Mozilla's 'Firefox Quantum' Browser Challenges Chrome In Speed (cnet.com) 297
The next version of Firefox, aptly named Firefox Quantum, is getting a big speed boost. "The idea, of course, is that the upcoming version 57 is a quantum leap over predecessors -- or, in the words of Mozilla CEO Chris Beard, a 'big bang,'" reports CNET. While Mozilla stopped short of declaring victory over Chrome, Nick Nguyen, vice president of Firefox product, said Firefox Quantum's page-load speed "is often perceivably faster" while using 30 percent less memory. From the report: The new Firefox revamp includes lots of under-the-covers improvements, like Quantum Flow, which stamps out dozens of performance bugs, and Quantum CSS, aka Stylo, which speeds up website formatting. More obvious from the outside is a new interface called Photon that wipes out Firefox's rounded tabs and adds a "page action" menu into the address bar. It also builds in the Pocket bookmarking service Mozilla acquired and uses it to recommend sites you might be interested in. A screenshot tool generates a website link so you can easily share what you see by email or Twitter. Mozilla even simplified the Firefox logo, a fox wrapping itself around the globe. More improvements are in the pipeline for later Firefox versions, too, including Quantum Render, which should speed up Firefox's ability to paint web pages onto your screen.
It challenges ... (Score:5, Funny)
... but until observed it both wins and loses.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong.
Planck unit is the time required for light to travel in a vacuum a distance of 1 Planck length, which is approximately 5.39 × 10 44 s
However in quantum mechanics a quantum is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction.
For example, the photon is the smallest unit of energy of an electromagnetic radiation. That energy being the frequency of the radiation multiplied by Planck's constant, approx. 6.6 × 10-34 m2 kg / s.
Try to keep up, quantum mechanics has been around fo
Re: (Score:3)
Clive Sinclair started this naming trend back in the 1980s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
the photon is the smallest unit of energy of an electromagnetic radiation currently known.
FTFY
Just because we haven't been able to measure anything smaller doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means it's beyond our ability to measure.
Re: (Score:3)
No. The photon is the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation possible, according to the theory of quantum mechanics.
It's not that we can't measure anything smaller. It's that the universe, as we know it, doesn't allow electromagnetic radiation to be transferred in smaller units.
Now, you could hypothesize some better theory might come along and supercede quantum mechanics. But it's hard to see how any theory that's consistent with what we already know would not include Planck's relation.
A Quantum of Solace (Score:2)
So when the summary says that "the upcoming version 57 is a quantum leap over predecessors" what it is literally saying is that it is the smallest possible increment over predecessors. So perhaps a little truth in advertizing managed to slip through the hype-laden buzz of scientific words they clear
Re: (Score:2)
Pedantry aside that's not how it's used colloquially and it has a different interpretation too.
A quantum leap is when an electron transistions from one state to another without moving across all the points in between (which you already know).
So when the summary says that "the upcoming version 57 is a quantum leap over predecessors" what it is literally saying is that it is in a new state compared to it's predecessor without taking the time to make all the steps inbetween.
The colloquial use of quantum leap i
Re: (Score:2)
A quantum leap is exceedingly small, but that's not what the phrase originally referred to. What was meant, once upon a time, before the unwashed masses got to mangle the meaning, was that a quantum leap goes from one state to another without any intermediary steps. It referred to a subset of what in newer jargon is called disruptive inventions, and only those that were radical changes, and not just improvements, no matter how big.
A quantum leap for Firefox would be replacing it overnight with something
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
...THAT'S why Mozilla decided to ditch XUL (and a lot of legacy add-ons that relied on it). And it is a very important goal -- a faster and more stable Firefox was needed for a long time.
But I also hope that we soon get back most of the extensions that Firefox lost in this change. Without its previous top-notch configurability, I'm afraid it can't really compete with Google developers working on Chrome.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with allowing the kind of UI altering extensions that Firefox does is that it's an insane security risk and a massive performance issue.
