4 ms·

This makes sandboxing possible which is a huge security win and the reason I still use Chrome where I can. RAM is cheap and browsers 64-bit so a bunch of extra

This makes sandboxing possible which is a huge security win and the reason I still use Chrome where I can. RAM is cheap and browsers 64-bit so a bunch of extra memory in the name of security is not a big deal really. At least that's how I see it.

blueskin_ 12y ago
>RAM is cheap Great, buy me another 32GB then please</s>. People shouldn't have to have high end gaming rigs to run a sodding browser. Mozilla (and google) are deluding themselves in thinking that their particular software is the be all and end all of a computer, and should be introduced to this strange concept called 'multitasking'. Firefox: 1.5GB Thunderbird: ~1GB OS: 1GB (conservative estimate) Various background programs: 1GB Suddenly doesn't look so cheap.
- icebraining 12y ago
  OS: 1GB (conservative estimate) What are you using, Windows? I'm running Ubuntu 12.04 and the "OS" (X, window manager, daemons) is certainly not even close to 1GB, more like ~100MB.
  - blueskin_ 12y ago
    Windows,and multiple Linux distros. Windows needs >1GB to run smoothly, while most Linux gets by in <1GB, it still feels very sluggish if I can't actually get 1GB when it needs it.
- phkahler 12y ago
  I run firefox on Fedora 20, on a dual core AMD64 from 2005. It worked ok with 1GB, but as indicated things went south when it ran out of memory. I upgraded to 2GB and useage rarely goes above 1, so everything is fine now. That said, I'm not one of the people who use tabs instead of bookmarks. My expectations are probably lower than many too, but I am all too familiar with content in one tab destroying performance of the browser as a whole. So I'm all for this e10s thing.
- mindcrime 12y ago
  It sucks that you're getting downvoted. I totally agree that this "RAM is cheap" thinking is problematic. Sure, if you only ran one program at a time on a computer, it would make perfect sense. But when I have a finite amount of RAM to spread among a multitude of applications, screaming "RAM is cheap" is bollocks. Never mind that on my current laptop I'm already at the max it can physically support, which means if I want more RAM, I have to buy a whole new machine. Here's a thought for developers: Next time you find yourself saying "RAM is cheap" (or any variation thereof) thwack yourself about the head multiple times with a big stick, then go rinse your mouth out with soap and water.
  - possibilistic 12y ago
    Sometimes RAM is cheaper than engineer salaries. Sometimes it isn't. It depends on problem domain, scale, and what you're tying to optimize for. Debating this just seems pointless. In any case, the number one evaluation criterion for browsers is not the RAM profile. If performance matters that much, perhaps you should instead be asking why we are writing applications and UI in an ugly evolution of SGML. Before you fault the Moz devs, ask yourself why we have CSS for high DPI images and why designers embed videos into website headers. Maybe your needs aren't at all times reflective of the majority. The browser serves the spec. The spec serves every case you care to imagine. Because that's what we evolved a doc format to do. (Just imagine a parallel universe where it was instead MS Word that evolved into a facebooking client!)
    - mindcrime 12y ago
      I'm not faulting the Moz developers per-se, just saying that - as a group - developers should not just throw up their hands, shout "RAM is cheap" and then be totally cavalier about how their programs use RAM. It's a refrain that has become, IMO, all too common, and I think it's harmful. Sure, Firefox, and every other program should use as much RAM as it needs. But we should be mindful of keeping that need as low as possible, at least for any program that falls into the category of "runs in a multi-program environment and probably won't be the only program running from a finite RAM pool".
taeric 12y ago
I'm curious how huge of a security win it really is. The vast majority of exploits that I hear about would still be possible. Especially since phishing is by far the weakest link in any model. I mean, sure, it sounds great to say things are sandboxed. But when the actual exploits either a) root the machine, or b) targeted the user directly, it seems that protecting tabs from each other really doesn't do much.
- icebraining 12y ago
  It's not about protecting the tabs from each other; when you separate the tasks into different containers, you can apply strong limits to what each can do, which makes it harder to "root the machine". For example, see the Chromium docs: http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/multi-process-architecture#Sand_boxing_the_renderer http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/multi-pr...
  - taeric 12y ago
    I see, this is more about sandboxing the renderer. Not necessarily sandboxing the tabs. Right? Curious if one really required the other. And, still, kind of amusing that the entire point of the browser is that it is sandboxed from the whole computer. Seems if we just restricted what the browser was capable of as a whole, we'd be there.
    - agwa 12y ago
      Trying to restrict the browser as a whole doesn't work for a couple reasons: 1. The browser as a whole needs to have permission to do quite a few things, including reading from and writing to the filesystem (for uploading and downloading files), talking to your system's graphical environment so it can display windows, and accessing arbitrary hosts on the network so it can access web servers. It's just not possible to meaningfully sandbox something requiring so much access. Individual browser components, on the other hand, can be designed to do very specific tasks and are thus easier to isolate. 2. You want to protect not only your system from a browser exploit but also other parts of the browser. A site that exploits a browser vulnerability shouldn't be able to read your cookies for another site. These reasons imply that you need to focus on isolating and restricting components inside the browser instead of the browser as a whole.

