Konqueror vs Firefox

[Bill Davidsen]

David Boles wrote:
> Nathan Grennan wrote:
>> Brian wrote:
>>> I strongly advise against using Konqueror. Use Firefox 3. Here are 
>>> some benchmarks I ran just yesterday.
>>  I would have to advise against Firefox 3.0b3 or later. See the bug 
>> below.
>>
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421482
>>
> 
> 
> You are going to have explain the logic for this one for me to understand.
> 
> "Excessive fsync during a kernel compile causes Firefox 3 become
> completely unresponsive till the fsyncs are complete. In some cases if
> something else i/o intensive is going on Firefox 3 will freeze till the
> other i/o has completely finished. If it gets really really bad other
> applications start freezing."
> 
> You were doing something as intensive as compiling a kernel and Firefox
> became "unresponsive" and that is Firefox's fault?
> 
FF2 and FF3 beta 2 don't have a problem, FF3 beta 3 does have a problem. 
Where would *you* say the regression lies? And since when is a kernel 
compile "intensive?" Unless run with non-standard make options, it's not 
intensive at all, particularly disk intensive. I just did a build on an 
older K7 (Athlon) with 1GB RAM and some six year old slow IDE drives 
running ata-66 connections. FF2, Konquerer and seamonkey all fine, 
recent FF3 glacial.

I think there's a serious evil in FF3, other have suggested the latest 
release does an order of magnitude more fsync() calls than beta 2.

-- 
Bill Davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com>
   "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked."  - from Slashdot