<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Indistinguishable from Jesse</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.squarefree.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.squarefree.com</link>
	<description>Jesse Ruderman on Firefox, security, and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:56:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Secure and compatible by Jesse Ruderman</title>
		<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2011/08/25/secure-and-compatible/comment-page-1/#comment-12855</link>
		<dc:creator>Jesse Ruderman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 05:56:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squarefree.com/?p=752#comment-12855</guid>
		<description>Blake Winton has a counter-proposal at http://weblog.latte.ca/blake/employment/mozilla/thunderbird/updates . I still prefer mine, but I do like the idea of https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=548766 that was mentioned in his comments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Blake Winton has a counter-proposal at <a href="http://weblog.latte.ca/blake/employment/mozilla/thunderbird/updates" rel="nofollow">http://weblog.latte.ca/blake/employment/mozilla/thunderbird/updates</a> . I still prefer mine, but I do like the idea of <a href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=548766" rel="nofollow">https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=548766</a> that was mentioned in his comments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Rapid releases and crashes by Scott Kinney</title>
		<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2011/08/27/rapid-releases-and-crashes/comment-page-1/#comment-12705</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Kinney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 20:57:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squarefree.com/?p=762#comment-12705</guid>
		<description>My experiences to date with 6.0.1 and 6.0.2 are that it crashes multiple times per day. I admit a sample of one may not carry much weight, but the frequency of crashes since updating with the &#039;stability release&#039; is frustrating and annoying and the lack of attention is infuriating as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My experiences to date with 6.0.1 and 6.0.2 are that it crashes multiple times per day. I admit a sample of one may not carry much weight, but the frequency of crashes since updating with the &#8216;stability release&#8217; is frustrating and annoying and the lack of attention is infuriating as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Lessons from JS engine bugs by Benjamin Otte</title>
		<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2011/09/01/lessons-from-js-engine-bugs/comment-page-1/#comment-12324</link>
		<dc:creator>Benjamin Otte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:17:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squarefree.com/?p=791#comment-12324</guid>
		<description>About OOM fuzzing: The method that I have tried and found to be reasonably fast is to fork(), return NULL in the child and see if it terminates properly. The parent would continue without failures. (I wrote that up in http://blogs.gnome.org/otte/2007/11/03/robustness-testing/ but the links from there are all gone.) IIRC that method was something like 30x slower than normal execution of the program, but it at least was essentially O(runtime of original program).
Also, it gets tricky when your code writes to files/sockets, but for a JS engine you should be able to avoid that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>About OOM fuzzing: The method that I have tried and found to be reasonably fast is to fork(), return NULL in the child and see if it terminates properly. The parent would continue without failures. (I wrote that up in <a href="http://blogs.gnome.org/otte/2007/11/03/robustness-testing/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.gnome.org/otte/2007/11/03/robustness-testing/</a> but the links from there are all gone.) IIRC that method was something like 30x slower than normal execution of the program, but it at least was essentially O(runtime of original program).<br />
Also, it gets tricky when your code writes to files/sockets, but for a JS engine you should be able to avoid that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Secure and compatible by Jesse Ruderman</title>
		<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2011/08/25/secure-and-compatible/comment-page-1/#comment-12144</link>
		<dc:creator>Jesse Ruderman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 20:05:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squarefree.com/?p=752#comment-12144</guid>
		<description>There is now an &quot;addon-compat&quot; keyword in Bugzilla for changes that will affect add-on compatibility. Jorge will use it to compile lists at Aurora merge time.

http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_thread/thread/dafd0bc59b587e27</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is now an &#8220;addon-compat&#8221; keyword in Bugzilla for changes that will affect add-on compatibility. Jorge will use it to compile lists at Aurora merge time.</p>
<p><a href="http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_thread/thread/dafd0bc59b587e27" rel="nofollow">http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.planning/browse_thread/thread/dafd0bc59b587e27</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Improving intranet compatibility by IntranetLounge</title>
		<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2011/08/25/improving-intranet-compatibility/comment-page-1/#comment-12084</link>
		<dc:creator>IntranetLounge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:55:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squarefree.com/?p=755#comment-12084</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Improving intranet compatibility - Jesse Ruderman...&lt;/strong&gt;

This article has been submitted to IntranetLounge, a website with a collection of links to the best articles about intranets...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Improving intranet compatibility &#8211; Jesse Ruderman&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This article has been submitted to IntranetLounge, a website with a collection of links to the best articles about intranets&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Improving intranet compatibility by Steve Fink</title>
		<link>http://www.squarefree.com/2011/08/25/improving-intranet-compatibility/comment-page-1/#comment-12083</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Fink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 19:40:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.squarefree.com/?p=755#comment-12083</guid>
		<description>A &quot;me too&quot; comment -- these posts are great! They should really be mandatory reading for anyone wishing to contribute to the rapid-release fallout discussion, because you&#039;re doing a great job of deflating myths while still highlighting the very real problems. That discussion so far has been overwhelmed by noise -- people with mistaken assumptions (&quot;everything used to be perfect, why did you screw it up?&quot; &quot;Mozilla thinks they totally have everything under control so I&#039;d better yell loudly!&quot;), people correcting other&#039;s mistaken assumptions, etc. There&#039;s a lot of signal, too, but it&#039;s drowned in all the posturing and repetitive rehashing of old arguments and counters.

I, at least, intend to start pointing to your blog posts as a way to get up to speed on the real state of things. Thanks!

Jesse++</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A &#8220;me too&#8221; comment &#8212; these posts are great! They should really be mandatory reading for anyone wishing to contribute to the rapid-release fallout discussion, because you&#8217;re doing a great job of deflating myths while still highlighting the very real problems. That discussion so far has been overwhelmed by noise &#8212; people with mistaken assumptions (&#8220;everything used to be perfect, why did you screw it up?&#8221; &#8220;Mozilla thinks they totally have everything under control so I&#8217;d better yell loudly!&#8221;), people correcting other&#8217;s mistaken assumptions, etc. There&#8217;s a lot of signal, too, but it&#8217;s drowned in all the posturing and repetitive rehashing of old arguments and counters.</p>
<p>I, at least, intend to start pointing to your blog posts as a way to get up to speed on the real state of things. Thanks!</p>
<p>Jesse++</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

