Archive for May, 2007
What ho! Hath the Fat Lady Sung?
May 19th, 2007
Well. It’s finally happened: my patience with Firefox has run out.
When Firefox first came out, it was a lean, mean, web-browsin’ machine that, even as a very preliminary beta-release, was stable, had a reasonable resource footprint, and ran like greased lightning. Installation was a zip–literally: you just unzipped the Firefox archive you downloaded into a folder, doubleclicked Firefox.exe, and there you were, browsing away. Compared to the lumbering, gout-ridden monstrosity that was Mozilla, Firefox was a fleet-footed Mercury that leapt to action in less than a second and could load even the most edemic, graphics-laden website in an eyeblink. Best of all, it was quite standards-compliant–unlike Internet Explorer 6, which still holds the title of Most Retarded* Browser Ever. I loved it. It was simple. No-frills. It did only one thing–browse the web–and it did it beautifully.
All non-necessary functionality was offloaded to extensions that users could choose to install if they wanted to expand their browser’s abilities. What a great idea! I could customize the browser any way I wanted to, adding the much-needed capability of downloading a PDF instead of just opening it in another browser window through Acrobat Reader, while eschewing functions useless to me (such as a browser-based spellchecker).
Firefox was, quite simply, the best web browser I ever used. When it finally went “official” with Version 1.0, I was ecstatic–especially since a vibrant web community had grown up around it. Not only did its community help it gain ground rapidly in the browser marketplace (initiating World Browser War II), thereby making it nearly mandatory that fewer and fewer websites be “Internet Explorer only,” but there were hundreds of coders Out There making new extensions for it. The possibilities were endless!
Of course, Firefox’s greatest strength–its customizability–was also its greatest weakness. Many extensions were poorly written, suffering everything from rampant memory leaks to browser-destabilizing code errors. It was generally easy to avoid these bad extensions, though: if you posted a dud to the Extensions Library, you’d be savaged by the Firefox community until A) you took the damn thing down, or B) fixed it. Everything was great.
Until Firefox 1.5 came out. Suddenly…Firefox wasn’t so sleek and slim anymore. I’ve always been one to keep a great number of tabs open at one time, which naturally demands a sizable amount of memory–but why, I wondered, could I keep, say, 25 tabs open with Firefox 1.0 and use up about 100mb of RAM…yet those same 25 tabs in Firefox 1.5 used 390mb of RAM?! That’s when I first began to hear about Firefox’s unchecked memory issues. Some said it was a memory leak; some said it was all because of badly-coded extensions and plugins; the Firefox developers had the gall to actually call this bug a “feature” and try to forget it ever existed.
Nonetheless, Firefox 1.5 might have become a serious resource hog…but it still worked great. Once I upgraded my computer to 1gb of RAM, Firefox could easily suck up 500mb of memory without impacting other programs. I was still annoyed by the massive memory usage, but the browser still worked. Every now and again I’d add an extensions which, for some reason or another, would create instability problems, but those situations were always easily solved.
And then Firefox went 2.0. That’s when the true suckage began.
I have never liked Firefox 2.x. Even without a single extension added, it’s slow, it’s full of built-in features (like that goddamned spellchecker) that I have no use for whatsoever, and it’s riddled with problems. Periodically, it spikes my processor usage to 100% for no recognizable reason. It gobbles up nearly 700mb of RAM on my new 2gb computer. Every extension I add–even something as simple as a bookmark toolbar alphebetizer–increases its resource footprint exponentially. I’ve dug deep into the user chromes to tweak every possible setting that might A) increase performance or B) decrease incidences of craziness…yet, day after day after day, Firefox behaves more and more and more like its predecessor, Mozilla Suite.
Quite frankly, I’ve grown sick of it. And, apparently, a lot of others feel the same way.
Recently, Wired Magazine posted an online editorial concerning the growing dissatisfaction of many Firefox aficionados with the progressive bloating of the once-simple browser. I am now adding my voice to that clamor: Firefox has outgrown itself. It is the browser equivalent of the hot babe with the smokin’ physique who lets herself go and ends up a fat, frowsy fussock after a few years of comfortable marriage.
And that’s just what’s happened: Firefox developers have grown too comfortable with their product. It’s now officially recognized as a world-class browser. It gave Internet Explorer 6 a solid beating and effectively overthrew it as the “default” web browser, so much so that the latest IE actually incorporates many design concepts that originated in Firefox. Firefox has proved itself a worthy contender…so now what? In order to remain a contender, feature creep has set in.
