5rc3.dfsg-2 0 300 http://http.us.debian.org unstable/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status mozilla-firefox: Installed: (none) Candidate: 1.0.4-2sarge5 Version table: 1.4.99+1.5rc3.dfsg-1 0 1 http://http.us.debian.org experimental/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status I had printing problems with mozilla-firefox so tried firefox. Printing now works. Note 1.4.99+1.5rc3.dfsg-2 for firefox 1.4.99+1.5rc3.dfsg-1 0 for mozilla-firefox Sorry if I confused anyone. Wayne -- To be, or not to be, those are the parameters. ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:25:58 -0500 "[KS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Darryl Clarke wrote: > > > > the 'mozilla-firefox' package is changed to 'firefox'. Due to > > trademark issues of course. > > > > the only 'firefox' package should be the 1.4.99+ one, the > > 'mozilla-firefox' should be 1.0.7 -- they conflict, because 'firefox' > > is a replacement for 'mozilla-firefox' > > > > Well the trademark issues reason is understandable as there has been > lots (yes lots) of discussion on that topic. So if firefox is > available as 1.4.99+1.5rc3, why is it that an apt-get dist-upgrade does > not replace my mozilla-firefox with firefox? Some info on when/if this > will happen or not would be appreciated. If you check the version numbers, the debian package is rc3 while the final version is already out. This may be the reason. On the other hand, its still a crazy memory hog (almost 100MB with a single window, that can not be good coding, its about as bad as explorer). I stick with opera for the moment. > > /ks > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > +++ > This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System > at the Tel-Aviv University CC. > +++ This Mail Was Scanned By Mail-seCure System at the Tel-Aviv University CC. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
Nate Bargmann wrote: > * Wayne Topa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005 Dec 17 13:09 -0600]: > > >>do >>apt-cache policy firefox >>and >>apt-cache policy mozilla-firefox >> >>The light will shine > > > What exactly does this prove other than mozilla-firefox is installed > and firefox is not here and that firefox has a long version string with > dsfg appended? > > And the repositories from your sources.list which can provide the package.light might be shining but probably not at the right spot ;) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
* Wayne Topa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005 Dec 17 13:09 -0600]: > do > apt-cache policy firefox > and > apt-cache policy mozilla-firefox > > The light will shine What exactly does this prove other than mozilla-firefox is installed and firefox is not here and that firefox has a long version string with dsfg appended? $ apt-cache policy firefox firefox: Installed: (none) Candidate: 1.4.99+1.5rc3.dfsg-2 Version table: 1.4.99+1.5rc3.dfsg-2 0 500 http://http.us.debian.org unstable/main Packages $ apt-cache policy mozilla-firefox mozilla-firefox: Installed: 1.0.7-1 Candidate: 1.0.7-1 Version table: *** 1.0.7-1 0 500 http://http.us.debian.org unstable/main Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status - Nate >> -- Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998. http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | "Debian, the choice of My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation!" http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
On 12/17/05, [KS] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well the trademark issues reason is understandable as there has been > lots (yes lots) of discussion on that topic. So if firefox is > available as 1.4.99+1.5rc3, why is it that an apt-get dist-upgrade does > not replace my mozilla-firefox with firefox? Some info on when/if this > will happen or not would be appreciated. At the moment, I'm very glad that it doesn't. Aside from a few extensions which didn't have 1.5-compatible versions yet, I couldn't get java working in 1.5. Granted, I would have put more time into it if I were stuck with 1.5, but I was able to downgrade easily back to 1.0.7 with only fairly minor issues. Well, one of those issues would ordinarily garner the advice: create a brand-new profile and re-load everything. I was able to track it down to one extension, though. -- Michael A. Marsh http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~mmarsh http://mamarsh.blogspot.com
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
Darryl Clarke wrote: > > the 'mozilla-firefox' package is changed to 'firefox'. Due to > trademark issues of course. > > the only 'firefox' package should be the 1.4.99+ one, the > 'mozilla-firefox' should be 1.0.7 -- they conflict, because 'firefox' > is a replacement for 'mozilla-firefox' > Well the trademark issues reason is understandable as there has been lots (yes lots) of discussion on that topic. So if firefox is available as 1.4.99+1.5rc3, why is it that an apt-get dist-upgrade does not replace my mozilla-firefox with firefox? Some info on when/if this will happen or not would be appreciated. /ks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
[KS]([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is reported to have said: > I have noticed that since about a week or so ago that there is another > package for firefox browser namely "firefox" (version 1.4.99+1.5rc3)! > The rc version had been in experimental earlier and now this package can > be found in unstable. > > I don't know if I have missed an annoucement (gladium ??) about the > package name change or something similar but I'm confused as to why the > change is there. Both 1.0.7 and 1.4.99+1.5rc3 are presently in unstable > and firefox conflicts mozilla-firefox. > > Any light on this confusion will be appreciated. > Regards, do apt-cache policy firefox and apt-cache policy mozilla-firefox The light will shine :-) HTH, YMMV, HAND :-) Wayne -- Every program has two purposes -- one for which it was written and another for which it wasn't. ___ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
On 12/17/05, [KS] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have noticed that since about a week or so ago that there is another > package for firefox browser namely "firefox" (version 1.4.99+1.5rc3)! > The rc version had been in experimental earlier and now this package can > be found in unstable. > > I don't know if I have missed an annoucement (gladium ??) about the > package name change or something similar but I'm confused as to why the > change is there. Both 1.0.7 and 1.4.99+1.5rc3 are presently in unstable > and firefox conflicts mozilla-firefox. > > Any light on this confusion will be appreciated. > Regards, the 'mozilla-firefox' package is changed to 'firefox'. Due to trademark issues of course. the only 'firefox' package should be the 1.4.99+ one, the 'mozilla-firefox' should be 1.0.7 -- they conflict, because 'firefox' is a replacement for 'mozilla-firefox' -- ~ Darryl ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://smartssa.com / http://darrylclarke.com
mozilla-firefox and firefox packages
I have noticed that since about a week or so ago that there is another package for firefox browser namely "firefox" (version 1.4.99+1.5rc3)! The rc version had been in experimental earlier and now this package can be found in unstable. I don't know if I have missed an annoucement (gladium ??) about the package name change or something similar but I'm confused as to why the change is there. Both 1.0.7 and 1.4.99+1.5rc3 are presently in unstable and firefox conflicts mozilla-firefox. Any light on this confusion will be appreciated. Regards, /ks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
