Firefox 3.5 Reviewed; Draws Praise For HTML5, Speed 436
johndmartiniii writes "Farhad Manjoo has a review of Firefox 3.5 at Slate.com this week. From the article: 'Lately I've been worried about Firefox. Ever since its debut in 2004, the open-source Web browser has won acclaim for its speed, stability, and customizability. It eventually captured nearly a quarter of the market, an astonishing achievement for a project run by a nonprofit foundation. But recently Firefox seemed to go soft.' The worried tone in the beginning of the review gives way to excitement over the HTML5 features being implemented, saying that thus far Firefox 3.5 'offers the best implementation of the standard — and because it's the second-most-popular Web browser in the world, the new release is sure to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language.'" The final version could be here at any time; Firefox 3.5 is still shown as a release candidate at Mozilla's home page. Update: 06/30 15:31 GMT by T : No longer marked as RC; the Firefox upgrade page now says 3.5 has arrived.
As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:4, Insightful)
Firefox really needs a multiprocess architecture.
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:5, Funny)
It does indeed. On my Linux box I've created a custom version of Firefox that does just that, but on Windows this simply isn't possible. I've tried copying and pasting code from my Linux copy into the Windows DLL's using a hex editor but this hasn't worked and has broken my Firefox installation - Windows shittyness at it's finest!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:no sense of humor today, mods? (Score:5, Funny)
Had you been drinking milk at the time or are you just really wierd?
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:4, Interesting)
Threading would work just as well, if not better in your scenario. Separate processes just gives you the extra boundary of protection and convenience that comes with not sharing memory.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like this [mozilla.com]?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Won't people flame "It is using 200% CPU?". I notice same people asking for 64bit everything makes scene about browser using 1 gig RAM. This attitude really started to hurt the development of all applications I think.
What matters is, it should not leak memory or "hog" the CPU as result of bad programming, otherwise I am all for Caches, multiple threads etc. IMHO all browsers should at least experiment with "HTML rendering" and "image decoding" as separate threads. Even Symbian (foundation now) demo'ed SMP c
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:5, Insightful)
Er... Multi-process architecture is "a pile of shit" because you can't tell which process is which in your task manager?
That doesn't seem like a difficult problem to fix, and is hardly a fundamental problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
(frequently over a gig of it)
Are you including virtual memory in that figure? I can't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory, but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MB (Jesus! I have really lowered my expectations thinking that isn't a lot!) with 15 tabs open for a week.
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm using version 3.0.11. I currently have three windows open with about 120 tabs between them. Process Explorer reports that the firefox.exe process has 585,384k private bytes and 689,916k virtual bytes. Over the next couple days the amount of memory consumed will continue to grow, probably until it hits around 1.5 gigs of private bytes. I know that i really shouldn't have that many tabs open, but as someone else pointed out it's a convenient bad habit. (Perhaps a quarter of those tabs are sites that i check and refresh fairly often, at least once a day. The rest are sites links that i've checked or the results of google searches that i either haven't finished reading yet or think i'll need to reference back to in the near future. (For example, over 30 of those tabs relate to the myriad of issues i've run into trying to get Oracle working through ADO.Net, and i'll need to keep a lot of them open for reference until this project actually works correctly.)
It's not that i mind Firefox taking up a lot of memory when i have a lot of tabs open (although almost 5 megs a page already seems a little high, though not as bad as your 40 megs per tab!) but i do mind that when i notice my computer slowing down and see that Firefox has consumed somewhere between 1 and 1.5 gigs of physical memory that doing a pruning of the tabs gets me almost no memory back. I have in fact closed everything down except for one google tab left on one window of Firefox and seen it still consuming over a gig of memory.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Setting browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to something other than -1 should make memory use somewhat less aggressive (I haven't dug into it very deeply, but I don't think FF adjusts the number of pages any when the number of open tabs gets huge, and as I understand it, the setting is per tab, so you might actually have several hundred rendered pages in memory when you have 120 tabs open).
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers [mozillazine.org]
Isn't this a little overkill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this a little overkill? (Score:4, Insightful)
I tend to agree with this assessment. I consider myself a power user when it comes to tabs, and I only rarely have more than 20 tabs open (and that's when I haven't checked Slashdot for 2 days and need to read every article/summary/comment I've missed), and then only for a short time. Do a lot of people really leave the browser running _all_ the time with dozens and dozens of tabs open? I can't really imagine that being the norm...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, why would I ever shut my browser down? I'm just going to need it again. Generally when I'm reading a forum, i'll middle click on a bunch of posts to queue them up for reading. Then, when I want to reply to one, I'll open a bunch more tabs so I can double check my facts. Often, on those tabs I opened for reference, I'll read something new and interesting, so I'll pop open a bunch more tabs from those pages.