Add-ons run in the global browser context, with access to everything. All tabs, the UI, all the internal browser data... And interact with every random web page you visit, and every random bit of Javascript and broken HTML on them. It should be obvious that letting Javascript interact with Javascript without a proper sandbox and with access to basically everything is a terrible idea, a security nightmare.
It also blocked them from stopping everything running globally and using threads for each tab and various background processes.
The problem they have now is that no enough add-on developers care about Firefox for them to get all the existing add-ons ported. Even if they add API extensions to support some of the lost functionality, they still need the developers to do the work. I can tell you that I'm not going to bother updating my decade old add-on.
Re:So... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They just want a browser to do everything under the sun, including perfectly work with any and all extensions that can do whatever they want to the browser, yet without any performance or security issues....
Script blocking WILL work (Score:5, Informative)
I use a scriptblocking extension which has to be able to interact with every "tab" to be able to actually work.
And script blocking is probably the number 1 feature of Firefox-based browsers (this is technically impossible to achieve on Chrome according to professionnal developers).
That's why NoScript is currently in the process [mozilla.org] of being ported to webextensions.
Or, more precisely, Mozilla is in the process of adapting WebExtensions [ghacks.net] so that things that formely required XUL like NoScript could be ported.
So, unlike Google Chrome, it's very likely that either your favorite script blocking extension will eventually work on Mozilla, or you'll find a nice alternative to your taste.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly those are the two I care most about. Another one that was nice to have was Toggle Proxy I need a simple replacement for it that acutally works (there is one but it isn't one click and also forgets the proxy port all the time but that will get fixed sooner or later).
It seems like web extensions may enable more fine grained permissions for each
Re: (Score:3)
that it's an insane security risk
You’ve said this on multiple occasions without any real-world example of how any was actually affected by this supposed security risk.
Anyway, users have quite a bit of security risk with Chrome extensions too.
https://slashdot.org/story/17/... [slashdot.org]
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
https://yro.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
https://it.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]
And many more examples can be found with these supposedly “secure” WebExtensions.
Re: (Score:2)
Attacks on popular add-ons: https://arstechnica.co.uk/info... [arstechnica.co.uk]
Paper discussing the problem: https://www.exploit-db.com/doc... [exploit-db.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So essentially plugins that also exist as WebExtensions and had the same issues. That was the best you had?
Re: (Score:2)
WebExtensions and had the same issues.
No. The WebExtensions framework is built to avoid this problem. Read the article. To quote from it: "The new set of browser extension APIs that make up WebExtensions, which are available in Firefox today, are inherently more secure than traditional add-ons, and are not vulnerable to the particular attack outlined in the presentation at Black Hat Asia."
Aren't data loss and DoS also security issues? (Score:2)
The new set of browser extension APIs that make up WebExtensions, which are available in Firefox today, are inherently more secure than traditional add-ons
From the point of view of an end user, the transition just takes one problem (security) and replaces it with another (data loss). Ctrl+Q in Firefox 57 for Linux quits the whole browser without asking for confirmation, causing loss of data in unsubmitted forms. XUL extensions used to be able to prevent this, but WebExtensions cannot because bug 1325692 [mozilla.org] was marked as "wontfix" for Firefox 57.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume this is a troll, but biting for the sake of anyone who might remotely take this seriously...
The issues pointed out are running code deliberately trying to do things people didn't expect, which is a problem because the software has no *idea* whether you really want to do what the software developer is doing. Finer grained permissions do a lot, but things like burning up too much cpu usage is really hard to do. The privacy issues can be addressed through more robust permission structure, but again
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, allocation is declarative in Rust. Memory is either allocated or it isn't, in which case it panics. So code doesn't have to worry for testing for NULL or not. So no null/dangling pointer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poe’s Law?
Being extensible was Firefox's only benefit. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, being highly extensible can come with some risk, but it's also the only thing that made Firefox still worth using. It could be made to do things that other browsers, including Chrome and Safari, couldn't be made to do, giving it a leg up over those browsers.
But now Firefox has gotten rid of the only reason to use it, by castrating its extension system.
