Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Firefox Mozilla Upgrades News

Firefox Is Going 64-Bit: What You Need To Know 364

An anonymous reader writes "Firefox product manager Asa Dotzler determined that figuring out the 64-bit confusion surrounding Firefox it will be 'near the top' of his to-do list this summer and fall. One could conclude that Mozilla has no idea at this point what people are expecting from a 64-bit version of Firefox, so Dotzler is asking for some feedback. More speed? More security? What about plug-in availability? All of the above, please."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Is Going 64-Bit: What You Need To Know

Comments Filter:
  • by chrylis ( 262281 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @01:53PM (#36787236)

    Perhaps if they instead focused on fixing the memory leaks, pushing out 64-bit builds wouldn't be so pressing an issue?

  • Re:Memory! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <> on Saturday July 16, 2011 @01:56PM (#36787266) Homepage Journal

    Hurray! With 64 bits, Firefox might be able to address all the memory it uses...

    Firefox and the OS will still need ZFS' 128 bit filesystem for the swap space.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 16, 2011 @01:59PM (#36787308)

    PNutts said:

    Sorry your experience was so negative. I've had good luck with them for two different issues.

    Let me guess... your penis and your nuts?

  • Eh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <> on Saturday July 16, 2011 @02:02PM (#36787344)

    I thought I had been running a 64bit Firefox for years. So I wasn't? Or is this about finally doing a 64-bit Windows build? Probably since Moz Corp is entirely focused on Windows and treats Linux as a red headed stepchild.

  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @02:07PM (#36787390) Journal
    64-bit is important because an increasing number of operating systems are no longer shipping 32-bit libraries by default, and on the ones that are, most apps are 64-bit so they may not be swapped in. On this machine, only four of the apps that I'm running are 32-bit - and two of those are just because I'm running really old versions and haven't bothered to upgrade (they're open source and 32-bit clean). With these running, I have a lot of libraries loaded twice, once for them and once for every other application. A couple of years ago, the balance was in the other direction - a few 64-bit apps and a lot of 32-bit ones. If FireFox is the only 32-bit app that you're running, then that's a huge amount of 32-bit shared library code that is loaded solely for FireFox's benefit.
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @02:13PM (#36787430) Journal
    (Easy) compatibility with 64-bit plugins and not having to drag along a whole bloody system's worth of 32-bit libraries just to install the browser seem like the most evident reasons...

    What confuses me is why they would be framing an address-length change in terms of additional features. With the specific exception of applications where the implementation of certain features requires easy access to gigantic slabs of memory, there isn't a whole lot of connection between 64-bitness and the feature list.
  • History repeats (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wonko the Sane ( 25252 ) * on Saturday July 16, 2011 @02:18PM (#36787478) Journal
    This sounds like like the, "Why should we rewrite our perfectly good 16 bit applications just because everybody else is jumping on the 32 bit bandwagon" conversations that we went through back in ancient times.
  • by UltraZelda64 ( 2309504 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @02:20PM (#36787486)

    ...back when I actually gave a damn. More specifically, when I ran Windows, which was a hell of a long time ago now (in computing terms)... back before mid to late 2006. Now, I run Linux, so Firefox, or Iceweasel, or whatever spinoff is included in the distribution due to the Mozilla Corporation's bitching is often included as 64-bit by default--as long as it's a 64-bit distro.

    To top it off, with all of the bullshit Mozilla has been pulling off for quite a while now (starting not long after the formation of the corporation and their increasing grasp and restrictions on the use of their products), I've been considering switching. There are a bunch of extensions that IMO are must-haves, and they make the switch more difficult, but every release, every news story of Mozilla/Firefox is making me consider jumping ship before this titanic sinks. They already seem to be so disillusioned from everything they already stood for, it's rare for them to impress me any more.

