Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla Software News

Mozilla Foundation Releases Firefox 7 452

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the hep-cats-already-have-firefox-57 dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla has released Firefox 7.0. It hasn't actually reduced my memory footprint at first glance, but let's hope that the memory usage doesn't keep growing like it used to. We'll also see if it crashes less often than once every three days or so." The initial memory use of Firefox should remain similar to previous releases, but at least the heap shouldn't grow infinitely as it does in previous releases.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Foundation Releases Firefox 7

Comments Filter:
  • Wait! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TokoYami200 (1520755) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:03PM (#37531868)
    When did I miss Firefox 6?
    • Re:Wait! (Score:5, Funny)

      by hedwards (940851) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:04PM (#37531890)

      Firefox 6? that's so last Thursday.

    • Re:Wait! (Score:5, Informative)

      by IANAAC (692242) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:36PM (#37532378)

      When did I miss Firefox 6?

      Interestingly, I just set up an Ubuntu 11.04 (previously 10.04) with FF 6.02. With the same addons as I had in FF 4, it's WAY faster and uses close to a third less memory than FF4. If they're claiming that FF7 will reduce memory even more, I'm definitely going to check it out.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        life hacker confirms this, they really have been cutting the bloat lately

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kmoser (1469707)
        At this rate, according to Moore's Law, by the year 2037 Firefox will have a memory footprint of only 128K. Unfortunately, half of that will be taken up by the version number.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Malc (1751)

      Don't worry, they're still showing the release notes from version 4. When I look at http://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/features/ [mozilla.org], nothing has apparently changed for a long time. The feature list starts with the "awesome bar" (it's still a nerdy childish name after all this time), and doesn't introduce anything newer after that. They've made it damn hard to find any kind of release notes or new feature list, or any explanation of why you'd want to upgrade from FF4. Talk about the inmates running the as

  • Now I have a "New Tab" tab that I can't get rid of or change focus to. Does anyone test this stuff?
    • Re:Fail (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:16PM (#37532066)

      Now I have a "New Tab" tab that I can't get rid of or change focus to. Does anyone test this stuff?

      Actually testing the code wouldn't be in line with Agile methodologies. If you don't like the code, you'll just have to live with it until the next patch.

      Once upon a time, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and hired whole departments full of people to test and document a stable release of software before it went out the door; these expenses can be done away with by outsourcing QA to end users in the form of autogenerated coredumps, and the documentation to the end users by third parties hosting banner-ad-funded wikis and web fora. Sure, the product was more likely to actually work, but the unacceptable downside was that under waterfall, users had months between patches, and were consequently several weeks behind the hottest trends in masturbatory UX fashion design.

      Agile's so much better than that stodgy old waterfall methodology, because with Agile, you're always on the upgrade treadmill, and only have to wait a few days for the next patch full of bugs comes down the pipe. You may not know what version of the software you're running, but at least you're always up to date!

      • Ouch. But uncomfortably true.
      • by Imagix (695350)
        Uh, testing the code is _very_ much in line with Agile methodologies. Most of the Agile methodologies endorse test-driven development.
        • You need to test the product as well, not just the code.

          Like, you know, click around that shit and make sure that it works as intended? 100% unit test coverage is not guaranteed to do that - in fact, it can be very far from it.

        • by Junta (36770) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @05:30PM (#37533034)

          It isn't as rosy as it sounds, at least in my general experience (practice always deviates from theory right?).

          The theory is you write your unit tests first, and then code until you pass. In practice two things go wrong:
          1) You make a mistake writing unit tests (I have seen many times where *only* buggy code could pass the incorrectly written unit tests).
          2) Passing even a well-conceived unit test inspires overconfidence. I have encountered more than a few people who honestly believe passing all unit tests as an automated part of a build process was sufficient and no human testing was required.

          In short, sure, officially it endorses testing, but really only speaks much to automated unit tests and less to actually taking the time to let some users dig in and do nothing but make sure those users validate you did the work correctly.