Feature creep, for those unfamiliar with the word, is
a tendency for product or project requirements to increase during development beyond those originally foreseen, leading to features that weren’t originally planned and resulting risk to product quality or schedule. Feature creep may be driven by a client’s growing “wish list” or by developers themselves as they see opportunity for improving the product.
Stuff starts out simple, then progressively grows more complex, mainly because it’s a common human trait to let things spin out of control. The more people you have on a project, the more likely feature creep will be, as everyone wants to plug in his/her/its own little design concept or idea to the mix. (Considering how many people are currently working on the Firefox project, it’s positively inevitable.) Feature creep just happens, no matter how hard you fight against it–and it is not necessarily a bad thing! Feature creep has actually been good for Microsoft Internet Explorer 7, for instance: it forced the Sloth of the browser wars to bootstrap itself up to at least the level of Firefox 1.0. In order for Firefox to remain ahead of IE, it’s only natural that its designers will want to include more and more “out of the box” functionality to make the browser a genuine alternative for average users who just want to install a piece of software and start to use it without having to worry about further extension installations and whatnot.
But feature creep is bad for Firefox, for two reasons: 1) it’s expanding the nature of the browser far beyond the original goal of the projects which made it so awesome; and 2) it’s distracting programmers from debugging existing code. Firefox at its core was meant to be nothing but a web browser; and and all further functionality–like spellcheckers, RSS readers, password managers, etc.–were meant to be offloaded to extensions. These functions do not need to be native to the browser itself. Include features that “out of the box” users need, yes, but keep that to a bare minimum. Plus, why bother adding a friggin’ native RSS reader to the browser when no one has yet been able to solve the memory-hogging problem?!
Firefox 2.0 is a damn mess. The end. It just does not work for shit on Windows, and apparently, works even worse on Macs. My buddy Jeremy, who runs it on his Ubuntu install, swears that Firefox works perfectly fine in a desktop Linux environment–but desktop Linux is, and always will be, nothing more than a hobbyist’s OS. The vast majority of desktop and notebook computers in the world run a Windows OS or Mac’s OS X: Firefox’s Linux support is ultimately irrelevant–if the damn browser runs like a dog on Windows and OS X, how will it ever be able to properly challenge Internet Explorer and Safari?
I have been reducing my Firefox usage every day since the week Firefox 2.0 came out and all the problems began to surface. I have run Firefox under Windows XP and Windows Vista, and though the program runs marginally better on XP, it’s still far too problematic for me to deal with on a day-to-day, pokin’-around-the-web basis.
Recently, I’ve found myself using Opera 9.2 a lot more. Which surprises the hell out of me. Opera–the Little Browser that Could–has finally begun to prove itself a viable alternative to both IE and Firefox. Only took ‘em 9 versions to get it right…but I digress. Heretofore, I’ve found Opera to be damnear useless for a wide range of reasons. Originally, it was because it was the only browser you had to pay for. Pay to use a web browser? Insane! I’m not about to use some piece-of-crap adware just because it has a faster rendering engine than Internet Explorer! But Opera wised up, and now the browser is 100% free. It’s also full of really useful features–like a built-in BitTorrent client, a password manager (natch), and it’s new Speed Dial function, which lets you keep an index of nine commonly-used web sites always at hand for easy loading. Opera has definitely seen feature creep…and yet the browser at most uses approximately 150mb of RAM and no more to keep twenty, thirty, forty tabs open at a time.
My biggest problem with Opera has been that very few “Web 2.0″ AJAX-laden websites work with Opera. Only within the last month or so have Google apps begun to work properly under Opera, for instance. Considering that the majority of the web is headed toward expanded AJAX functionality, well…that leaves Opera dead last in the browser race. But they’re catching up! I’ve found more and more Web 2.0 websites support Opera all the time (and vice versa).
If Opera 9.2 is any indication, it could very well begin to make inroads on even Firefox simply because it’s a truly healthy alternative. As Firefox grows fatter, Opera just becomes more muscular.
——
*In the most literal meaning of the word: “Occurring or developing later than desired or expected; delayed.”
——
Technorati tags: firefox, opera, browsers, bloat, wired
Twatter!
May 14th, 2007
Well-known is my vicious dislike of microblogging site Twitter. Which is why I find parody site Twatter uniquely hysterical. The satire is particularly vicious, just as I like it!
Incidentally, my answer to the Twatter Question is the same as my answer to the Twitter Question: none of your damn business!
Upgrade Update!
May 10th, 2007
This is just a quick note to mention that I’ve upgraded PEGRITZ(.com)! to WordPress version 2.1.3. Yay for me.