blueskin_ 12y ago

>RAM is cheap Great, buy me another 32GB then please</s>. People shouldn't have to have high end gaming rigs to run a sodding browser. Mozilla (and google) are deluding themselves in thinking that their particular software is the be all and end all of a computer, and should be introduced to this strange concept called 'multitasking'. Firefox: 1.5GB Thunderbird: ~1GB OS: 1GB (conservative estimate) Various background programs: 1GB Suddenly doesn't look so cheap.

icebraining 12y ago
OS: 1GB (conservative estimate) What are you using, Windows? I'm running Ubuntu 12.04 and the "OS" (X, window manager, daemons) is certainly not even close to 1GB, more like ~100MB.
- blueskin_ 12y ago
  Windows,and multiple Linux distros. Windows needs >1GB to run smoothly, while most Linux gets by in <1GB, it still feels very sluggish if I can't actually get 1GB when it needs it.
phkahler 12y ago
I run firefox on Fedora 20, on a dual core AMD64 from 2005. It worked ok with 1GB, but as indicated things went south when it ran out of memory. I upgraded to 2GB and useage rarely goes above 1, so everything is fine now. That said, I'm not one of the people who use tabs instead of bookmarks. My expectations are probably lower than many too, but I am all too familiar with content in one tab destroying performance of the browser as a whole. So I'm all for this e10s thing.
mindcrime 12y ago
It sucks that you're getting downvoted. I totally agree that this "RAM is cheap" thinking is problematic. Sure, if you only ran one program at a time on a computer, it would make perfect sense. But when I have a finite amount of RAM to spread among a multitude of applications, screaming "RAM is cheap" is bollocks. Never mind that on my current laptop I'm already at the max it can physically support, which means if I want more RAM, I have to buy a whole new machine. Here's a thought for developers: Next time you find yourself saying "RAM is cheap" (or any variation thereof) thwack yourself about the head multiple times with a big stick, then go rinse your mouth out with soap and water.
- possibilistic 12y ago
  Sometimes RAM is cheaper than engineer salaries. Sometimes it isn't. It depends on problem domain, scale, and what you're tying to optimize for. Debating this just seems pointless. In any case, the number one evaluation criterion for browsers is not the RAM profile. If performance matters that much, perhaps you should instead be asking why we are writing applications and UI in an ugly evolution of SGML. Before you fault the Moz devs, ask yourself why we have CSS for high DPI images and why designers embed videos into website headers. Maybe your needs aren't at all times reflective of the majority. The browser serves the spec. The spec serves every case you care to imagine. Because that's what we evolved a doc format to do. (Just imagine a parallel universe where it was instead MS Word that evolved into a facebooking client!)
  - mindcrime 12y ago
    I'm not faulting the Moz developers per-se, just saying that - as a group - developers should not just throw up their hands, shout "RAM is cheap" and then be totally cavalier about how their programs use RAM. It's a refrain that has become, IMO, all too common, and I think it's harmful. Sure, Firefox, and every other program should use as much RAM as it needs. But we should be mindful of keeping that need as low as possible, at least for any program that falls into the category of "runs in a multi-program environment and probably won't be the only program running from a finite RAM pool".

taeric 12y ago

I'm curious how huge of a security win it really is. The vast majority of exploits that I hear about would still be possible. Especially since phishing is by far the weakest link in any model. I mean, sure, it sounds great to say things are sandboxed. But when the actual exploits either a) root the machine, or b) targeted the user directly, it seems that protecting tabs from each other really doesn't do much.

icebraining 12y ago
It's not about protecting the tabs from each other; when you separate the tasks into different containers, you can apply strong limits to what each can do, which makes it harder to "root the machine". For example, see the Chromium docs: http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/multi-process-architecture#Sand_boxing_the_renderer http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/multi-pr...
- taeric 12y ago
  I see, this is more about sandboxing the renderer. Not necessarily sandboxing the tabs. Right? Curious if one really required the other. And, still, kind of amusing that the entire point of the browser is that it is sandboxed from the whole computer. Seems if we just restricted what the browser was capable of as a whole, we'd be there.
  - agwa 12y ago
    Trying to restrict the browser as a whole doesn't work for a couple reasons: 1. The browser as a whole needs to have permission to do quite a few things, including reading from and writing to the filesystem (for uploading and downloading files), talking to your system's graphical environment so it can display windows, and accessing arbitrary hosts on the network so it can access web servers. It's just not possible to meaningfully sandbox something requiring so much access. Individual browser components, on the other hand, can be designed to do very specific tasks and are thus easier to isolate. 2. You want to protect not only your system from a browser exploit but also other parts of the browser. A site that exploits a browser vulnerability shouldn't be able to read your cookies for another site. These reasons imply that you need to focus on isolating and restricting components inside the browser instead of the browser as a whole.