          • by Imagix (695350)
            Sure, but that's a failing of the practitioners, not of the methodology. People not running tests (even manual tests for those cases where automation is infeasible) will happen in any methodology.
    • Re:Fail (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Toonol (1057698) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:20PM (#37532116)
      It's not that it's not tested. It's just that what the Firefox designers want is now completely divorced from what the users want. This has been clear for me since the 'awesomebar'*.

      I'm trying out Opera. I used to be a Firefox promoter, moving people off IE6 and onto FF every chance I got; but now... all the browsers seem like necessary evils.

      *Not that adding the awesomebar was bad... but forcing the awesomebar, and eliminating the option to turn it off, was. That's the behavior that indicates a company is putting marketing ahead of engineering.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        *Not that adding the awesomebar was bad... but forcing the awesomebar, and eliminating the option to turn it off, was. That's the behavior that indicates a company is putting marketing ahead of engineering.

        about:config->browser.urlbar.maxRichResults->0

      • by diegocg (1680514)

        Except that most users actually love the awesomeba. If anything, it seems that Firefox is trying to do what real users want, at the expense of geeks.

      • Re:Fail (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Muerte2 (121747) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @05:30PM (#37533042) Homepage

        I love the awesome bar. It's made my browsing faster and more efficient.

        • Re:Fail (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jdfox (74524) on Wednesday September 28, 2011 @03:40AM (#37537238)
          I like the "awesome bar" too, but that's not the point. As the GP says, eliminating the option to disable it reduces the power of the user.

          Yes, users can choose another browser. Is that really all the choice that the FF developers wish to extend to their users? This "take it or leave it" attitude was one of the reasons that I quit using Gnome. The next feature that Firefox forces on you might be one that you don't like.

      • by CSMatt (1175471)

        Mozilla has let people turn off the smart location bar since Firefox 3.5. Preferences > Privacy > Location bar > set to "History" or "Nothing"

  • by joss (1346) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:07PM (#37531920) Homepage

    Since people compare software by version number, one is at a competitive disadvantage in number software sensibly. FF7 would be FF4.3 were it not for chrome, why not call it ff 2011.3 and be done with it.

    • by Baloroth (2370816) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:21PM (#37532138)

      While it used to be true that people compared software by version number, and it certainly is for products that are still in the v1.0 (or maybe 2.0 even), how many people today really compare software by version number any more? Or even know what version they are using (especially of Chrome, which doesn't even advertise it unless you look closely), unless they are fairly nerdy? More relevantly, is there seriously a large group of people (I realize there is at least one person) who didn't use Firefox because it was "only" version 3? And more importantly, was it worth pissing of the very group of people who made your product popular in the first place (i.e. the techies)?

      Software versions are supposed to have meaning. Major numbers are for important new features and UI overhauls, minor numbers are for minor features (or large technical fixes) and other small changes, and final digits are for bugfixes. I should be able to look at a version number and be able to estimate how much the software changed since another version. That has been the standard for years, and there is absolutely no reason to change it. Firefox has completely destroyed that. They didn't start it, true, but they also shouldn't have given away to it.

      For commercial software, obviously, using the year as a version number makes quite a lot of sense (besides even just selling new copies every year), or for a driver (like AMD does). But for a browser? What sense does that make? Why bother? Why not just do what has worked quite well for years and use a proper version system? That is why people are annoyed at Mozilla. Because the change makes no goddamned sense.

      • by Toonol (1057698) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:28PM (#37532242)
        Because the change makes no goddamned sense.

        It makes sense from a marketing perspective, obviously; and that makes the outrage even stronger. FF was a damn good browser; and it's painful to see it going in that direction. Most slashdot posters have experienced projects and products going astray when 'steering committees' start dictating design.

        It's painful like seeing a great book being turned into a terrible film by focus-group driven studio executives.
        • by Grishnakh (216268)

          Sounds like what happened to Gnome: they started getting involved in focus groups and usability studies, and went to shit.

        • It's painful like seeing a great book being turned into a terrible film by focus-group driven studio executives.

