backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by tedrodai.. on Aug 25 at 3:36 PM


Apparently Twitter passes as a source among the kids these days...
TechCrunch blogger's scathing review of Firefox is unfounded

As a writer, it's natural to want to break a news story first, especially when the news story is a bug found in a marquee product that some sources are reporting to be major.  However, in the rush to break the news, you can often misreport it.  I admit, this happened to me with the chkdsk.exe Windows 7 RTM bug, where InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy and several bloggers exaggerated the impact and went as far as to suggest Windows 7's launch might be delayed.  My subsequent report was full of unintentional hyperbole on the problem -- and I'm sorry.

Having been recently burned, I've been eyeing these kind of "the sky is falling" reports with a bit more scrutiny.  So I was intrigued to come across this jewel of a headline "I Want To Love Firefox 3.5, But It Keeps Crashing On Me" written by TechCrunch's Erick Schonfeld and reprinted in The Washington Post.  That's a potential blockbuster piece, if it's true!

Except it really isn't.  I've been using Firefox extensively (4+ hours a day) since at least 2.0, on both Fedora Linux (6-9 editions over the past few years), Windows XP, Windows Vista, and most recently Windows 7.  My experience across a number of systems is that since 2.0 Firefox's stability has been steadily increasing. 

Up until the 2.5 release, flash advertisements on my Fedora install would common pop up strange phantom windows.  If you attempted to close these windows, without warning, it would exit all of Firefox.  These problems mostly disappeared with 2.5, and with 3.0 they've been long gone.  All around 3.5 is very stable.  If anything, I love Firefox more because it doesn't crash on me!

So that's just my own personal experience.  Let's look at other users.  Mr. Schonfield cites a Twitter search for "firefox 3.5 crash" (is that a source?) -- of 14 posts, one is referencing his article.  Great -- I can find at least 30 (twice as many!) positive comments about Firefox 3.5 in my two articles on it I wrote at launch time (though I'd hardly call that a conclusive source).

In such cases, the best option would be to launch into a complete and exhaustive survey, along with thorough testing.  But let's face it -- for most news writers that's not feasible in terms of money and time.  Barring such an approach, the next best option is logic.  The logical conclusion would have been to note that one of the users on the Twitter feed admitted that their incompatibility was due to a add-on (and that the crashes were reproducible).  With that in mind I returned to launch articles and found this comment by user slider169: "[Firefox] crashed right after the update because 50% of my add-on aren't compatible."

A clue, Sherlock!  So there's your likely culprit -- if your Firefox is crashing, its likely due the add-ons you have.  With a wealth of add-ons on most users installs its no wonder some such problems arise.  Mozilla could opt like Microsoft not to allow add-ons, but instead they allow them and conscientiously work with add-on developers to fix such problems when they're reported.

Mr. Schonfeld however, failed to report what add-ons were installed on his crash-prone install, and even what OS he was on, making it hard to figure out why exactly his particular install was so glitchy (my bets are on his add-ons). 

Still that didn't stop him from writing, "[T]here is one persistent bug that might push me to another browser: it keeps crashing on me.  This usually happens when I have too many tabs open (like 15 or 20, which is not unusual for me towards the end of the day). The whole thing will just freeze and I'll have to force the browser to quit. When I relaunch I get a message like the one above, sheepishly saying, 'Well, this is embarrassing.' Yes, it is embarrassing. A modern browser should be able to handle dozens of open tabs, and if there is a problem with one, it should be able to isolate it and allow you to carry with your business in the other tabs."

It's okay, Mr. Schonfeld, I've been there before.  You think that you have a big story on your hands of a glaring problem in a marquee product.  However, you live and you learn -- when the problem turns out to be exaggerated and your piece is criticized, you'll be a bit wiser next time.  For now, though, we can rest assured -- the sky isn't falling and unless you have incompatible add-ons, your Firefox should be nice and stable -- and ready for your love.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Really?
By Murst on 8/11/2009 11:17:28 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
if your Firefox is crashing, its likely due the add-ons you have.