Pause for the Cause(s)
May 10th, 2007
I’m not a big believer in donating to “causes”–mainly because I’ve always believed my money is better spent furthering my interests rather than some charity whose organizers are probably dipping freely from the take anyway. But sometimes I come across organizations that just demand my support–the Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance (even though their overwhelming interest in “privacy” is starting to look positively quaint).
The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence is another. SingInst is a wonderful organization actively working to bring about the Singularity Era through research into artificial intelligence and, sometimes, related forms of cognitive enhancement; the best way to ensure the existence of Friendly AI, after all–to avoid the Robot Apocalypse, in other words–is to actively research it and ensure that the creation of Machine Intelligence enhances human civilization rather than invalidates it.
SingInst is currently conducting a $400,000 matching challenge to collect funds for further research and to underwrite their further expansion in 2007. Peter Thiel, founder and former CEO of PayPal, currently on SIAI’s advisory board, is putting up $200K in matching funds! So far, the challenge has raked in $37,243 in cash–but that’s a long way to go to $400K…so if you have a few bucks to spare (I could only afford $25 at present, but may be able to spare more in the future), then why not pony up for a good cause? Trust me, in a decade or so, you’ll definitely get your money’s worth.
(As a side note, SIAI also has a complete online library of videos of speakers at last year’s Singularity Summit at Stanford University. Speakers include Douglas Hofstadter, Cory Doctorow, K. Eric Drexler, Ray Kurzweil [of course], and Nick Bostrom–so all you transers out there, get on over there and check it out!)
Also, the Encyclopedia of Life is looking to be flatout incredible. Witness the vast scope of its vision: to create a wiki-esque library of every single living thing that has ever walked the Earth, past or present. Take a look at some of the demonstration pages: the depth of information is amazing. They’re not looking for money, but they are looking for support…so sign up for their mailing list, if you have any interest in terrestrial lifeforms.It’s going to be an amazing site.
UN-Natural Selection
May 8th, 2007
Here’s a thought-provoking question for ya: Has human evolution stalled or, perhaps, even ended altogether? Or was Devo right–have we begun to de-evolve?!
According to an op-ed piece recently featured on Kuro5hin.org entitled, quite simply, “Human evolution has stalled“, author “gndn” has commented that “Human evolution has stalled because we have developed the means to sustain lives that would otherwise be lost, thereby granting reproductive abilities to those who arguably should not have them.” You’re damn right we have, gndn! I myself am a perfect example of that principle. I am a genetic disaster area: I have more heritable defects (with everything from major connective-tissue problems to minor cognitive impairments) that most people have relatives. Medical science has kept me…well, kinda/sorta healthy–healthy enough to reproduce, at any rate, which is something I absolutely refuse to do. I’m not about to curse some innocent human being with my faulty, painwracked, and damnear useless biological heritage.
On the plains of the Serengeti, a hundred years ago, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand…I would’ve been lion-food before I turned six. Hell, were I born Homo erectus, my mother probably would’ve just left me by a creek for something else to eat–and I wouldn’t blame her one bit. Natural selection equals survival of the fittest…and I’m not fit for anything but my current rarified, technologically-assisted environment.
gndn argues that due to contemporary humanity’s propensity for caring for any and all, regardless of their mental or physical condition, we have ceased to evolve. As he/she/it puts it:
I submit that the process of natural selection as outlined by Darwin should be respected, if for no other reason than that our knowledge of it is still in a very primitive stage. The ancient Spartans were on to something - life should be considered a privilege, one which must be earned. Anyone who argues that this is unfair or unnatural should be forced to watch animals eat each other on the nature channel for a few hours.
Hmmm. Interesting. I don’t think many people would particularly disagree with that statement. There’s not much sense in caring for and enabling those members of the family/group/tribe/society who are clearly disabled to the point that their existence proves to be a verifiable drag and potential danger to the others. But our author seems to forget something very, very obvious:
Humans are no longer animals. We no longer live upon the plains of Old Afrique or the sabretooth-haunted steppes of Ice Age Europe and America. In fact, though today there are still plenty of humans living in conditions not too different from those of our prehistory, people at the forefront of contemporary human development (that is, citizens of First World countries such as the United States, the European Union, and Japan), live so removed from nature–and the impact of natural selection–that it’s patently ridiculous to even consider natural selection as an influence on their existence.
gndn makes a very valid point that the human species as a whole should be more concerned with its long-term viability, in order to preserve our species in the face of changing conditions. But what he/she/it does not take into account is that we are doing just that.
