#Seamonkey vs firefox code
#Seamonkey vs firefox series

Firefox' development strategy being what it is there is not that much opportunity - other than by filing bugs - to influence priorities and design criteria. Unfortunately this often-heard complaint does not seem to get the attention it deserves. If a browser manages to bring a 2 Ghz system with 768 MB to its knees in a mere half hour of browsing there is something wrong. Change the name only because Microsoft copies the feature under a different name.?) and with a clean profile. The biggest complaint is the incredible amount of memory the browser consumes - even without any extensions (errr.

#Seamonkey vs firefox series

my experiences with the latest iterations of Firefox (both the 1.5 series as well as the 2 and 3 development series) have left much to desire. I have also followed the development of Firefox (and to a lesser extent Thunderbird) closely, building local versions, testing nightlies, etc.īut. For day-to-day browsing I used Firefox, for more involving things the Mozilla suite has always been more appropriate. I started using the threesome (Firefox, Thunderbird and the suite) next to eachother. They looked more modern than the Mozilla suite and individually had slightly better performance. Then, suddenly, Firefox (under one if its many names) and Thunderbird appeared.

#Seamonkey vs firefox code

I followed the development of the Mozilla project from the failed start based on the old Navigator code via the slow-starting gecko-based suite all the way to the Mozilla suite. The day Netscape released the source to Navigator I compiled it and gazed in wonder at this 'real' browser I compiled on my Linux box. :) Shutting stuff down in order to work around a bug is a horrible and very annoying kludge. Hey, no need to fix memory leaks in Windows, it's only an OS, you can reboot it every so often.

That's not really an excuse though is it. (Yes, I know this includes mmap()ed resources, but I doubt FireFox is mmap()ing much huge stuff). I never close my FireFox unless I absolutely have to. Then again, I haven't kept it open for months at a time. I've had firefox running for days at a time without seeing anywhere over 100 MB. Now I understand that this memory is supposidly used to cache content to speed up the browsing experience but I'd counter that argument by pointing out that if FireFox is so deep into swap space that it causes my machine to go on holiday for 5 minutes every time I do something because it's thrashing the swap then this isn't speeding up anything. Whether or not that's a memory leak, I'd argue that causing the OOM killer to come out and start blowing away applications is a bug. If I leave my FireFox pointing at a auto-refreshing page for a couple of days it *will* OOM my machine. Well, it might not be a memory leak, but I'd argue that it is a bug. This isn't a bug, and isn't a memory leak.