The browser shouldn't crash b/c of an add-on. This points to a flaw in the architecture.
quote:
Mozilla could opt like Microsoft not to allow add-ons

That statement is incorrect. MS does allow add-ons, although it is a lot more work to get an add-on working in IE than in Firefox.

BTW, I love the new Firefox. I've been using Chrome/IE until the 3.5 release, and now I use all 3 interchangably. However, Firefox 3.5 still does crash sometimes (just like IE and Chrome). And I'm not using any add-ons.




RE: Really?
By adiposity on 8/11/2009 3:06:12 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The browser shouldn't crash b/c of an add-on. This points to a flaw in the architecture.


Gotta agree with you there.

However, keep in mind that this "flaw" is what allows firefox to be so extensible. It's practically impossible to build enough hooks to allow the myriad of extensions currently available for firefox to run in a sandbox. Instead, the extensions effectively become part of the browser and even overwrite certain pieces of code(!). This certainly isn't very safe and probably has something do with with requiring all extensions to be signed by mozilla (or manually accepted) before installing. It does, however, allow practically limitless modifications.

A more secure plugin/addon architecture (such as the "plugin" architecture of mozilla itself) has much more limited capabilities. I don't know if you can really stop the addons from crashing the browser process. Now, when mozilla finally implements process-per-tab, at least that browser crash won't crash the main interface. But I'm not sure that really fixes the flaw you refer to...it just isolates it to a single tab.

Of course certain extensions may apply to the browser component, and still be able to crash things.

-Dan


RE: Really?
By TheEinstein on 8/11/2009 9:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
I can have between my opening 10 pages, to 100-120 pages open.

It's a laptop with wireless (frequently out of tower range as I am a truck driver). I game, so I like access to website information which helps me game better.

I also like reading science stuff, politics, and the likes. I read anything new on those, regardless.

In IE I was so used to trying to close a single tab and having the entire program crash and lose all my pages.

I have had firefox crash only a very few times. Typically this is due to acrobat articles or flash apps. But the crashes are so few and far between that I would never change back to IE.

I do not add mods or add-ons of any sort, they have no use for me as of yet.


RE: Really?
By Mitch101 on 8/14/2009 12:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
As much as I love using Firefox over IE it does crash a lot in the new versions. In some instances I have to reboot to get it to work again. But Im sure it will be fixed soon whatever the causes are.


RE: Really?
By smitty3268 on 8/11/2009 8:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The truth is that Firefox doesn't have an add-on architecture, even a bad one. They allow the add-ons full access to the browsers internals, which allows them to do pretty much anything the developer can imagine inside it. That's sort of a good thing, since I'm sure a lot of good ideas never would have been possible through a strict API. But over the years it's caused all sorts of problems, from memory leaks and crashes to some add-ons interfering with others, and there's really nothing the Mozilla folks can do about it. Not without imposing an API, anyway, which would automatically make all existing add-ons break and probably be hard to port forward.


RE: Really?
By TomZ on 8/12/2009 1:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
That's silly - there's no reason they could not have designed in an API for extensions. The ad-hoc extensions as you describe are practically a recipe for serious reliability and security problems.


RE: Really?
By smitty3268 on 8/12/2009 10:20:31 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't that what i said?


RE: Really?
By VaultDweller on 8/13/2009 9:29:22 AM , Rating: 2
Flawed or not, Firefox's plethora of plug-ins are the only reason I still use the browser. Without them, I'd take a closer look at Chrome as an alternative... and if I don't like Chrome, I'd actually choose IE8 over a vanilla Firefox install.


RE: Really?
By chrnochime on 8/14/2009 9:54:56 AM , Rating: 2
I'm no grammar police, but for God's sake do a freaking spell check on your article. At least check your headline.... "Exagerrated"??? WTH


RE: Really?
By sld on 8/15/2009 8:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
You can inform civilly; there's no need to whine.


RE: Really?
By jonmcc33 on 8/16/2009 2:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The browser shouldn't crash b/c of an add-on. This points to a flaw in the architecture.