We now have the capacity and means to control our own evolution. We no longer require natural selection to gradually, painfully force us to adapt to changing conditions: we can now forecast those changes and take the necessary technological steps to adapt ourselves. At present (2007 C.E.), we are just beginning to tap into the vast power of genetic engineering and human/machine interfacing–at least in certain regions of the planet. One can never think of the “Human Species” as one gigantic, self-referential, and self-guided body; evolution abhors monocultures, after all. Even now we’re beginning to see the first signs of speciation beginning to create new branches on the Homo family tree–according to our wishes, finally, instead of those of mere survival in hostile environments. The First World is developing greater and greater technologies every year to amplify human abilities and extend our control over our own environments.
The human species (soon, the human species, plural) has outgrown natural selection. Calling for a return to the “good ol’ days” of natural selection is idiotic, and actually shows a great contempt for evolution. We have given to ourselves the gift of understanding and control over our own destinies, our own evolution. To throw that power aside in favor of some ridiculous return to nature is not only silly, but is, in effect, a much more heinous crime against the human species’ long-term viability than keeping a handful of “unfit” creatures such as myself around in the near-term.
–> Current Listening To: Ultravox, “Dancing With Tears In My Eyes”.
09 F9 11 02 9D–
May 4th, 2007
Oh no! THE NUMBER! *Whew* Glad I forcibly interrupted myself there before I scribbled out all of the offending hex digits! If I hadn’t…well, I could be facing a DMCA takedown notice courtesy of the code’s “authors”, the defrocked and now defamed AACS, or perhaps the very end of the Universe itself. Remember that old Arthur C. Clarke story “The Nine Billion Names of God”, in which a computer deciphers all nine billion names of God and thereby initiates the End of Reality? How do you know The Number isn’t the 8,999,999,999th name?
With the amount of stink Advanced Access Content System has been stirring up surrounding the literally unstoppable proliferation of their cherished HD-DVD decryption key across the entire ‘Net, you’d think the damn thing was the code that will launch all of the United States’ ICBMs. Of course, it’s perfectly understandable and reasonable for the company to be upset that its Secret Code has been cracked and released into the wild, in effect invalidating their entire reason for being…but the extent of AACS’ anger has gone well beyond righteous and has become nothing more than petulant.
My advice to Michael Ayers, chairman of the AACS business group: At this point, shut up, give up–and start working proactively on a whole new product angle.
But noooooo….Ayers has declared that AACS “will take whatever action is appropriate”, including any and all “legal and technical” steps they deem appropriate to ensure their copy-protection scheme is not subverted. No doubt, this includes a number of DMCA takedown notices.
Well, at present count, there are 976,000 sites catalogued by Google that list the Sacred Code of HD-DVD Cracking. Hope you have deep pockets, Ayers…’cause you’re going to be paying a LOT of lawyers for a LOT of time spent sending out takedown notices!
Which is a futile process anyway. The Code’s presence on the ‘Net is growing exponentially. For every DMCA takedown notice posted by the AACS, The Code shows up on five more sites. How far up in one’s transverse colon must one’s head be lodged not to see that, obviously, the battle is already lost. The Secret is Out. AACS is busted. The End. It’s over.
I cannot think of a more obvious statement of the fact that the public does not want DRM, and both can and will do whatever is necessary to circumvent it–whether that circumvention is legal or not. Consider what happened on Digg.com when that site attempted to censor its community members’ ability to distribute information as they see fit. And yet, on the AACS website, you find the following words in the latest update concerning updated security protocols for their copy-protection:
Consumers can continue to enjoy content that is protected by the AACS technology by refreshing the encryption keys associated with their HD DVD and Blu-ray software players.
ENJOY?! How can you enjoy something that prevents you from watching the HD-DVD disc that you paid for on many different platforms? A person can’t pop an HD-DVD disc in a computer running Linux, because AACS does not support any Linux-based software players. A person can’t make a backup of his/her investment in case the original gets scratched. Half the damn time, a person can’t even get the disc to play on several different HDTV systems because of bugs in the hardwired decryption path between television and HD-DVD player. Does that sound particularly enjoyable to you?
I am truly amazed at Big Media–both in the US and abroad. They just do not get it. This has all happened before, y’know. Ars Technica reminds us that this exact same rigamarole happened previously in 1999, when the encryption used on standard DVDs was cracked and spread across the Web in a matter of days. Year after year after year, copy protection schemes are developed and are promptly broken. Not by pirates who simply want Something For Nothing–but by people who simply do not wanted to be told what they can and cannot do with their legally-purchased property by some copy-protection company/system.
The second any business stops giving the public what it wants, that business is as good as dead. And yet Big Media’s shumbling, brain-hungry corpses continue their onslaught despite widespread public resentment and resistance. Do they honestly think they can wear down the public by nonstop assault? That has never worked before, and it will not work now.