Do I really need all those tabs open at once? No. Often times I wont even finish reading the
Re:Isn't this a little overkill? (Score:4, Insightful)
That guys usage does seem a bit strange, but each to their own!
However, there are different use cases for tabs that result in different numbers of tabs open:
e.g.
1) User wants to keep a number of sites open all day for quick switching - e.g. mail, news, documentation, etc. This is probably what you are thinking of, and it most likely is a relatively small number of sites - less than a dozen, say.
2) User wants to open a whole bunch of links off the sam page at once, since that's more convenient than flipping back and fro to open one read it, open the next, etc. Examples of this usage would be, for example opening search results (search engine, eBay, etc) or reading new posts on an online forum.
I routinely (many times a day - searching for collectables - made a $1500 profit on one yesterday) open 40-50 tabs at a time for eBay search results since it's so much faster to quickly run down a list of links doing open-in-new-tab (in background) then reading/discarding them, as opposed to doing it one at a time.
Re:Isn't this a little overkill? (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, you can buy 2x2GB DDR2 for 45$ - at least in the states. The point is, it's cheap. Really cheap. Almost "yo momma" cheap. Or at least my momma cheap. Either way, it's cheap.
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:5, Insightful)
1.5GB looks like much, but it's only 12.5MB per tab. Considering that the browser has to keep the state and source data of every page, it doesn't seem excessive. Are you sure that the pages aren't running scripts which accumulate stale data over the course of days and weeks, because the programmers never expected their scripts to run for that long and didn't include any cleanup code, because that's usually handled by the browser when you leave the page or close the tab (which you never do)?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you telling me to keep 836 KB of data as a live page takes 12MB? What am I missing?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you telling me to keep 836 KB of data as a live page takes 12MB? What am I missing?
Quite a lot. HTML and JPEG are no use to a graphics card. Those pages have to be rendered. A single screen of 1280x1024 @ 24-bit color uses 3.75MB uncompressed in memory. Now think how much you need to scroll that up and down. I don't personally know the details of how Firefox manages memory, but I know your comparison is not valid.
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:5, Informative)
Ok
A feature I stumbled on in firefox is the ability to open all bookmarks in a folder. So I've arranged my bookmarks into daily/weekly/monthly folders based on topics. Then I middle click the folder and all the pages open up. I arrange the pages that usually open first at the top of the folder, and those that take longer at the bottom. It only takes a few seconds before I start seeing pages, and by the time I'm done with the first one, the rest are open.
Then I just close them as I'm done with them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I'm just old school and think I can determine how to organize my stuff better than the computer can. I keep a tab labeled 'new items' where I dump stuff, and periodically reclassify or delete them depending on whether I find them interesting and where I want them to be. I doubt if a plug in can determine whether or not something I open every day is 'interesting'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know that i really shouldn't have that many tabs open
No, you should be able to have as many tabs as you want open and the software should handle it. It's the computers job to do what we want, not ours to conform to the computer.
On the other hand, I regularly have 3 or 4 windows open with close to 100 tabs each, and I don't really have a problem. If I hadn't shut down my pc last night to hook up a disc, I'd check the RAM use, but in any case, FF is pretty snappy for me.
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:4, Interesting)
I know that i really shouldn't have that many tabs open, but as someone else pointed out it's a convenient bad habit.
Who the fsck is anyone to tell you how you should use your web browser? If you need the browser to support 120 open tabs, then if it doesn't do this well, then it's a tool not well suited to your task. You should expect it to require some system resources to pull this off, but those that the application asks for should be managed properly and freed up if no longer needed. That is not too much to ask for, and you shouldn't apologize if you choose to use the product this way.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't seem to fun FF without at least 100MB of physical memory, but I never see the sum of physical and virtual go over 600MB
Hmmm ... I'm using a Macbook Pro at the moment, and according to the Activity Monitor window, Firefox is currently using RSIZE=338.62MB and VSIZE=1.37GB. This is with 7 windows with 25 tabs open, plus the "Library" (i.e., bookmarks) window. This seems about normal We also have a smaller, 5-year-old Mac Powerbook with only 1 GB of memory (vs the 4 GB on this machine), and FF there
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:5, Insightful)
if i keep a lot of tabs open for awhile (yes, i know, bad habit)
This is a bad habit? I've always just thought of it as a convenient way to browse.
