archived all the stuff from freelancing for wired

5 files changed, 248 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat.txt b/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..58e5373
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+Firefox has a become the sacred cow of the digerati. Criticizing Firefox is socially on par with calling Earth Day a ___________________. But just as one day of awareness does nothing for the planet, glossing over Firefox's flaws doesn't make them go away.
+
+Yet the way many fan-boys rush to defend even the most egregious of Firefox problems can resemble a screening of <cite>An Inconvenient Truth</cite> at an ostrich farm.
+
+Of course the same kid gloves are almost never accorded to other browsers. When problems are found in Internet Explorer, Microsoft's browser inevitably takes a bruising, diatribe filled round through the blogosphere.
+
+And Firefox is not without problems. Memory leaks, feature creep and bloat are threatening to weigh down the browser that once enticed users by promising to help them "take back the web." 
+
+Firefox's popularity with the techno elite is a direct result of its extensibility. The browser itself is not much different than IE, Safari or any other, but the fact that Firefox is infinite customizability has long appealed to internet power users. 
+
+However with each new version of Firefox, more of the features that were once specialty add-ons are making it into the core code leading some to worry about bloat.
+
+Firefox 1.5 was a 41.5 megabyte application, while Firefox 2.0 is 49.5 megabytes. Compare that to Safari’s paltry 16.8 MBs and Opera 9’s 24.5. 
+
+Hard drive space is cheap, does size matter? Consider that from 1.5 to 2.0 Firefox grew in size by almost 25%. If that rate continues Firefox 6 will have a file size on par with Photoshop.
+
+The real question though is what you get for your bloat. Firefox 2.0 saw the addition of an inline spell checker, an RSS reader and a new search engine manager. All three of those features were previously available as extensions -- users that wanted them could use them, those that didn't still had a lightweight streamline browser.
+
+As Firefox continues to integrate add-ons into the core code, the same feature creep that once bogged down Mozilla's swiss army knife browser/email client/FTP solution may come back to haunt Firefox.
+
+Mozilla was even reportedly considering including social networking features, borrowed from the Firefox-based Flock browser, into the next version of Firefox. While many users welcome such features, others have rightly suggested that the "Coop" as the new features all called, ought to remain a plug-in.
+
+But plug-ins have their own problems.
+
+Firefox is a big fat RAM hog, frequently gobbling up nearly everything available and forcing users to restart the browser periodically just to keep from bringing their machines grinding halt.
+
+Part of Firefox's memory footprint can be attributed to faulty add-ons, but some of it can't. The Mozilla forums are filled with reports from users and Firefox 2 plugged over a dozen memory leaks that plagued earlier versions, but problems remain.
+
+So what do you get for your RAM? Much Firefox's memory usage comes from cached pages that live on after you leave them. Firefox implements a cache to retain up to 8 rendered pages in memory for faster back-browsing But this can be a lot of data -- meaning faster performance as you navigate the web -- but less RAM for other apps to use.
+
+Add-ons are not however, something casual user seems interested in. Mozilla reports that roughly __% of Firefox users have some sort of add-on installed, which means that for most the browser itself is the appeal.
+
+Mozilla recognizes that Firefox is far from perfect, even if the community is unwilling to. Firefox programmers recently put out a call for input from perhaps the most vocal Firefox abusers -- the Mac community.
+
+Mac users have long had a serious bone to pick with Firefox -- Firefox doesn't look like a Mac application. Firefox eschews OS X interface elements in favor of its own, decidedly un-Mac equivalents, which makes the browser look out of place on the otherwise homogenous Mac platform.
+
+Mac users being the finicky bunch that they are, often reject Firefox on that basis alone.
+
+Camino, a Mac-only browser based on Firefox, looks more Mac like and enjoys widespread support in the community but it lacks Firefox's add-on capabilities.
+
diff --git a/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat2.txt b/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat2.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d274687
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat2.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+
+
+
+The alpha's you're looking at represent almost two years of development with major performance enhancements.
