Why is Firefox such a beast??

[Beartooth]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:02:53 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:43:28 +0000 (UTC) Beartooth <Beartooth at swva.net>
> wrote:
	[....] 
>> 	What else am I supposed to call them, instead of what Firefox
>> itself calls them??
> 
> I would call it updating a Firefox add-on or extension.  Which is a
> completely different issue than updating Firefox.

	Well, I wish I had guessed that at the outset.

> Here, by the way, probably lies your problem.  Your original issue was
> long start-up times and instability.  If you're really loading that many
> extensions and add-ons into Firefox, that's the reason.  The higher you
> pile the load on the wagon, the harder it is to pull and the more likely
> it is that something will fall off.

	All right, at least, at last, we get down to it. What is a 
reasonable number of extensions to run? I.e., a number that will still 
keep Firefox fast and stable? And are all extensions equal, in the loads 
they add, whether to speed or to stability? (I doubt that, come to think 
of it.) Is there any way to identify, or even guess, which ones are prime 
candidates for jettisoning?

-- 
Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert
Remember I know precious little of what I am talking about.