    What the hell has become of the Mozilla of the Firefox 1.0 to 2.0 era? They've really jumped off the deep end. First they started wanting more control and placing more restrictions on the distribution and use of the software, then they started chasing Chrome in every way possible. And more recently, they switch to a clusterfuck of a release/versioning system, forcibly breaking extensions every couple months.

    Ditching this Asa dipshit (never did like the guy) and scrapping the whole "Mozilla Corporation" idea would be a great first start. Oh, and listening to the users, instead of blatantly copying the competition's (specifically Google's) every last move... most of which of which are just bad ideas in the first place, at least in the context of Firefox. If I want Chrome, I'll use it; make Firefox actually be Firefox. Us Firefox users want Firefox, not some fucking Frankenchromeopera; if we did, we would have escaped from your increasingly controlling grasp long ago.

    I forced myself into some of the changes in 3.x eventually, but with all the needless shitty changes in 4/5 and the new rapid major version releases, it looks like I've reaching the end of my use (and recommendation to others) of their products.

  • Re:Why ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 16, 2011 @03:18PM (#36787872)

    You're wasting your keyboard away. You'll never get them all and even if you do, they won't listen, understand, or care. Many, including myself, have been telling people for years that it's not just about the bigger address space. The all knowing Internet has decided we don't need a 64-bit address space and consequently all other features that come with a 64-bit processor are irrelevant.

    Also, rest assured that even if Firefox became the most memory efficient browser in existence it would not matter. Once the Internet makes up its mind, you cannot change it by bringing up stupid things like facts.

    Take your extra registers, SSE, shared libraries, processor tuning and shove it. The Internet has spoken.

    Note to moderators: There is no +1 sarcastic, so you have no choice but to mod this insightful. No? Ok just mod parent up.

  • by RsG ( 809189 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @03:23PM (#36787894)

    He's a troll. Probably not one with an agenda, beyond provoking nerd rage. Consider:

    1. He posts alt-med stuff on slashdot, a "news for nerds" site. There are only a few things more likely to provoke a flamewar than peddling quackery to rationalists. Perhaps he felt creationism or microsoft trolls would be too obvious?

    2. He only ever posts about the one issue. He'll shoehorn chiropractic crap into any discussion. Including a story about a new version of an old browser. This is not the behaviour of a regular poster; even the genuine alt-med believers and conspiracy theorists post about other topics.

    3. He hasn't quit, despite negative karma. Every post he makes spawns flamewars. A genuine idiot would feel unwelcome, give up and leave. A troll on the other hand, revels in the flamewars.

    So, he's a troll. One here purely to start trouble. He's probably laughing at every idiot who feeds him by screaming "QUACK!"

  • by TheVelvetFlamebait ( 986083 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @03:26PM (#36787912) Journal

    I take exception to your post. I know plenty of people in the medical profession. Most of them are good, honest people, who have never once mislead me on any count. They're not taking backhanders from Big Pharma.

    My father is currently a practising psychiatrist, who is also doing a significant amount of research into his favourite psychiatric technique, which revolves around a one-on-one therapy to treat the roots of the problems (typically traumatic experiences). It involves little to no drugs, because it doesn't treat problems merely as a chemical imbalance.

    I also take exception because I know people practising alternative medicine, and not one of them is as moronic as your post makes you sound.

  • by growse ( 928427 ) on Saturday July 16, 2011 @03:57PM (#36788182) Homepage

    Chiropractic has done all of this and more. Don't just take my word for it, ask ANY Chiropractor and they will tell you the same thing. Look at Chiro videos on YouTube, they have lots of Thumbs Up from other Chiros.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a brand new research technique!! Forget about all that time-wasting and expensive business of double-blinded randomized trials, and the complex process of producing 'evidence', lets just put videos of untested treatments on Youtube and see how many thumbs up votes they get. We could combine this revolutionary technique with that other ideal indicator of treatment performance called 'Just asking people'. Why we've bothered with complex trials for all these years is a true mystery.


...there can be no public or private virtue unless the foundation of action is the practice of truth. - George Jacob Holyoake