In many respects Firefox had already mostly been a cheap, shitty imitation of Chrome for a while now. These extension changes now get rid of the "mostly"
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with allowing the kind of UI altering extensions that Firefox does is that it's an insane security risk and a massive performance issue.
The only reason I still use Firefox is the UI altering extensions that make it look and work like Firefox did the better part of two decades ago. I despise the modern UI and have no use for a version of firefox that requires it.
Re: (Score:2)
Scripts/ads slow a browser down a lot more than extensions.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no real opinion on your ideas and thus don't really care whether or not I receive your newsletter.
Re:Sheeple (Score:4, Funny)
I find your ideas both intriguing and boring and would like to both subscribe and unsubscribe from your quantum newsletter.
Re: (Score:3)
It's called consolidation. Strengthen browser vendors, weaken individuals. With Rust, this can be done imperceptibly over time.
. . . so if it really is "imperceptible" . . . maybe it's already been done, and we just haven't noticed it yet . . . ?
If you can see it, and it's there . . . it's real.
If you can see it, and it's not there . . . it's virtual.
If you can't see it, and not there . . . it's gone.
. . . now when the film star and assassin James Earl Ray Jones shot John F. Kennedy, which led to our "Operation Paperclip" German scientists at Area 51 combining his DNA with the DNA of Martin Luther King to create Barack Obama
Re: (Score:2)
What was the federal gov't providing in 1945 compared to 2015? Much less.
No medicare. No lots of things. Not to mention that at that time the Federal Government had not taken over so many state functions - example interstate roads.
Re: (Score:2)
In 1945 corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes.
In 1945 we had a world war to finance. The squeeze was on corporations to do their part. Families contributed by sending their young men, and having less income to tax.
Re:Sheeple (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you. Your email was removed from our mailing list and added to the mailing lists of 500 of our clients.
Re:So... (Score:4, Funny)
They have Rust on their side, which reportedly allows them to make highly parallel data structures with a complexity nearly impossible to make safely in C++ or Go. This gives them an edge.
+5 funny.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is that +5 funny?
The entire design of Rust is bent towards the idea that the compiler helps you a great deal with writing concurrent datastructures, because you aren't smart enough to do it unaided. If you think writing fine-grained concurrency of complex structures is easy, then please step very far away from threads and never touch them.
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Rust is overhyped, provdides little benefit if any in practice and won't be around in its current form in five or ten years, though.
So show your evidence. Where is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us how Chrome managed to replace the functionality that you found essential.
Try it before you knock it (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is just going to be a Firefox hate fest, but give the browser a try.
The important extensions will come along. Ublock origin is here and Noscript will be at the part shortly.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, but the extension that gets rid of Australious isn't and won't. Nor will Location Bar 2 or a whole host of addons that made Firefox something other than a Chrome also-ran. So yeah, why use the copy when you can use the thing they are basically ripping off?
Re: (Score:2)
As when Ccleaner was sold I have disabled automatic updates until I see a product that I want to use. Goodbye Mozilla, at least for the moment. What I also need to do is find a copy of the current installable to archive so that I can try the new versions and check out their utility.
Re: (Score:3)
A better translation is that he bemoans the convergence of the browsers to all be the same experience. What's the point of there being different browsers if they all settle on being identical?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is odd, as the reverse has been true for a while now. Chrome is the memory hog these days. FireFox has been the only real choice for low-end systems for several years.
It's amazing how these sorts of myths persist.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NoScript
NoScript is migrating [mozilla.org] to the WebExtensions API and will be released for the release of Firefox 57.
AdBlock plus
I use uBlock Origin. Works fine in 57 beta.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why bother? What life changing experience will I attain by switching? Even Mozilla is mealy-mouthed about this supposed speedup.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
also
This is Firefox! Firefox is Bad!
Firefox ESR (Score:2)
I think those who like security updates but hate change use Firefox ESR.
Re: (Score:2)
When I tried Firefox 57 for Linux, an accidental press of Ctrl+Q suddenly closed all tabs in all windows without confirmation, causing loss of data in unsubmitted forms. Extensions to stop this behavior will not arrive by Firefox 57 [mozilla.org].
