Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 56.0.1: 13 December [Free, open and private web browser.]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Waterfox 56.0.1: 13 December [Free, open and private web browser.] - Page 491

post #4901 of 7372
Quote:
Originally Posted by verticalgr View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityRipple View Post

Because the new compiler has new functionality and features, and if he doesn't find the bugs now, they'll be there later when the current compiler is defunct, and will probably be there in the next ver (probably 2015 given their current release patterns).

We probably won't see 19, but barring any new issues introduced in 20, or 19.0.1/2, we'll get one of those.

Totally wrong approach. A developer should never go on a new tool/library/api as soon as this comes out. What you do is to try and ensure that your current projects continue to run and be updated. If this is viable with the old Intel compiler, you continue with the old intel compiler. AT THE SAME TIME, you have a new project using the new compiler. For anyone having used a CVS system, you have the HEAD with old compiler and a BRANCH with the new compiler. You continue your project from the HEAD and at the same time, the BRANCH is used to ensure that your current project will get to the point that it is working fine with the new compiler. When the code is mature enough to be compiled with the new intel compiler, you MERGE the branch to the HEAD and you are ready to go. These are fundamentals in software development and release engineering. And with Waterfox, everything is done in the wrong way.

This isn't some huge project by Google or the likes with thousand of employees.

This is one guy and one browser. The browser is free and he is not paid a salary from this project.

He has no obligation to follow your "developer plan". He decided to move to the new compiler and that's that.
post #4902 of 7372
Quote:
Originally Posted by verticalgr View Post

Totally wrong approach. A developer should never go on a new tool/library/api as soon as this comes out. What you do is to try and ensure that your current projects continue to run and be updated. If this is viable with the old Intel compiler, you continue with the old intel compiler. AT THE SAME TIME, you have a new project using the new compiler. For anyone having used a CVS system, you have the HEAD with old compiler and a BRANCH with the new compiler. You continue your project from the HEAD and at the same time, the BRANCH is used to ensure that your current project will get to the point that it is working fine with the new compiler. When the code is mature enough to be compiled with the new intel compiler, you MERGE the branch to the HEAD and you are ready to go. These are fundamentals in software development and release engineering. And with Waterfox, everything is done in the wrong way.
What you're describing is revision control, not a development methodology... There is no control here. It's prewritten source code being compiled for the sole purpose of improving the quality of the compiled 64-bit variant, not a developed project. There are no revisions, no branches, no CVS to rely on unless you want to use Mozilla's source control system and deal with their bureaucracy overhead while you're at it.
post #4903 of 7372
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityRipple View Post

What you're describing is revision control, not a development methodology... There is no control here. It's prewritten source code being compiled for the sole purpose of improving the quality of the compiled 64-bit variant, not a developed project. There are no revisions, no branches, no CVS to rely on unless you want to use Mozilla's source control system and deal with their bureaucracy overhead while you're at it.

Who said that revision control should be used only for developed project? I personally have a NAS that I have projects like Azureus. This is not my project but I used it to fix some issues with x64 JRE. What is wrong with using the source in HEAD with old Intel compiler and the code in a BRANCH to experiment with newer Intel compiler? Going for the newer is not always ideal. You try to ensure compatibility and reliability not to break the project in half. This is what happened here. And I already said it a few pages back. Bug after bug, and the project will eventually be dead. And no, I don't think that any of the bugs were shorted for the release of WF18 and I don't think they will be sorted any time soon. I still question why a certain post was deleted after the release of WF18 explaining how the project was compiled. I prefer the truth and not to be fooled.
post #4904 of 7372
Quote:
Originally Posted by verticalgr View Post

Going for the newer is not always ideal. You try to ensure compatibility and reliability not to break the project in half. This is what happened here. And I already said it a few pages back. Bug after bug, and the project will eventually be dead.

I have to disagree here - the whole point of waterfox is to have a bleeding edge compiler, otherwise it'd be just a dupe of other 64 bit variants.. The downside of wf's "the latest and greatest" might be a lack of stability though.

I really support and appreciate what MrAlex is doing or trying to do, the only problem is the lack of communication - and maybe a few very fanboy-ish vocal users. is the goal and the dev's time budget still to have a constantly current wf browser, or will the schedule keep being "it's released when it's done"? Both is quite ok, it just would be nice to be told, though of course I/we cannot demand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by verticalgr View Post

I prefer the truth and not to be fooled.

In this case, you won't have a problem here - you're told nothing, and thus you cannot be fooled :->
Edited by Marsu24 - 3/9/13 at 6:43am
post #4905 of 7372
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaromanda View Post

Really, WOW64 for a 64bit browser? drunken.gif

If NOT having WOW64 in the UA is an issue with a website, then it stands to reason that the 100's of millions of people still using 32bit windows would have a problem with that website

It's nothing to do with the WOW64 part, infact the WF 16.0.1 UA is:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121020 Firefox/16.0

So it clearly indicates 64bit. Not sure if 18.0.1's is the same (other than obviously the version number) as I had to revert to this due to crashing/freezing.

