Quote:
It just explains that Firefox programmers are damn inneficient and don't really think through the crap they're putting onto peoples' systems.
Nope. It really just means that an experimental feature thrown into a beta release of a free, open source product ends up not working as efficiently as you might like. Boo hoo. Turn it off, go back to Firefox 1.0 (still getting security updates!) or submit a patch.
Quote:
I don't mind "free" but I'd much rather have something I truly like/enjoy using and pay for it.
By the very fact that you're continuing to use Firefox and Adium, I'd say the free alternatives seem to be winning out... You're framing this comparison between free and commercial software as if the free versions are generally inferior to the commercial versions, and I don't think that statement is accurate. Furthermore, without the forces of free software development pushing on commercial developers to innovate (or be replaced by free alternatives) you'd have little or no innovation at all from the commercial vendors.
You've tap-danced around the issue with the (paraphrasing) "I don't have time to investigate the alternatives right now, so I guess I'll use Firefox, even though it sucks" business, but the truth is that there aren't many horses in the browser race on OS X, Firefox is the best one, and when you get right down to it, it doesn't "suck." You're just getting beta-quality versions that purport to be release quality, but you get that from the likes of Microsoft and Apple, too. (I defy someone to tell me Safari 1.0 was a release-quality browser.) The difference with Firefox is you get to see the new features earlier, submit bug fixes and/or patches, and contribute to the process of making it better.
Or, in your case, bitch about the fact that it's not as good as you want it to be.
Previous Topic
Index