To see this misbehavior for yourself, try these steps:
1. Install Firefox 57 for Linux, currently in the beta channel.
2. Type a reply to this comment into Slashdot's comment entry form.
3. Before you submit the reply, press Ctrl+Tab to switch to another tab so that you can do rese
Re: (Score:3)
their support for encrypted media extensions (EME)
You can turn off DRM support in the General -> Digital Rights Management (DRM) Content section of Firefox's settings. Problem solved.
Lack of EME had been keeping sites honest (Score:3)
The problem is that once all major browsers support EME, website operators will feel more justified in requiring EME on grounds that users can choose to just switch on DRM as part of the economic bargain associated with visiting the site. The one thing that had been keeping website operators honest is the existence of at least one widely used browser that doesn't support EME at all.
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing that had been keeping website operators honest
No. It just made them use Flash which was a worse outcome.
I do hope... (Score:2, Informative)
..it comes with quantum memory too since the current firefox gobbles memory like a bloated app from Microsoft...
Re: (Score:2)
No article about the Slashdot outage? (Score:3, Interesting)
Come on, guys... give us the goods on why the upper crust of the tech world was out of service for so long. I'm sure it'll be a hoot.
Re:No article about the Slashdot outage? (Score:5, Funny)
It wasn't an "outage", it was an "unscheduled hiatus".
Articles on /. (Score:2)
This is /.
What do you expect ?
Of course, there's is going to be an article about the outage. It will come one week after it has been talked about on reddit.
And then, there are going to be 15 more dupes about it.
"Aptly named" Quantum? OK, MozColonSlashSlashA... (Score:5, Funny)
Here's what I think when I hear "Firefox Quantum":
(To be clear, I do like the interface better than Chrome's, although I'll reserve judgement until I see how it handles large numbers of tabs -- my key criterion: don't shrink them to slits. I hear that there's an ad blocker around, but I hope that something like RequestPolicy will also exist in the new addon system.)
Adblocker and Anti-Cross-Site (Score:2)
I hear that there's an ad blocker around,
uBlock Origin [mozilla.org] has a release candidate that has been made available [ghacks.net] for webextensions API.
but I hope that something like RequestPolicy will also exist in the new addon system.
NoScript is Currently in the process [mozilla.org] of being ported to webextensions. Or, more precisely, Mozilla is in the process of adapting WebExtensions [ghacks.net] so that things that formely required XUL like NoScript could be ported.
But does it still leak memory like a fiend? (Score:2)
If so, I can't afford to care about modestly faster page rendering.
Re:But does it still leak memory like a fiend? (Score:4, Informative)
I've been using 57 for a while now and as a 8 GB RAM user, Firefox is for me way more RAM-friendly than any Chromium based browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah after all the hype in the summary, their video was not impressive. Especially since it took them a better part of a decade to get this Quantum shit out of alpha.
And yet stubbornness remains (Score:2)
How about making it start up faster (Score:3)
Re:How about making it start up faster (Score:5, Insightful)
Except you don't really have a choice. Web developers put tons crap with their webpages that make it impossible to use them with a Netscape 3 era browser.
Browsers used to be document viewers, but now, they are essentially OSes.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If one were to run Netscape 3 on today's laptop,
If you want fast startup just start notepad.exe. It starts up blazingly fast and will load modern web pages just as well as Netscape 3 would.
I would gladly give back whatever extra functionality we are getting
No you wouldn't. Boiling frog principle, you don't actually know what functionality you have because the transition and adoption of a dynamic and interactive version of the web that does more than just follow a few links via clicking and blink some text has been so slow that you barely noticed what has changed.
By the way for shits and giggles I did it. I loaded Netsca
Re: (Score:3)
start up so slowly
Firefox 57 starts up in a second or less for me. Have you tried it?
Sophistication is a poor goal (Score:2)
Sadly, most web browser sophistication is not for the user. It's for the advertiser. And it's consuming network, CPU, and screen space resources better devoted to the web site's actual message and the consumer's interest.