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:5, Informative)
according to this test [dotnetperls.com] is seems quite alright...
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:4, Insightful)
They fixed most of FF's memory issues with FF3. I've been using 3.5 since beta 1, and I've never had any issues with memory.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As mentioned in a previous comment, i'm currently using 3.0.11, and i haven't seen a noticeable improvement over FF2. If they've fixed everything in 3.5 i'll be very happy. But then everyone told me they'd fixed the memory issued in 3.0 too, and that didn't work so well for me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, as long as we're talking anecdotes, I saw a dramatic improvement in 3 over 2...In FF2, the memory creep was constant and dramatic. 30-50 tabs would consume several GIGS of memory after a week or so. But with 3, it levels off. Yea, it uses a lot of memory, but it doesn't leak the way it used to.
Just my personal experience of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Drop the number of cached pages to 0. It'll dramatically drop the amount of RAM FireFox uses.
Be warned, using the back button or "Undo Close Tab" is going to suck as it'll have to pull everything from network again. (Pair it with a local caching proxy?).
I just wish they had a 'purge cache' button somewhere easy. Until then I'll just quit and restart.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Setting browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers to a small number (when FF detects 1 Gig or more of ram, it defaults to 8) should give you something in between (i.e., the pages will need to be pulled from the cache and rendered, but the number rendered pages in memory will be much smaller and the data will not have to be pulled from the network). More detail here:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers [mozillazine.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Or about stopping the auto-update. I use yum to install firefox automatically, then about 4 hours later I get message telling me that "Congratulations, you have firefox 3.0.11 installed", which breaks Google Streetview - it just remains black and no options actually appear in the Preferences->Clear Private Data popup. Reinstall Firefox using yum install, Google Streetview works again, and the cycle repeats.
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or about stopping the auto-update. I use yum to install firefox automatically, then about 4 hours later I get message telling me that "Congratulations, you have firefox 3.0.11 installed", which breaks Google Streetview - it just remains black and no options actually appear in the Preferences->Clear Private Data popup. Reinstall Firefox using yum install, Google Streetview works again, and the cycle repeats.
How is this a Firefox-Issue? open a Bug with your distro to set the updates off. And turn off automatic updates in the preferrences.
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:4, Interesting)
I leave Firefox 3.0 open for weeks at a time, and I'm liable to have close to a hundred tabs open across 12 windows. Granted, it uses almost a gigabyte of memory, but I don't think any browser would do any better for that kind of load. The only time I ever need to restart is because Flash has stopped working.
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you manage that? I mean, when you want to go to a page, do you really look for it in all of your tabs? What do you gain by leaving the tab open instead of just going back to the site when you want to view it again?
I tend to max out at about 10 tabs because I close them when I'm not actively using them. It's really, really rare that I even actively use that many.
Re:As usual with new Firefox releases... (Score:5, Insightful)
... Namely, if i keep a lot of tabs open for awhile (yes, i know, bad habit)
Why is it a bad habit? The browser should facilitate the user, it shouldn't be the other way around.
Real geeks (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, REAL geeks ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
use telnet for browsing the internet.
Real geeks look down on lusers who use this fancy telnet; they use netcat!
What about Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
the new release is sure to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language
Although, I would be happy if Slashdot would work right with the existing standards.
Let me be the first to say... (Score:2)
We are all like a bunch of jonzing pirates wanting FF 3.5... Like crack addicts we need our fix... like yesterday... or the day before.
We want it NOW!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Ofcourse but I am waiting for some important plugins to be fully compatible with it too. Some plugin vendors wait till things are set in stone to update their stuff... yeah I could hack something together on some cases but I'd rather spend time posting on Slashdot ;-)
A Bug No One Mentions (Score:2)
Re:A Bug No One Mentions (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, instead of being polite and letting the OS keep the disk spun down until data needs to be written, Firefox spins up the HD for writing every single time it does anything.
But this isn't a bug, it's a feature: the ext4 developers keep telling us that Posix requires that you fsync() any file that you actually want to find on the disk after a reboot.
More seriously, this may be a response to the earlier problems on Windows where you would reboot after a system crash or power outage and find all your bookmarks had been eaten by scandisk because they weren't properly written to disk before the crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean: "...sure NOT to prompt..." (Score:2, Interesting)
Correction: "...and because it's the second-most-popular Web browser in the world, the new release is sure NOT to prompt Web designers to create pages tailored to the Web's new language..."
