Mozilla Developers Testing Mobile OS 109
MojoKid writes "Mozilla has been experimenting with an interesting idea called Boot 2 Gecko. Essentially, B2G (as it's called) is a mobile operating system based on the Web, as opposed to what the project's wiki calls 'proprietary, single-vendor stacks.' Mozilla has something here. Open Web technologies provide an intriguing platform for lots of things, mobile and otherwise. The B2G project is still pretty new, but according to the project roadmap, testing has already begun and will continue through the rest of 2011. Messaging, telephony, and battery management aspects of the OS are underway, and contacts, screen/power management, and settings are scheduled. A product demo is scheduled for sometime in the first quarter of 2012."
Memory footprint should be first priority (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No it isn't. Firefox uses about as much as Chrome or any other browser. For a long time now. So why don't you repeat some other old bs now, cause this is getting boring.
On another note, I'm interested in seeing this. Looks like a new idea.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Firefox is slower than chrome, but generally uses less memory. There were a couple versions of FF that had a memory leak problm if I recall.
See http://www.dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory [dotnetperls.com] too
Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (Score:4, Insightful)
Listen - I have to restart my browser about once a day, because it gradually loses performance until it runs worse (Firefox 7.0.1 on a C2D w/ 4GB of memory) than my old craptop's copy (Firefox 2 on an Athlon 900 w/ 512MB RAM). And that it takes about 2 minutes to restart Firefox when it gets like that.
That's pathetic. That's the kind of stuff I'd expect from Internet Explorer, not Firefox.
I don't know precisely if it's a memory leak, nor do I care. It could be some renderer bug, or some problem interfacing with the OS, or whatever. All I know is that Firefox has severe performance degradation issues, and that the only reason I haven't switched to Chrome permanently is Live Bookmarks (I was primarily Chrome user for all of FF3, using Firefox only to check webcomics once a day).
Memory usage itself isn't necessarily the problem - I'm using half a gig right now, and I've got another two gigs free. But whatever the problem is, it acts a lot like a memory leak, so most people are going to just assume that's it.
I don't care if it uses a LOT of memory, as long as it uses it well. I don't expect to be able to alt-tab between Firefox, Crysis and Blender without delay. I do, however, expect Firefox to run properly when all the machine is running is Firefox, Notepad++ and MPC.
Re: (Score:3)
I have never, ever seen Firefox consume more than 300MB of RAM on any machine I've ever used it on. My workstation has 6GB RAM, AMD Athlon X2 5200+. On a regular basis I have upto 3-4 Windows with upto 2-10 tabs open at any given time.
Every system is different, there are too many factors to try to figure out what is causing the problem. You're talking about a piece of software that runs on virtually any x86-based machine, as well as few other architectures. Not to mention most operating systems, Win/Mac/Lin
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at my computer, I've had Firefox 4.01 running overnight with a single window just a couple of tabs open, and it takes 1.4GB (plus 3GB of virtual). It normally takes 30-40% CPU at idle. Sounds like I should upgrade to Firefox 7.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, then, how about this:
Configuration:
Firefox 7.0.1 (fully up-to-date)
Hardware:
Core 2 Duo, 2.26gHz
GeForce 9600
4GB memory
OS:
Windows 6.0.6002, exhibits absolutely no problems with any other programs (ie. even if it's a problem with Windows, it's one that every single other developer has worked around).
Only plugin is:
Shockwave Flash (10.3.183.10)
Addons:
AdBlock Plus
Colorzilla
DownloadHelper
DownloadThemAll
Greasemonkey
Menu Editor (small thing that lets you remove useless context menu items like "set as background
Re: (Score:2)
I can't remember what the precise problem was, but I remember hearing six or twelve months ago that DownloadHelper was really bad about memory leaks or startup times or crashes or something, because I was convinced to uninstall it. Greasemonkey could be an issue too, depending on what you have it running.
Re: (Score:2)
Greasemonkey is highly unlikely - it runs a single script, and it's limited to one domain.
I don't think it's DwHelper, but I'll go ahead and disable it anyways - I almost never use it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried disabling all of your addons/etc to see if you still have the problem?
While in a perfect world addons wouldn't be able to cause memory leaks, it's a very hard thing to design against without putting severe limitations on addons.
I know firebug on my 3.6.x install of firefox has memory leak issues but otherwise I can run it for weeks without any significant memory increases (and I've done comparisons of firefox vs chrome usage and firefox was less or equal for the same sites with about ~15 tabs
Re: (Score:1)
I'll try to pay more attention when I'm back on my desktop, but i run Linux and haven't seen *any* problems like you describe with memory on my box. The windows machines at work are using a version of FF 7 packaged by Frontmotion (so I can push it out on AD) and haven't had any problems with those boxes either.