Slashdot itself is a good example of how to _avoid_ this unnecessary, undesirablem, and destabilizing complexity.
Re: (Score:2)
It's for the advertiser. And it's consuming network, CPU, and screen space resources
So use an ad blocker. That's what I do. uBlock Origin is a good one.
Re: (Score:2)
APK
Hmm. I suppose a benefit of the technical problems Slashdot has had in the last little is the happy side effect of blocking APK posts.
But it seems Slashdot really is back up and running now.
If my extensions stop working I'm going to Chrome (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Crucially, its extension catalogue will be much more mature
But less capable. Firefox's implementation of WebExtensions is a superset of Chrome's, and over time Mozilla will add more APIs to enable more add-ons. Moving to Chrome is a retrograde step.
Re: (Score:2)
So what specifically is the supposedly mind-blowing superset of features? And why would any end user care?
Re: (Score:2)
superset of features?
The WebRequest API [mozilla.org], for example, is superior [hackademix.net] in Firefox. Chrome has no support for sidebarAction [mozilla.org] or theme [mozilla.org].
why would any end user care?
Because the add-ons will work better, silly rabbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox has implemented WebExtensions which is the same API as Chrome, so many Chrome extensions should work on firefox. I'd give those a chance too.
Chances are though there'll be a knock to firefox 57 for a bit (stay on LTS for a while) and it'll then pick up to be similar to Chrome. Firefox are already extending the WebExtensions API beyond what chrome offer in order to keep some of the major plugins working. I suspect they're taking the sensible attitude of "make it run at all" (while the LTS one still e
Firefox is back, at least for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Violate it (Score:2)
Does it stop the popups Chrome seems incomoetent to stamp out? *
* I assume it is a loophole in a Java spec or similar that cannot be ended without violating the spec. Here's a hint: VIOLATE IT!!!
But it runs on a... (Score:2)
pocket?? (Score:2)
Not liking that at all. Suggesting sites can be used as agenda based advertising. I don't want to see any of it. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
I really want to love the new FF, but... (Score:2)
I'm not talking about the plugins and extensions breaking, although that is also a potential deal breaker for me, but my Autohotkey scripts will not fire when the latest Firefox Developer Edition has the focus (v.57).
They won't fucking work, no matter what's ran. Trackpad gestures, nothing. Overlays and hotkeys, nada.
Even opening WindowSpy shows noting when FF has the focus. What the fuck??? My scripts are not app-specific, and work in every browser, including older v
Re: (Score:2)
Try loading the dailymail on your phone in FF mobile to see what I mean.
I would, but then I'd have to burn my phone.
Review and thoughts (Score:2)
UI: Much improved. Or, put another way, they removed a ton of the Australis crap that people have been griping about for years. That says quite a bit about their UX team.
- Caveat: They still manage to make a few small stupid errors, like removing the color from bookmark folders (change applied in FF58), and a 'default' theme that mixes light and dark in a way that's annoying no matter which you'd prefer. Just change to either light or dark and be done with it.
Performance: *Vastly* improved, across the bo
Re: (Score:3)
This is the sort of work that Mozilla should have done ~5-7 years ago, back when Chrome was just starting to take off.
Mozilla has always been a bit on the slow side in development. The original Firefox took ages before it was finally released. Meanwhile the Netscape4/MSIE6 browser hell was going strong. I think Mozilla tends to spend a lot of time trying to design a good architecture and implement it. Hence their adoption of Rust, and using it to completely rewrite the ECMAScript engine. I don't think it has so much to do with not being arsed. Quick hackish workarounds are just not something they have historically done wel
Okay, tempting. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just for fun, I downloaded the beta and installed it on my Mac OS desktop (core i7-4770k, 32GB).
Two initial impressions:
1) SHIT it's fast.
2) The UI is neither ugly as sin nor weirdly laggy any longer.
Okay, I have been using Chrome for many years now, but this is tempting. I've always kept Firefox installed but rarely use it. But I have just added it to the dock. I can see myself starting it instead of Chrome just because it's so damned fast.