          I genuinely wonder how long this will last before enough geeks get annoyed enough to start a credible fork and push it into the mainstream as the presumptive replacement for Firefox. The backlash has been obvious, public, and intensifying with every version since the silly numbering fiasco started (and all the other problems that have come along with the runaway release process began, since the numbering itself is mostly an unimportant distraction).

          Firefox is open source, and major open source projects typi

      • by AikonMGB (1013995) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:56PM (#37532630) Homepage

        I am typically onboard with the software purists, but in this case I disagree -- I like the new numbering systems! Well, not exactly the number systems, but the development strategies they imply. For a piece of software that you write once and remains relatively stable, the major/minor/bugfix method is acceptable, because you very rarely do major design changes.

        In something like Firefox, Chrome, Thunderbird, and their ilk, the distinction of when exactly a major version number should be bumped becomes a little less clear -- one UI update is deemed slightly more important than another, and all of a sudden you have a major version jump instead of a minor one. With rapid release schedules, the idea is that the changes from one release to the next will /all/ be small, but after a while if you compare e.g. FF 3.18 vs 3.1, they will be nothing alike, so why should they share a common major version number?

        Moving to a Year/Month (e.g. Thunderbird 11.09) system I think is overall much cleaner for software releasing on a rapid development cycle.

        Aikon-

        • by Baloroth (2370816)

          You have a valid point about minor changes adding up to produce a version that doesn't look anything like other versions with the same number (the same argument justifies upgrading the Linux kernel to 3.0). And it is perfectly valid to decide after, say, 12 minor releases "ok, next one will increment the major number." This will not make nerds rage (ok, it'll make a few mad, but you can safely ignore them.) It is much different to suddenly say "our version number is for marketing purposes only and means not

      • They should take a lesson from Apple. How many people thought that "iPhone 3G" is the first phone that had 3G? Ladies and gentlemen, we now bring you Firefox HTML5!

      • by Grishnakh (216268) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @05:51PM (#37533258)

        That is why people are annoyed at Mozilla. Because the change makes no goddamned sense.

        It does make sense. Back in the bad old days when they were going 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, etc., it showed that they weren't improving very fast. Now that they're jumping ahead (4, 5, 6, now 7), it shows they're improving rapidly, and will soon be almost as good as IE (9) and Opera (11).

        Opera goes up to 11, and Firefox needs to work hard to make their browser go up to 11 too. It'd be even better if Firefox went all the way up to 12. That would completely blow away IE and Opera. Just think how cool that'll be. When you see someone using IE9 (or 10, if it's up to that by then), you can tell them "You should switch to Firefox. It goes up to 12!!"

      • Mozilla *are* making huge changes under the hood. Back when 3 was the current version, they had *heaps* of new features and improvements slated for 4. But trying to fit them all into one big bang release just slowed down the process. Planning for more frequent releases allows those new under the hood improvements to be trickled in when each of them is finished.
    • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @06:17PM (#37533490)

      Since people compare software by version number, one is at a competitive disadvantage in number software sensibly. FF7 would be FF4.3 were it not for chrome, why not call it ff 2011.3 and be done with it.

      How about everyone get over the version numbering already and enjoy the new features in this free browser? That'd be great.

      The memory usage is now much better than Chrome. Speed is improved. None of my add-ons broke. We finally have text-overflow: ellipsis (long overdue!). WTF, people. This is a good thing, not a bad one, and if all you can do is complain about the damned version number, you apparently need to go get a life.

      Here's to FF8 in 6 weeks, with improved font rendering and the compatibility assistant! (and a big preemptive SUCK IT to those of you who will inevitably complain about the version numbering and release schedule). If you like yearly release schedules, please switch to IE.

      • by owlnation (858981) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @08:53PM (#37534872)

        How about everyone get over the version numbering already and enjoy the new features in this free browser? That'd be great.

        Oh sure, that would be great... except for two things:

        Websites like Google expect you to update to the latest version, and will often lock you out if you don't.