Actually, very wrong. Add-ons can create instability. I use Firefox with merely Adblock Plus and ChatZilla. That's all I need out of a browser in addition is a great ad blocking extension and some sort of IRC interface.

It has been WELL KNOWN for years that using too many add-ons can cause Firefox to be unstable. Using a single add-on by itself can be fine but once you start grouping add-ons who knows what they can do to each other.


redeeming
By tastyratz on 8/11/2009 10:15:54 AM , Rating: 5
Refreshing rebuttal Jason.
I also have been using Firefox since 2.0 - and I have a nasty habit of never closing tabs and windows if I think they are important - and I hate to bookmark things (out of sight out of mind)
What combination does that yield me?
My current Firefox session is 10 windows and 200 tabs. All in all I would call myself a limit pusher - and there is no way I could ever come remotely close in IE. Any problems I have are usually related to a malformed miscreated web page or an outdated extension - and I recognize that. Why cant someone else with a tech background see these things? Usually those are the people with an opinion before the review




RE: redeeming
By xsilver on 8/11/2009 10:50:27 AM , Rating: 2
holy crap - I have like 30 tabs and the first thing people say when they walk past is "whats with all the tabs?"

Did you manage to get 200 tabs on firefox 2.0? 3.x has been much better in handling high loads imo.


RE: redeeming
By tastyratz on 8/11/2009 11:10:04 AM , Rating: 2
my personal best is nearing 4-500 tabs.
I never said it was happy about it, but it seemed ok. 2.0 was a lot harder to maintain that many - switching to 3 made life MUCH easier.

the extension Session manager is my savior in firefox - its prettymuch risk free. I have different themed window grouping (i.e. car related window, one for tech crap, one for homeowner crap, etc)
I just don't do well with out of sight out of mind lol.

Anyone dare challenge my throne of most intentional tabs open?


RE: redeeming
By eddieroolz on 8/14/2009 7:31:34 AM , Rating: 2
I surrender to the almighty conqueror.

Most I've ever had was 50.


RE: redeeming
By Chocobollz on 8/15/2009 2:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone dare challenge my throne of most intentional tabs open?

LOL only 500 tabs and you call it a lot? Well, I usually work with 1200+ tabs everyday (in 40+ windows and in 6 different window group in taskbar) in Opera 9.6, 10 Beta 1, Beta 2, and Beta 3, with 2 GB of RAM and so far, I have no problems with them. And I do also use the same scheme like you're where I do grouping based on the topic of the tabs.

Well, about your challenge, do I win? :P


RE: redeeming
By tedrodai on 8/25/2009 3:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but...why???


RE: redeeming
By MrPoletski on 8/12/2009 5:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My current Firefox session is 10 windows and 200 tabs.


Holy moly! I thought I was bad, do you aspire to browse the ENTIRE web *simultaneously*?


RE: redeeming
By tastyratz on 8/12/2009 10:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
Nah I already beat the web, totally easy with save points (tabs)


RE: redeeming
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 6:21:13 AM , Rating: 1
I'm sure the advertisers and ad profit mongers love a tabbed freak like that - sucking down the hits in hundreds of unseen windows while our prices for everything advertised skyrocket because some moron had a hundred tabs open on autorefresh every 60 seconds.
Yeah, they sure are cool on their web brag post, as long as another hundred morons are present.
Sure hope the ad counters lock out more than one instance of an IP when it somes to hits and payments.


No crashes but...
By Kaleid on 8/11/2009 11:50:03 AM , Rating: 2
if I have more than 2-3 tabs open and all of them are directed at different websites sometimes all of them freezes and receives no data. This requires a FF restart.
Went back to 3.013 a couple of days ago and so far it hasn't happened again.




RE: No crashes but...
By ChronoReverse on 8/11/2009 1:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
This is something that has oft been repeated but did you try using a clean profile when you started to use FF3.5?