Re: (Score:2)
All I know is that Firefox has severe performance degradation issues
Weird. Because I leave Firefox running for weeks and it uses a couple of hundred megabytes on a 4GB system.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't the RAM usage - it's the performance. I leave Firefox on for two days, it doesn't use any more memory, but rendering, page loading and scrolling are all notably slower. Videos become unwatchable because the screen updates maybe once a second, there's a second or two of delay before it even starts loading a page, and it sometimes lags so badly that it drops input events. All while leaving a gigabyte or two of free memory.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like firefox is being swapped out when you let it sit and isn't being brought back into RAM properly, either because of other applications you are running are consuming more than firefox needs or there is some kind of bug. I have never experienced such a bug. I have had the odd crash but nothing lately. Currently running FF 7.0.1
Re: (Score:2)
We'd love it if you filed a bug on this issue. A slashdot thread isn't the ideal place to try and figure this out.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ [mozilla.org] Please cc ":jlebar" on the bug you file and I'll follow up.
Re: (Score:2)
Will do next time I can gather data on it. Since it's a gradual thing, I can't really do it right now.
Re: (Score:3)
I did a test a short while ago.
Just open the browser, disable anything that could run automatically (no updates, a fresh profile, no addons and no extensions) and only have one page open and occasionally refresh it: about:memory
I had it setup like that for a few days.
The results:
- Firefox 7 leaks a lot less than older version
- Firefox 8 beta leaks even less.
So, they are working on it and I think they've almost cracked it.
Luckily with the fast release cycle we might even get it soon. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Listen - I have to restart my browser about once a day.
Short answer: switch to Chrome. I couldn't get my wife to switch until she was getting a virus a day from Facebook via Firefox, that convinced her to try it, and she loves it now. Somebody will target Chrome with a successful virus sooner or later, but the real point is: Chrome is good, Chrome is newer (fresher) than Firefox, and, for the moment, it's worth trying.
Re: (Score:2)
I have Chrome installed, and I used to use it as my main browser during the FF3 era.
There is literally only one thing keeping me on Firefox - Live Bookmarks. I'm subscribed to a dozen blogs and over a hundred webcomics, all via RSS, and Live Bookmarks are the best way I've found to handle all that. I've tried several other RSS readers, they really don't make sense for the way I use them.
If Chrome ever adds that feature, I'm gone.
Firefox 3 had a nasty bug with Live Bookmarks, where refreshing them (which it
Re: (Score:2)
Back when Chrome was new, it had some compatibility problems with certain websites, more than FF or IE did (maybe about on par with Opera). That has gotten better and better over the years.
My RSS "subscriptions" are all on my yahoo/google "homepages" - not sure if that would scratch your itch or not, works for me, in every browser on every desk - which is another nice feature of Chrome, synchronized bookmarks - I live by the little bookmark bar, erasing the names so I can fit about 20 icons one-click away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that the FF memory hole is fixed, I've been wondering what drives the Chrome memory usage up. How much of that is due to running each tab as a separate process?
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, put down the Mozilla Kool-Aid, ease back on the weed.
Do you know what the generic name of the "Mozilla Kool-Aid" is? It's "Freedom". Sometimes also known as "Power to the people".
Even if browser vendor this, that or the other makes theirs faster/leaner/shinier, none of them is on a mission from Good, which is what Mozilla is. That is the greatest value of Firefox/Iceweasel, unless I'm mistaken.
And weed? Are you implying one should not think about abstract beautiful things like the future of freedom or what are the hippie-love-ideas one should not dream about
Re: (Score:2)
This is not true. On my Mac OS X box, I've got Firefox, Chrome and Safari running. I just started Firefox and Chrome.
Firefox (8 beta) on startup is using 159.3MB of real memory and 166MB virtual with 22 threads running. Chrome (15.0.874.106) is using 50MB of real memory with 219.1MB virtual and 28 threads. Safari (latest on lion, which has been running for days and has 12 tabs running) is using 194.3MB of ram with 358.2 virtual and 13 threads.
This test isn't fair to safari, but valid for the other two b
Re: (Score:2)
Have you remembered to sum the memory of all the Chrome processes? Mine has five different processes running with just one tab open, and put together they're definitively using more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah good point. New test of chrome shows two processes with 63.5MB + 42.4MB real memory, 32 threads total and 229.1MB + 118.9MB virtual memory.
As for safari, it's still running and shows 600MB + 198.4MB real with 649.1MB + 359.8MB virtual.
Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (Score:4, Informative)
Firefox uses about as much as Chrome or any other browser
That doesn't mean it's not a memory hog.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh look, a bunch of anonymous cowards spreading FUD simultaneously!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It is FUD, there's a vocal minority of people that keep claiming that there's this monstrous memory leak, but in practice it's not something that most people see. And I have yet to hear about any developers observing the problem on any of their machines.