        Websites, like Banks for example, won't run if you use a browser version they haven't tested -- in Firefox's case that's 3 versions ago.

        So basically there no fucking way to win. Or, more precisely, there's no fucking way to use Firefox across all the web any more -- so what is the point?

        And that's completely ignoring the broken add-ons, and the fact that many people choose not to upgrade Firefox because they don't like the GUI changes on recent versions.

        There's a reason I didn't use Netscape. There was a reason I actually bought the Firefox t-shirt 5 years ago too. But now, Firefox is just Netscape that updates its versions at an absurd and dysfunctional rate. It's now completely worthless as a browser because you can use it on less websites than you could when it was version 0.86.

        Goodbye Mozilla, you clearly never learned one fucking thing from the Netscape disaster. You just never fucking listened to anyone who actually used your software.

        • by BZ (40346) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @10:30PM (#37535564)

          > Websites, like Banks for example, won't run if you
          > use a browser version they haven't tested

          Where are you finding these banks?

          I've been using Mozilla Suite and then Firefox nightly builds (not releases; clearly not tested by any banks) for about 10 years now, and in that time I've dealt with at least 5 different bank websites. None of them locked out any browsers. One had a sniffing bug that detected "Minefield" as "IE" that caused a date picker to not work and refused to fix it, but that's about it.

        • Goodbye Mozilla, you clearly never learned one fucking thing from the Netscape disaster. You just never fucking listened to anyone who actually used your software.

          No, that's what's so painful about this: they DID listen... and then they stopped. They used to be great, which makes the fall that much harder.

        • 1) You are not the entirety of Mozilla's userbase. Just because they're disappointing you doesn't mean they're disappointing me or any of their millions of other users.

          2) Firefox isn't going the way of Netscape at all. When it includes Thunderbird/Lightning/ChatZilla/etc. in by default (a la Seamonkey) then you'd be right to say that, though.

          3) I'm curious to know what you're switching to now. Opera? IE?

  • So far, Acrobat Create PDF 1.1 is incompatible.

  • by Dynamoo (527749)
    This is silly. Too many big changes, too many versions. Add-ons break on a regular basis and corporate customers who had been warming to the idea of FF are heading back to Microsoft. Whoever thought up this idea deserves to be kicked off the Firefox project.
    • by Krojack (575051)

      Add-ons break on a regular basis

      I've been using version 7 for some time now (in beta). It's not Mozilla's fault that add-on devs aren't updating their add-ons. I have never seen NoScript not work after a FF update because the dev keeps it updated and ready for the next release.

      • Re:Silly (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tridus (79566) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:36PM (#37532370) Homepage

        Actually I'm pretty sure it is Mozilla's fault. It's not the addon devs who decided to go to this ridiculous rapid release schedule.

        Addon devs are volunteers. Expecting them to update stuff several times more often because some people in the ivory tower think that releasing every couple of weeks is a good idea doesn't mean you blame the addon devs. You blame the clowns who are screwing them over.

      • by PhilHibbs (4537)

        A software platform that changes and breaks compatability every few months is a ridiculous idea. I have programs that I haven't changed in 15 years that I still use. Google aren't updating Google Toolbar for newer versions of Firefox, and it's just stopped working for me with this release of Firefox. Google Toolbar (specifically, Google Bookmarks) is the only thing that's been keeping me in Firefox.

        Is there a browser or extension (other than IE with Google Bookmarks) that lets me use Google Bookmarks as a m

      • by Shikaku (1129753)

        Actually it ISN'T MOZILLA'S FAULT.

        Especially since all add-ons on addons.mozilla.org get version bumped now since 6.0 as long as they pass the heuristic.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      Firefox isn't intended for other than consumer use.

      Want stable and fast? Use Opera.

  • by rudy_wayne (414635) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:08PM (#37531948)

    What's with all the bitching about memory use? I have been using Firefox since it was called Firebird and have never seen any really huge memory use. For example, right now Firefox is using 231 MB. Now, being an old fart from back in the dark ages, the idea that a web browser would be using hundreds of megabytes of RAM seems really absurd. But, considering that I have 8 GB in my computer, who gives a shit how much memory Firefox is using?