(That's better.)
I dunno what web designer in his/her right mind is going to make a web page that only 1 in 4 people can view.
Surely Mozilla developers should be trying to better emulate what the MOST popular browser does so that people won't be discouraged from using theirs; rather than creating yet more incompatibility?
still using iCab ;-) (Score:2)
indeed, am I the only one still using the mac-only, closed-source iCab -but the one that invented ad-filtering 10 years before Adblock, and still updates almost every month (now with e. g. full screen favorite-sites preview...)?
Re: (Score:2)
Bloat (Score:2)
I usually kill off my firefox 3.0 and restart it once it reaches the point where its holding 400 megs of ram and takes a quarter-second to respond to button presses. Wasn't Firefox's advantage over Mozilla supposed to be the lack of bloat?
And more than that! (Score:5, Funny)
In Firefox 3.5, the bard class has been totally revised, and you no longer need to "intuit direction" to browse the web.
Released!?!! (Score:4, Interesting)
As of now, if you got to Mozilla's page and choose to download Firefox, you get version 3.5 :
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/upgrade.html [mozilla.com]
Re: (Score:2)
NOTE: THIS WORKS.
Just started working with 3.5 De_de. Firebug already has an update, but the ugly dotted borders are not fixed. Sigh....my designer will lynch me.
Competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one who doesn't see the multiplicity of real competition as a threat, but rather as the greatest success of the Mozilla Foundation? Had it not been for Firefox, Opera would still cost money, Google Chrome wouldn't exist, a few people who paid way too much for their computers would be running Safari, and most (l)users would be stuck with the latest version of IE -- IE6. Thank you, Firefox, for reigniting the browser wars, and here's hoping that this time around the wars will be fought with functionality, stability, security, and speed, rather than with a new incompatible extension to JavaScript every week.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's crazy talk. Chrome's existence did not and does not depend on Firefox.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Huh? Is there somebody out there yelling, "No! We need one browser! Competition is evil"?
I think his name is Ballmer.
If so, I haven't run across them.
That's good... he throws chairs. :)
It was much easier to deal with him back when he used to just roll barrels at you...
Acid (Score:2, Interesting)
Still only a 93% on acid3. Better, but not good enough.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Acid4 is even worse. And Acid5, I mean, make your browser work guys.
Here now (Score:2, Informative)
Explain to me again why this is not Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, at one time, there were standards around CSS and DOM being implemented, and Microsoft implemented a version of those standards before they were standards, and became the Defacto Quirks Mode way things were done for a long time, and that was deemed Evil.
Now there are standards around HTML5 being proposed, but probably 10 years off, or at least way off, and Firefox and Google are implementing a version of these standars before they are standards, and are trying to become the Defactor Quirks Mode way things are done for a long time, and that is deemed Good.
If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Re:Explain to me again why this is not Evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Mozilla (and Netscape before it) have long implemented things that are not in standards. This isn't what causes problems. What causes problems is not supporting the standard after it is released.
Really, gathering real world information about how an idea works is a valuable input to the standards process.
1 minute upgrade (Score:4, Informative)
That worked out really well. I read the blurb, it said it was available. Did the check for updates, it downloaded and restarted, and then I went into the story.
All upgrades should be so easy!
Tilting at windmills... (Score:3)
So still no MSI for Windows (Score:5, Interesting)
May I really ask who or what Firefox developers fight(!) with? Like or not, MSI is the way to get into Enterprise, a signed MSI is even better. In fact, most of .exe installers you see these days are actually MSI packaged in .exe.
It is really interesting that they insist on not shipping MSI versions of their software, at least in a FTP folder like "alternate_installers" which admins will pull msi from. It became even more interesting since I found this: http://wix.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] , yes open source from MS, hosted by Sourceforge and it actually works. What does MSI do? Hurt feelings of the developers there? I really can't understand. It is basically RPM for Windows which gives some bonus features like repair etc. to ordinary users but it is huge deal on enterprise.
ps: Same thing on OS X but we are kinda fine with Drag&Drop installs while it even matters at home sized networks. A .pkg would be way better. Anyway, no gigantic enterprise sized OS X networks around like the Windows ones.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah they will actually, most sites will use javascript to test for the ability to use them however.