So, it's probably technically possible, or there's something about those particular machines that leads to the problem. Considering how consistently Firefox beats the snot out of Chrome on memory use, I'm leaning towards it not being a common problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because "most people" don't see it, does not mean it's FUD. We don't know how many people actually see it. 51% not seeing it could be considered "most people". Not that I'm suggesting it's anywhere near that bad, but I'm also not pretending that the problem isn't there.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. It's a mess on OSX. The process peaks around a gig on my machine before it pukes all over itself and crashes. This with maybe four or five extensions with about six or seven tabs open. I restart the damn thing at least once a day.
Sometime back, some slashdotter informed me that I was spreading pure FUD and then a week later, the firefox team announced that version 7 would address the memory problems (which it hasn't on my machine). Although Installing flashblock did improve the browser's
Re: (Score:2)
Well, SquareVoid isn't an anonymous coward, and SquareVoid actually presented evidence. That's not FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
FF7 has been causing me problems. It feels like big stonking memory issues.
It looks like memory issues when FF7 takes up 1.5gb of my 3gb.
But, it's actually a Flash problem for me. Uninstall Flash and the problem goes away. Stay away from armour games and newsgrounds and the slow-downs stay away.
I've changed my opinion on FF memory issues. Calling "FUD" doesn't help
Re: (Score:2)
Here it' usually never over 250 MB.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your priorities are not everyone's...
Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (Score:5, Interesting)
Right now, b2g uses considerably less memory than Android. The difference is about 200mb on the phone I tested on.
Of course, b2g doesn't currently do much, and our memory usage will probably increase as we add more features. But we're paying close attention.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How exactly are you counting? Android in all its smartphone iterations up to Gingerbread runs just fine on phones with 192MB of RAM (less than 100MB accessible by the system at runtime!)... does B2G use roughly -100MB (negative one hundred megabytes) of RAM?
If you're just counting used RAM in a task manager type app in Android: Don't bother - Android precaches very aggressively.
Re:Memory footprint should be first priority (Score:4, Insightful)
It just doesn't have enough free RAM to run very fast with newer versions of Android. When it's really lagging, I run a task killer and free up a bit of RAM, and it runs much better - but not what you could call fast at all.
It ran much faster with 2.1, but I do love all the new features 2.2 came with so I grin and bear it for now until I can get a new phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of the background processes I have are things like Google+ auto-picture upload, Facebook, Google Voice, Weatherbug, work email and Gmail (both push emails), etc. Pretty normal and mainstream apps. They don't take a whole lot of RAM each, but when you run enough of them they add up. I'd guess that if I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, Motorola's ineptitude isn't limited to Motoblur. Their stock ROMs on the Droid/Milestone were similarly slow-as-molasses... other devices with slower processors and less RAM are snappier than my old stock Milestone :(
Re: (Score:2)
If you're running Moto's original Froyo firmware that's no wonder. I used to have a Moto Milestone (the GSM version of the Droid) which was annoying as hell in that regard. I now have an HTC Dream lying around for testing purposes, which has even less RAM than the Droid, and with a decent custom ROM that locks the home screen in memory, there are no such problems.
You luckily still have an unlocked bootloader on that Droid (the Milestone and nearly all of the models following the Droid are locked up really t
Er...isn't this just webOS Mk II? (Score:2)
However, memory only uses more power if it is constantly being accessed; the refresh power is constant if the data is not changing. More power will be used at initialisation, this is true, but the point about phones is that they rarely reboot.
There may be a penalty but they seem to be working on it.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean devolution?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The more memory in use, the more energy Mobile devices burn. Mozilla's Firefox is a huge memory hog on personal computers. If they want a shot on the mobile market, they'll need to keep the memory footprint to a minimum.
This is true, despite what the naysayers try to argue, and truer still if you use addons BUT that isn't why I don't care about Mozilla Firefox on mobile. The real reason is that after all the changes forced on to me on the PC, the recent version and update extension hell, and the arrogance displayed by the developers I would rather poke my eye out than rely on another piece of gear from Mozilla. There is no hope memory leaks and the like will be fixed when the attitude is to deny and force "improvements" on
Well now (Score:2, Funny)
Glad to see the Mozilla developers are working on something that's REALLY important, rather than trifling things such as memory footprint and MSI installers.
Re: (Score:1)
MSI installers?
The Windows Installer (previously known as Microsoft Installer) is a software component used for the installation, maintenance, and removal of software on modern Microsoft Windows systems. The installation information, and often the files themselves, are packaged in installation packages, loosely relational databases structured as OLE COM Structured Storages and commonly known as "MSI files", from their default file extension.