    • by MachDelta (704883)

      I don't care when i'm at home either.
      But at the moment i'm at school, working off a 512mb netbook.
      Now I care.

    • Re:Memory? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:27PM (#37532228)

      Yesterday I started Firefox 6 and had it sitting just on the regular start page for a couple hours, with no other tabs open. Just sitting there, not doing a damn thing except showing the start page, it was using 50MB of RAM. Right now I have it open to a single tab and it's using 154MB of RAM and 226MB of virtual memory, so 380MB total. For 1 tab. I've seen earlier versions using well over 1GB of RAM at times, plus virtual memory. The memory usage seems to have slowed down the leaking and growing indefinitely large, but it still seems like a lot of memory.

      But, considering that I have 8 GB in my computer, who gives a shit how much memory Firefox is using?

      I'm going to go with "people who don't have 8GB of RAM". My gaming machine at home has 2, my work laptop has 1.

    • I stopped using Firefox a few months ago because of increasing memory problems. I tried to keep my tabs reasonable, no more than 10 at a time, and it would make my machine thrash. Once I started having to kill the process daily I switched to Opera. I don't really like Opera, but it can run for weeks at a time without bringing my machine to its knees.

      It doesn't make any sense that Firefox would need 700MB to have 7 tabs open. None of them were anything weird. My living room computer has 1GB, mostly used to
    • by t0y (700664)
      It's a real problem but it doesn't affect everyone the same way. Many of the issues are related to extensions holding on to references in long gone tabs and Firefox 7 is the first version that will see results from the MemShrink [mozilla.org] project (you can read about the details in the wiki).

      I've had Firefox break the userspace memory barrier (3gb on windows x64) and becoming slow many times before, mostly because of Firebug.
    • by couchslug (175151)

      "I have 8 GB in my computer, who gives a shit how much memory Firefox is using?"

      My PAE kernel has limited Firefox to 4GB max, leaving 4 for other processes.

      Funny/sad, mostly sad.

    • Honestly, I am almost close to preferring IE6 over Firefox these days. It is a monster. I run it on Win7/64, and I've seen this beast gobble ut a gig and a half of memory with 10-15 tabs open. That is with a Flash blocker, so it is only HTML and some related images. A gig and a half. Firefox starts consuming memory when it starts up, and it never stops. I only re-boot when I need to update the OS and I never log out. I also don't shut down the most used apps. IE9 and Chrome use a lot of memory both, but wit

    • I can only speak to my own experience, but when FireFox gets up around 800MB on my 4GB machine, it starts to become non-responsive sporadically. It's been this way for some time now, and I've hoped that every new version would fix it.
  • by dmomo (256005) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:09PM (#37531964) Homepage

    Since the new "major version release" change, every time I've updated Firefox, I've had to fuss with incompatible plugins. I just upgraded to 7, and luckily, it didn't require yet another install of Firebug, though there were a few other incompatibilities. It's pretty much "add-on" roulette. Is this because of the new version system and version checking with plugins? Or just a coincidence. I can't imagine that so many things would be ACTUALLY made incompatible with each release. I can only suppose it's a flaw in the "checker".

  • Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tridus (79566) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:12PM (#37531996) Homepage

    Now that FF changes versions every time you blink and each one has at best minor changes, why even bother posting the new versions here? It's like posting that the sun came up in the East today.

    Maybe a story about the acceleration in market share loss FF has suffered since this rapid release BS started would be more interesting.

  • Debian release cycle is two years, and I'm going to stick with that. Firefox team has gone nuts.

    I have no time to update every-day. I have work to do, you know - my work is not developing firefox. So I prefer to sit on debian stable. In fact I wonder now, how is it possible that I have iceweasel 5.0 here, if on debian stable I see iceweasel 3.5. And 7.0 is in debian experimental.