The issue was changing the UA to Waterfox instead of Firefox broke websites. Or it may have been just adding Waterfox to the UA, I forget which was done exactly.
Core i7 Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 930 @ 2.93 GHz Gigabyte X58A-UD3R (Rev. 1.0) PALIT GTX 760 Jetstream 12GB DDR3 1600 Mhz (6x2GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 Samsung HD103UJ Samsung HD103SJ Samsung HD204UI 
Optical DriveOSMonitorPower
LiteOn iHAS524 DVD RW Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit SP1 ViewSonic VX2260WM Seasonic X-Series 650W SS-650KM3 
Case
Cooler Master 690 II Advanced RC-692A-KKN5 
  hide details  
Reply
Core i7 Rig
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 930 @ 2.93 GHz Gigabyte X58A-UD3R (Rev. 1.0) PALIT GTX 760 Jetstream 12GB DDR3 1600 Mhz (6x2GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 Samsung HD103UJ Samsung HD103SJ Samsung HD204UI 
Optical DriveOSMonitorPower
LiteOn iHAS524 DVD RW Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit SP1 ViewSonic VX2260WM Seasonic X-Series 650W SS-650KM3 
Case
Cooler Master 690 II Advanced RC-692A-KKN5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #4906 of 7372
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMT View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaromanda View Post

Really, WOW64 for a 64bit browser? drunken.gif

If NOT having WOW64 in the UA is an issue with a website, then it stands to reason that the 100's of millions of people still using 32bit windows would have a problem with that website

It's nothing to do with the WOW64 part, infact the WF 16.0.1 UA is:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121020 Firefox/16.0

So it clearly indicates 64bit. Not sure if 18.0.1's is the same (other than obviously the version number) as I had to revert to this due to crashing/freezing.

The issue was changing the UA to Waterfox instead of Firefox broke websites. Or it may have been just adding Waterfox to the UA, I forget which was done exactly.

The UA for 18 is:
Code:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; Win64; x64; rv:18.0) Gecko/20130119 Firefox/18.0

vs.
Code:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121020 Firefox/16.0

Where do you see Waterfox in the UA?

Side note: Haven't had any problems with 18.
Edited by kennyparker1337 - 3/4/13 at 12:49pm
post #4907 of 7372
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMT View Post

It's nothing to do with the WOW64 part,
the suggestion by EliasAlucard included "WOW64" - which is what I responded to, I apologise for your misunderstanding
post #4908 of 7372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsu24 View Post

I have to disagree here - the whole point of waterfox is to have a bleeding edge compiler, otherwise it'd be just a dupe of other 64 bit variants. The downside of wf's "the latest and greatest" might be a lack of stability though.

The whole point of Waterfox is to have a descent/stable x64 variant of Firefox. Not that are many variants... So what do you have? Nothing. If you prefer nothing please be my guest. And since I am a developer myself, please prove to me why newer means 'bleeding edge'. Because no matter what, in our days, newer means 'bloating edge and full of bugs'. But companies managed to market this better than the actual products. And we are 'happy' about that!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsu24 View Post

I really support and appreciate what MrAlex is doing or trying to do, the only problem is the lack of communication - and maybe a few very fanboy-ish vocal users. is the goal and the dev's time budget still to have a constantly current wf browser, or will the schedule keep being "it's released when it's done"? Both is quite ok, it just would be nice to be told, though of course I/we cannot demand it.
In this case, you won't have a problem here - you're told nothing, and thus you cannot be fooled :->

I am sorry, you missed some episodes. I was told something but someone decided to delete this something. I was never told why it was deleted and I never saw ANY reason why this something was deleted. Probably because it was the truth. So, I ask these things and if Alex can answer, I will appreciate it:

a) Were the bugs found after WF16 fixed by Mozilla?
b) If not, did he fix them?
c) If not, how did he compile WF18?
d) Is he using mercurial to get the mozilla source code?
e) Is Waterfox vanilla? (of course it's not but just to prove a previous point I made).
post #4909 of 7372
Usually I'd say newer versions only EXIST to improve, fix, or otherwise better software. In this case, looking at the Intel 2013 changes from 2011... I'm not really sure why it's being used. I guess they updated the math kernel library, but that just seems like it resulted in a removal of older systems like all the other changes... Hell if I know...

My point is that it would be pointless to bother with a branch because it won't make a difference. It's the same source code. Or it's supposed to be. Any changes are probably superficial to prevent unnecessary inflation from doubling of integer scales and that sort of thing. If there are major differences between an Intel 2011 and Intel 2013 compile of the Firefox source, someone somewhere is doing something terribly wrong.
post #4910 of 7372
Just a clarification that I haven't gotten a single crash with WF, and haven't for a very, very long time. The update to 18.0.1 introduced an odd microstutter issue (causes multi-second freeze randomly) but it has never once crashed. It's still useable, if annoying. Hoping the next version will solve it and that's why I'm still here.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Other Software
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 56.0.1: 13 December [Free, open and private web browser.]