+
+Mozilla recognizes that Firefox is far from perfect, even if the community is unwilling to. Firefox programmers recently put out a call for input from perhaps the most vocal Firefox abusers -- the Mac community.
+
+
+
+
+But Perens believes that the bloat isn't just the fault of the browser. "I think the real cause of web bloat and feature creep is the rich content offered on the web these days, which goes so far beyond vanilla HTML in its performance demands."
+
+Indeed there are already several projects based on the Gecko engine with the goal for providing a stripped-down browser. Minimo <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/minimo/> is a browser designed for mobile devices and Galeon <http://galeon.sourceforge.net/> runs on Linux computers, but neither have yet acchieved widespread consumer support.
+
+
+[1]: http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2006/11/adobe_releases_.html "Adobe Releases Tamarin"
+
+Peren's assessment is particularly telling given that shortly after the explosion of social networking sites the Firefox team built The Coop, a set of social networking features borrowed from the Firefox-based Flock browser. At the moment the Coop exists as an add-on but Mozilla has reportedly considered including in a future version of Firefox.
+
+
+"There have been many stripped-down browsers using the Mozilla Gecko HTML rendering engine - which is really the key component, and is built to be used in multiple projects. Mozilla provides good instructions on how to build a new browser with Gecko here <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/embedding/>. For example, we have Minimo <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/minimo/> for cell phones, which was funded by Nokia, Galeon <http://galeon.sourceforge.net/> on Linux, and many others. But I don't think any of these have hit the right mark for the non-power-user who just wants to browse the web.
+" -- perens
+
+
+Add-ons are not something the casual user seems interested in. Mozilla reports that roughly __% of Firefox users have some sort of add-on installed, which means that for most, the browser itself is the appeal.
diff --git a/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat3.txt b/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat3.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..72abf91
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat3.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+As Firefox continues to integrate add-ons into the core code, the same feature creep that once bogged down Mozilla's swiss army knife browser/email client/FTP solution may come back to haunt Firefox.
+
+Memory leaks, feature creep and bloat are threatening to weigh down the browser that once enticed users by promising to help them "take back the web."
+
+When Blake Ross first started writing the code that would eventually become Firefox, one of the goals was to produce a lightweight alternative by moving none essential functionality into a user-customizable extensions framework, which remains arguably Firefox's greatest strength.
+
+But today many things that started out as extensions are now part of the Firefox core feature set and yet many problems remain.
+
+Firefox 2.0 saw the addition of an inline spell checker, an RSS reader and a new search engine manager -- all previously available as add-ons -- and at the same time many problems that have plagued the browser since the beginning remain.
+
+Mike Schroepfer, Vice President of Engineering at Mozilla, says that "one of our goals with new features is to hit that 90% use case."
+
+Meaning that if a feature is useful to 90 percent of users, than it can make the cut, otherwise "if power users want something richer than that they can turn to extensions."
+
+A representative from Flock, the specialized social networking browser built on top of Firefox, points out that extensions have their own issues. For one thing they often aren't compatible with each other. "A combination of extensions may serve some very specific purposes, but does not create an integrated experience that's built for the end user."
+
+Schroepfer says that feature bloat is always a concern, but the main focus for new features is that they enhance without a performance hit. "The general philosophy, and one of the reasons it takes so long to get features in the browser, is that any new features should not affect the startup time or performance the browser."
+
+
+By Mozilla's test Firefox 2.0 remains the fastest version yet, but Schroepfer concedes that "memory usage is its dependent on the environment -- other software, add-ons, extensions and other things can impact performance."
+
+For some Firefox is a big fat RAM hog, frequently gobbling up nearly everything available and forcing users to restart the browser periodically just to keep from bringing their machines grinding halt.
+
+
+Much Firefox's memory usage comes from a cache mechanism introduced in version 1.5. In Firefox, the last 8 pages that live on after you leave them (provided you have a gigabyte of RAM -- if you have less it stores less). 
+
+Caching pages in memory allows faster back-browsing, but this can be a lot of data -- meaning faster performance as you navigate the web -- but less RAM for other apps to use.