Calling something an MSI Installer might be an example of RAS syndrome, but I'm no
Re: (Score:3)
Except they _are_ working on memory footprint.
As for MSI installers, those may be important for _Firefox_. Whether they're more important for the _Web_ than having an alternative to locked-down app stacks is a good question.
Recall that Mozilla's mission is "choice and innovation on the web", not "build a web browser".
Re: (Score:2)
...what?
Re: (Score:1)
Really, what we should do is evacuate all of Israel's Jews to Iraan.
Yet another version ticker.... (Score:2)
WebOS All Over Again? (Score:1, Interesting)
What advantages does this have over WebOS? What advantages does it have over running Android with FireFox mobile as the default browser?
Re:WebOS All Over Again? (Score:5, Insightful)
What advantages does this have over WebOS?
How about a) properly open source so it's likely to survive and b) hasn't just been cancelled?
What advantages does it have over running Android with FireFox mobile as the default browser?
How about a) controlled by an organisation which has a history of developing in the open and b) doesn't require all software to be written in Java?
Re: (Score:1)
boot? (Score:1)
great, i was just in the process of "booting gecko" off my computer and installing chrome.
now i will also have to "boot" it off my phone as well.
to boot, i wonder where i can buy a big enough boot to do all this booting.
Should be ok (Score:2, Insightful)
They'd better change the product from the mock-up. (Score:2)
http://hothardware.com/newsimages/Item19377/Wireframes1.jpg [hothardware.com]
Rounded corners - check
Grid of icons - check
Incoming lawsuit...
Versions (Score:1)
Considering how even Android manufacturers lag behind the current version I really hope they don't do the same rapid release as with Firefox.
Re:Versions (Score:4, Insightful)
The more versions out, the more difficult it becomes to build an app that works on every single one.
Sounds familiar (Score:2)
So... Basically, the same as the original iPhone, then?
Web OS Returns - all new and improved! (Score:1)
Re:Web OS Returns - all new and improved! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the point is that it's a novel idea. The point is that mozilla is in it for your freedom. And while webos didn't slaghter the marketplace, it's not like everyone else is saying this web thing is not the shit. They're all saying it's the shit, aren't they.
Hence we might need for there to be a b2g, lest control of the information and communication technology is yoinked away fro us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh so you agree that the "year of the Linux desktop" stuff should be thrown in the bin...
Well, yeah? I thought we generally agreed that was a load of hyperbolic nonsense. As for the rest of your diatribe, did you actually read my comment? As in, actually comprehend it? Seems you went off in an entirely unrelated direction there friend.
Oh Look!!! A Bandwagon!!! (Score:3)
Must get on!
Re: (Score:1)
They need to fix their mobile browser first. (Score:2)
Last I checked, it STILL doesn't support Flash on Android. I'd love to use it because I happen to like the synced bookmarks feature but no flash was a deal-killer. I therefore use Dolphin which works great and allows a manual bookmark sync.
Re: (Score:1)
Dolphin for Android sends every URL you visit to their servers God knows why.I guess you missed that story when it was on /. Just my opinion, but that puts it pretty low on the list of best browsers.
Also, I'm pretty sure flash isn't firefox's problem, but rather Android itself, or your hardware manufacturer. They pay for the license, not firefox.
Qt anyone? (Score:2)
Qt (basis of Safari, IIRC) would seem to be a good place to start something like this....
Re: (Score:2)
You mean something like http://mer-project.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]?
Closed hardware = limited audience (Score:2)
Sorry Mozilla---unlike the PC, where everyone can download and install Linux, you cannot just download and install a mobile OS unless you are in a tiny minority. Your only hope is open hardware, which, good luck with finding any.
Not trying to dissuade you from exercising your right to tinker, just trying to understand why I should care.
How about a firefox for iOS instead, mmmh? Wouldn't that be a better usage of your resources? Lots of us here would love that.
Re: (Score:2)
Closed software. You should know its not possible to make a Firefox for iOS. Only for jailbroken devices.
Apple does not allow competing browser engines. They all use Safari's webkit and/or remote rendering to run on iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Does opera mini not use a competing browser engine? It must, since it compresses stuff, the render just feels different and is resistant to my adblocker :-P
Unless I'm misremembering, I think opera mini proves competing engines are allowed by apple, and that yet again Mozilla = focused on the wrong goals lately.
Re: (Score:2)
no, opera mini engine does not run on iOS
its all remotely rendered.
Mozilla is not allowed to have gecko on iOS. Pure and simple.
They *are* actually pondering make a jailbreak-version-only
So (Score:1)
would you say they intend to build some sort of "web" "OS"? Perhaps? Maybe there just might be one for sale somewhere... that might carry along with it the patent for the smartphone?