Re:HTML 5 and Javascript (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
apparently being sure is a bit tough
Being sure before you load it is difficult. Being sure after is trivial. It might take longer for fail-over to happen if you have to try opening the video with a plugin and then handle failure only when it reports it, but it's still better than just displaying a non-working video UI.
One of the ideas of the video tag is that you should be able to nest them with different video formats and have the first supported one work, then fail-over to a flash video or Java applet video player if none of them work
Re:HTML 5 and Javascript (Score:4, Insightful)
Without installing any kind of plugin JavaScript is supported by virtually every modern desktop browser and a growing number of mobile browsers. Yes some websites use JavaScript to do annoying things like resize/move windows, but most browsers let you limit what a website is allowed to do.
Umm Flash on the other hand requires you to install a 3rd party plugin that may not work well (or at all) depending on what platform/browser you use.
IIRC the HTML 5 spec doesn't even say that JavaScript is "required" to play videos, it's just used for the UI.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But the (protected) content people want happens to be in Flash, and because of that specific ability, I am willing to bet that publishers will be reluctant to use anything as open as HTML5.
You can bet YouTube will. Chrome supports <video>, YouTube has test pages that use it, and for that matter the editor of HTML 5 is employed by Google. If <video> really is better, which it theoretically should be, other sites will be pushed to support it for feature parity and consistency with the biggest player out there.
Some people will still try using encumbered formats. There's no way to stop that. Some people serve images instead of HTML for the same reason. But <video> is a st
Er.... what??? (Score:2)
So you are disabling javascript, but allowing flash? That makes no sense whatsoever.
For one, I don't know of many sites whose flash applets will work properly without Javascript to initialize them. For two, flash has MUCH larger potential for security holes and exploits than Javascript, which does not even have write access to the filesystem in any way. One wrong buffer overflow in flash and the thing can actually WRITE to your hard drive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shrug. I block flash too, so what's the difference? Flash player is as big a potential security exploit as javascript.
Re: (Score:2)
Works for me (Score:2)
Running 3.0.11 here, print dialog defaults to a real printer, as it always has.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you checked that off in your default printer settings?
Re:I hope they fixed printing (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have seen that problem as well. Very annoying.
Another problem is that you can do print preview, and you can choose to print a selection... but you can't preview what will print if you print only the selection. This would be very useful when you want to make sure the selection will print as you expect, or if you want to scale the print to fit on a certain number of pages.
Even better, what if they made the print preview interactive? The user could cut out blocks they don't want to print, or select certain s
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that claim is technically true, but it hides the truth about how Firefox is really kept afloat.
The fox has waterwings on, he can't swim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that it wasn't just some nebulous group of hackers who made Firefox in their free time, like GNU or something. It was funded by a major business. And it's not like no one is making money off Firefox either.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is still open source. Not sure where hackers come into this. It accepts donations, which is not the same as funding.
And nonprofit does not mean they don'
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, the people who pay for Firefox to be developed (call this "fund" or "contribute" or whatever you like) are in return making a profit from Firefox. As a previous poster said, non-profitness is just a legal construct, but the author of TFA was implying that it was somehow "amazing" that a non-profit company captured 25% of the market share from the likes of Microsoft.
Re:Non-profit? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft may have billions of dollars, but I'd be interested to see how much of that went to the IE budget pre-Firefox. I tend to think not much, given the quality of IE6. Don't get me wrong, I love Firefox, and use it whenever I need to go to a site Elinks can't handle, but I don't think it's all that "amazing" that a project set up by Netscape and funded by Google could compete with a project that Microsoft had abandoned. Especially since the Opera devs probably worked in similar (or worse) conditions, and Opera has been better than Firefox for years. (TFA's author might claim that this is less amazing because Opera is for-profit, and I think that's silly.)
Re:Non-profit? (Score:4, Insightful)
All non-profits have to make enough money in one way or another to fund operations, after all people can't generally afford to work for free and suppliers expect compensation for their supplies. Google would be in a world of hurt if it clamped down on Mozilla as that would definitely trigger a swift DoJ investigation into anti-trust violations.
Re:Softpedia claims to have it already (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"A nonprofit foundation" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nonprofit" doesn't imply a lack of revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
"A nonprofit organization (abbreviated NPO, also not-for-profit) is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization [wikipedia.org]
Nonprofit does not mean "doesn't make any money".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to. The latest Release Candidate *IS* the final build.
Re:But...what happened to Beta 4? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Firefox project is funded by Google.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)