+
+Memory leaks and bugs are nothing new in Firefox. As Chris Pirillo points out, "the issue isn't really about cluttering Firefox with more features that could slow it down and make it more unstable -- the issue is in not fixing outstanding, documented, replicable bugs before adding more features to the core."
+
+But Bruce Perens, an open source advocate and observer, believes that the bloat isn't just the fault of the browser. "I think the real cause of web bloat and feature creep is the rich content offered on the web these days, which goes so far beyond vanilla HTML in its performance demands."
+
+Schroepfer claims that, according to Mozilla's figures, Firefox has "actually seen a significant drop in memory usage."
+
+But as he admits, "everyone's mileage varies a little bit."
+
+The advent of more sophisticated web pages and applications has driven the Firefox developers to a major rewrite of Gecko the engine that renders pages in Firefox. 
+
+Firefox 3 will use Gecko 1.9 which offers significant performance boosts even in the early alpha builds available today. Firefox 4 is also scheduled to include [Tamarin][1], a new Javascript rendering engine donated to Mozilla by Adobe.
+
+"In general we're psyched about the way people are pushing the limits of the web," Schroepfer says. "And we're excited about incorporating Tamarin into Firefox 4 which should significantly improve Javascript performance."
+
+Bruce Perens, a open source advocate and observer, believes that whatever Firefox's problems, the community can repair them.
+
+"If customers want a stripped-down version of Firefox, someone in the open source world will make one that they like."  
+
+"The beauty of open source," says Schroepfer, is that "it's open to what people want -- the success of Seamonkey demonstrates that some people still actually like the integrated approach."
+
+"If someone has a better idea and they can go off and run with it and if the idea is successful they will find an audience."
+
+
+[1]: http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2006/11/adobe_releases_.html "Adobe Releases Tamarin"
+
+
+
diff --git a/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat4.txt b/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat4.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3d956b4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat4.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+
+
+
+
+Firefox 1.5 saw the addition of a page cache mechanism that could be responsible for Firefox's memory woes. The browser stores the last 8 pages you viewed in your computer's RAM (if you have less than a gigabyte of RAM, it stores less).
+
+Caching pages in memory allows faster back-browsing -- meaning better performance as you navigate the web -- but this can be a lot of data and less RAM for other apps to use.
+
+Given the rising popularity of web-based applications which require greater amounts of system resources, could it be that the web is simply getting too heavy for a svelte browser to handle?
+
+
+
+
+
+Of course the flip side 
+
+
+
+
+
+
+points out, 
+
+Otherwise, you're having to run a browser with a zillion
+plugins - and none of them aware that other plugins might be running.
+You have a more stable program if said items are actually integrated
+into the base.
+
+
+
+Many of Firefox's memory usage woes come from a page cache mechanism introduced in version 1.5, the last major revision before the current version. The browser stores the last 8 pages you viewed in your computer's RAM (if you have less than a gigabyte of RAM, it stores less).
+
+Caching pages in memory allows faster back-browsing -- meaning better performance as you navigate the web -- but this can be a lot of data and less RAM for other apps to use.
+
+Given the rising popularity of web-based applications which require greater amounts of system resources, could it be that the web is simply getting too heavy for a svelte browser to handle?
+
+
+
+But as Chris Pirillo points out, "the issue isn't really about cluttering Firefox with more features that could slow it down and make it more unstable -- the issue is in not fixing outstanding, documented, replicable bugs before adding more features to the core."
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+But today many things that started out as extensions are now part of the Firefox core feature set and yet many problems remain.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Bruce Perens, a open source advocate and observer, believes that whatever Firefox's problems, the community can repair them.
+
+"If customers want a stripped-down version of Firefox, someone in the open source world will make one that they like."
+
+Pirillo thinks Firefox may not keep up. "Some people love the simplistic nature of Firefox, but I'm one who believes that minimalism is a gigantic weakness."
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+The advent of more sophisticated web pages and applications has driven the Firefox developers to a major rewrite of Gecko the engine that renders pages in Firefox.