I don't track Firefox development at all, so I have/had no idea this was in the works. I'd never have believed it, I thought FF was effectively doomed. Call me at least initially convinced. Using it now to post this.
Re: (Score:3)
It's interesting that you say "shit it's fast". Looking at the video posted by Mozilla it would appear to actually be slower than Chrome in half the cases. HOWEVER.... it seems to load content more on a first come first shown basis. Chrome seems to wait till it has loaded nearly everything to display it on the screen. Firefox appears to put the content up as it gets it.
Maybe that makes it perceptibly faster, but in terms of having a usable page it's nothing to write home about.... at least compared to other
Re: (Score:3)
HOWEVER.... it seems to load content more on a first come first shown basis. Chrome seems to wait till it has loaded nearly everything to display it on the screen.
Arguably that's what you want, right? Why do I have to wait until all of the advertisements load before being able to scroll down to the content that I'm interested in? It might be one or two seconds slower in the final rendering on some pages, but that is probably irrelevant to most users.
it's nothing to write home about.... at least compared to other browsers
I think we will see as it gets more adoption. Being at least on par with Chrome (and in some cases better) is a pretty good achievement in my opinion. Safari and IE don't really compete in this space, so Chrome can use so
What's insane about it? (Score:3)
Missed a lot on this, so fill me in.
I wasn't a fan of the old UI code (I'm grokking that it's been replaced?) because it made the UI elements slow and choppy to render and react to clicks. It felt like using Linux+X in 1999, even on modern hardware.
This UI feels fast and native, and it's also much cleaner and doesn't do half-assed things like stretch images and icons in the UI out of aspect ratio or scale them without anti-aliasing, which always made me snicker about the old default UI.
So wait (Score:2)
That brings us back to performance we had in the early Firefox days? I bet everyone could have saved a lot of time by just not adding bloat and focusing on FF's initial motivation (to split from Mozilla and be fast again) while adding value in other ways.
<something>.enabled = false (Score:2)
It also builds in the Pocket bookmarking service ... A screenshot tool ...
Okay, as long as I can still disable them and any predictive DNS queries and page pre-loading/fetching and any other crap -- I mean *features* -- I'll never use or don't want leaking my browsing habits.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Tried the beta (Score:5, Informative)
I tried the beta, and I have to say... it's not as terrible as I feared.
Personally, I honestly couldn't care less about the performance increases (I'm sure they're there, but I didn't notice them). I was concerned about two things:
1) That there wouldn't be NoScript. There currently isn't -- and that's why I'm not yet going to use the Beta as anything but a curiosity -- but apparently there will be. Assuming that no features will be lost in the port, that will be a showstopper removed.
2) That the UI was going to be unfixably horrible. I absolutely detest the current UI of Firefox (and Chrome), but I could fix the problem with Firefox by using Classic Theme Restorer -- an extension that can't be ported to the new plugin scheme.
My fear was that Firefox would keep a similar UI as it had been using, but without any way of fixing it. That would be a showstopper. But, as it turns out, the Beta UI is much improved, and I can fix the things that I still find irritating using the built-in options. So I'm happy.
I may be able to stay with Firefox after all! And that makes me even happier.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the AC, but I already disabled automatic updates on my Firefox. I'll update to 56 when it comes out, but I have too many extensions, and 100% of them say "legacy" which means they'll all stop working with Firefox 57. There is nothing but pain to move forward to FF57, and I've visited the home pages and blogs of various extensions that I use, and it seems like they've all come to the conclusion that they simply CAN'T migrate to WebExtensions. The functionality just doesn't exist, so the extension will ne
Re: (Score:2)
Still waiting for you to show us your courage by posting your name. Stop using a pseudo-anonymous handle, coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I learned anything from TV, it's that a Quantum Leap sends you in an alternate Universe. Maybe they're hoping to push everyone into a reality where Firefox stayed relevant and Chrome never existed.
Re: (Score:2)
A logo isn't supposed to look like a coat of arms. Branding has to be easily recognizable in all forms, such as a tiny 16x16 favicon.
Re: (Score:2)
You're many, many, years out of date.