  • by grommit (97148) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:15PM (#37532062)
    Are people still bitching about that? Since I'm usually putting my computers in sleep mode or connecting to VMs that are running 24/7 I am having Firefox running for over a month straight on a regular basis. Both on Windows and Linux. About the only time I have to restart Firefox is to apply a version update. I can't even remember the last time that I had it crash on me that wasn't the fault of something like Java or Flash. I would definitely catch all sorts of hell from my immediate family if Firefox was crashing often or causing slowdowns due to memory bloat and they don't even use NoScript. I'm not sure what people are doing to make Firefox bloat or crash but I'm willing to bet that the cause is add-ons and extensions that they've installed and not Firefox itself.
    • by jbssm (961115)

      I'm not sure what people are doing to make Firefox bloat or crash but I'm willing to bet that the cause is add-ons and extensions that they've installed and not Firefox itself.

      Well, now-a-days, extensions are a standard in every browser worth of that name. Different people have diferente needs and preferences, and that's why we want/need extensions in our daily workflow.

      That being said, the fault rests on Firefox developers for not having adressed the problems that might be caused by the extensions. In fact, they didn't even adressed the extensions archaic system for years since people started complaining.

      When was the last time you had to restart a mainstream browser to install/u

  • by janeuner (815461) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:16PM (#37532076)

    To suppress the URL trimming functionality, set the 'browser.urlbar.trimURLs' variable in about:config to true.

  • At least for Lucid so far.

    Now the 12GB of RAM in my gaming PC is going to seem like a waste :-(

    On the upside, the 4GB of RAM my laptop is stuck with unless I want to sacrifice dual-channel mode (thanks for building half the RAM into the mobo, geniuses!) will be useful for longer :-)

  • by lennier1 (264730) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @04:22PM (#37532142)

    I checked the developer summary earlier today and this new version actually contains some useful features for a change!!!

  • I remember Firefox being FAST like it was on FIRE!!

    Now I click on the icon and wait a good minute or so for it to load.

    If I accidentally close it and try to re-open it I get a message saying to wait for the program to completely close, which takes a good minute or so also.

  • But I do use it occasionally for a particular plugin that downloads flash videos. Last time I ran firefox I made the mistake of upgrading and it broke that plugin. Turns out the same plugin works in IE, so instead of turning to FF, I'm now instead turning to IE. Thanks for nothing Mozilla!
  • Also known as Firefox 4.3.

  • I am replying to this thread as someone who has beem using Chromium for the past several months, switching away from Firefox because of the huge memory footprint. I've seen it consume about 2GB of memory easily, and then it would become sluggish. Things would not respond fast, and it would hang for several seconds every 20 seconds or so. It had to be killed a few times per day.
    Chromium is more resistant to that. Each tab opens a separate process, and manages its memory better. However, Chromium lacks excel
  • Are there seriously that many 32bit-isms in the code that they can't do a 64-bit release?

  • by Lazy Jones (8403) on Tuesday September 27, 2011 @05:18PM (#37532914) Homepage Journal
    Again I have to do the same pointless upgrade work to upgrade homebrew addons:
    • Change the maximum version number in the install.rdf and generate the XPI
    • Ask myself why it still won't load
    • Mess with the upgrade URL's RDF and change version numbers there
    • Still ask myself why it won't load
    • Upgrade the addon SDK since the previous one will only generate XPIs incompatible with 7.0
    • Curse Mozilla for all the pointless, braindead XML editing and wasted time since the code didn't need any changes at all

    I've never seen an SDK make such a big fuss about absolutely nothing and never felt my time so pointlessly wasted, and I've seen plenty of SDKs in the past 20 years...

  • by daveewart (66895) on Wednesday September 28, 2011 @03:14AM (#37537116)

    The Mozilla Enterprise Working Group are considering this proposal at present: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Firefox/ExtendedSupport:Proposal [mozilla.org]

    This would provide a 42-week 'stable' release of Firefox, with incremental backported security fixes "just like the old days".

    Whether this will come to fruition or not is unclear at this stage, but at least it's being discussed.

"Our reruns are better than theirs." -- Nick at Nite

Working...