+
+Firefox 3 will use Gecko 1.9 which offers significant performance boosts even in the early alpha builds available today. Firefox 4 is also scheduled to include [Tamarin][1], a new Javascript rendering engine donated to Mozilla by Adobe.
+
+"In general we're psyched about the way people are pushing the limits of the web," Schroepfer says. "And we're excited about incorporating Tamarin into Firefox 4 which should significantly improve Javascript performance."
+
+
diff --git a/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat5.txt b/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat5.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1da89ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/firefox bloat/firefoxbloat5.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+Firefox is no longer a fringe browser. With xx% of the browser market Firefox has made it to prime time, but the browser is still no panacea for your web woes, issues remain.
+
+Because of Firefox's open-source origins, the browser has remained somewhat sheltered from the harshest performance criticisms. However, as Firefox's adoption rate grows and it continues to gain market share against main competitor Internet Explorer, we can no longer turn a blind eye to its biggest flaws.
+
+In fact, problems arising from poor memory handling and feature creep make Firefox start to look like the very beast it was originally meant to replace -- a slow, bloated and over-stuffed piece of software.
+
+The appeal of a browser is after all, as Chris Pirillo say, "not just about standards compliance -- it's about raw speed." 
+
+And when it comes to speed, Firefox just might be bogging down your internet experience.
+
+In a recent Wired survey, users rated Firefox's memory gobbling problems as their number one gripe about the browser.
+
+Even Mozilla's Vice President of Engineering, Mike Schroepfer concedes that performace can be an issue. "Memory usage is its dependent on the environment -- other software, add-ons, extensions and other things can impact performance."
+
+So what gives? What's making Firefox slow and heavy?
+
+It could be the add-ons.
+
+When Blake Ross first started writing the code that would eventually become Firefox, one of his goals was to slim the browser down by moving any non-essential functionality into a user-customizable extensions framework. To this day, Firefox's customizable nature remains arguably its greatest strength.
+
+But those extensions can also be the source of many Firefox woes -- including speed issues. Memory leaks are not uncommon, and often extensions conflict with one another.
+
+_________ _________ of Flock, a social networking browser built on top of Firefox, argues that extensions often aren't ready for prime time. "A combination of extensions may serve some very specific purposes, but does not create an integrated experience that's built for the end user."
+
+Pirillo agrees and thinks that "to compete further, I do believe that Firefox must contain more "awesome" functionality out of the box."
+
+"Otherwise," he says, "you're having to run a browser with a zillion plugins - and none of them aware that other plugins might be running."
+
+But the question is what add-ons make the grade?
+
+Mike Schroepfer, Vice President of Engineering at Mozilla, says that "one of our goals with new features is to hit that 90% use case."
+
+Meaning that if a feature is useful to 90 percent of users, than it can make the cut, otherwise "if power users want something richer than that they can turn to extensions."
+
+Firefox 2.0 saw the addition of an inline spell checker, an RSS reader and a new search engine manager -- all previously available as add-ons, but now much faster thanks to their inclusion in the core code. 
+
+However not all users are happy with the added features, some say the dreaded feature creep is threatening to weigh down Firefox.
+
+Schroepfer admits that feature bloat is always a concern, but the main focus for new features is that they enhance without a performance hit. "The general philosophy, and one of the reasons it takes so long to get features in the browser, is that any new features should not affect the startup time or performance the browser."
+
+Chris Pirillo argues that feature creep could be inevitable. "How many millions of people use Firefox? Can you imagine if each one of them wanted to see something different in their core browser?"
+
+Is Firefox caught between a rock and hard place?
+
+Bruce Perens, an open-source advocate and observer, believes that the blame for bloat can't be levied entirely upon Firefox.
+
+"The real cause of web bloat and feature creep is the rich content offered on the web these days," he says, "which goes so far beyond vanilla HTML in its performance demands."
+
+But browsers such as Opera and Apple's Safari manage to handle rich webapps as well as Firefox with far less code. Not only that, but both of those lighter browsers pass the ACID 2 test, a test against the World Wide Web Consortium's recommended web standards that Firefox fails.
+
+
+