RE: No crashes but...
By Kaleid on 8/11/2009 5:28:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, yes, I suppose so. Had a few re-installs lately because of harddrive crashes.
The only thing that remains from earlier installations are the bookmarks.


RE: No crashes but...
By ChronoReverse on 8/11/2009 8:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
What about a clean profile with no addons?


Running 3.51...
By bplewis24 on 8/11/2009 10:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
I only use firefox. Currently I'm using version 3.51 I believe, and I've never had a crash that I can remember. The main reason I switched to firefox (about 6 months ago) was because I got tired of IE7 crashing on me.

Brandon




RE: Running 3.51...
By Bundy on 8/16/2009 12:20:57 AM , Rating: 2
I'm running 3.52, always update when one comes out, run several add ons, have never messed with my profile, and I can't remember ever having a crash. I'm sure it must have happened before, but it has been so infrequent that I really can't remember a crash in any version....otherwise, I'd have switched.

I also have IE8, Chrome, and Opera on my computer. All live in harmony without crashes, but I use FireFox 90% of the time.


No problems for me.
By deegee on 8/11/2009 6:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
I use both IE and FF (XP, Vista, W7, and Ubuntu OSs) and I rarely get crashes at all. I can't even remember the last one, it is that rare.




RE: No problems for me.
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 6:24:03 AM , Rating: 2
In other words they already have an unstable install with driver issues or stray dll's or some cleaned out highjacker issues or xml hackcode dormant, and when the browser crashes, they blame it instead of their stupid idiot selves who cannot keep their system clean (probably from hitting the porn sites or something similar).


firefox 3.5 DOES crash
By Bytre on 8/11/2009 7:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
3.5 was painful. I've been a firefox fanboy since 1.0x days, and 3.5 was the first which took a real step backwards in stability. I use few plugins (adblock is the only one I had on my 3.5 install), and I went from very rare crashes to 3-5 per day with 3.5. Its been bad enough that I began using IE again on my two primary systems for half my use.

There are some sev 1 defects in it. they may not impact everyone, but for those that it does impact, its a show stopper.




RE: firefox 3.5 DOES crash
By ChronoReverse on 8/11/2009 8:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
Again, did you test with a clean profile from which you installed the same addons into? Upgrading on the same profile has often been a source of instability.


article pic
By nugundam93 on 8/11/2009 9:43:06 AM , Rating: 2
wow. the article pic is great! hahaha!




Same here
By nafhan on 8/11/2009 10:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
I've been using Firefox since before it was Firefox, and any major problems, I've always been able to trace back to an add-on.




Damn Right
By HrilL on 8/11/2009 7:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
Heh I've been using firefox sine 1.2 back in the day. Pretty much only on windows installs. Over the years any crashes have been fixed for the most part. I don't really use addons for the most part. Only on my server for using a different proxy for each tab and stuff like that. 3.5 is the most stable yet from what I can tell. Haven't had one crash on it since the day it came out. I also tend to use lots of tabs. I've been known to have 50 or more open and you have to scroll from one side to the other since they don't all show up since there are too many to fit.

This guys fuss over crashes seems like a problem he is having on his own for the most part.




In my experience
By eddieroolz on 8/14/2009 7:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
I find that Firefox was best pre-3.0, perhaps around 2.0.

Sure, it had excessive memory leak problems, but it was stable. 3.0 was okay, it was slightly less stable than 2.0, but it was acceptable.

3.5 is a combination of moderate memory leak and moderate number of crashes. It sometimes stops responding just because I'm opening 5-10 tabs at once, or it becomes excessively laggy when cold-starting Firefox.

The only reason I still use Firefox is its superior crash-recovery system, and its customizable interface and addons. I've actually gone back to using IE8 90% of the time, because IE8 64-bit is just as fast as Firefox with adblock, because there's no Flash for 64bit. When I need flash, I just start up IE8 32-bit, and I'm good to go.

So in the end, Firefox 3.5 blessed me with the motivation to go back to IE8. I'm not missing it.




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




14 Comments















botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki