The other 90% can be contained with containers and temporary containers and tax suspendet
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2026
285 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
82329 readers
4371 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Figures, sorry.
I really don't remember the last time Firefox crashed on me and I've been using it for many years
Technically every that happens on a computer is a bit flip 😏
Unprovoked bitfllips then
Naughty bitflips 😏
I flip my bits looking at porn using FireFox and that shit almost never crashes 🤷♂️
Maybe it was too vanilla to crash. 🍨
What makes Firefox more susceptible to bitflips than any other software? Wouldn't that mean that 10% of all software crashes are caused by bitflips and it just depends what software you are running when that happens.
Programs that use more memory could be slightly more susceptible to this sort of thing because if a bit gets randomly flipped somewhere in a computer's memory, the bit flip more likely to happen in an application that has a larger ram footprint as opposed to an application with a small ram footprint.
I'm still surprised the percentage is this high.
This checks out with Linus Torvalds saying most OS crashes across linux AND windows are caused by hardware issues, and also why he uses ECC RAM.
Honestly yeah it's 100% checks out.
I have device that has ECC ram and I can keep it online and applications running for well over 18 months with no stability issues.
However, both my work computers and my personal computer start to become unstable after about 15 to 20 days. And degrade over the course of 1 to 2 years (with a considerable increase in the number of corrupt system files)
Firefox and chrome start to become unstable after usually a week if they have really high memory usage.
Can confirm, my linux server with ECC RAM has 1040 days of uptime now without a single issue.
I don't think they're arguing that Firefox is more susceptible to bit flips. They're trying to say that their software is "solid" enough that a significant number of the reported crashes are due to faulty hardware, which is essentially out of their control.
If other software used the same methodology, you could probably use the numbers to statistically compare how "solid" the code base is between the two programs. For example, if the other software found that 20% of their crashes were caused by bit flips, you could reasonably assume that the other software is built better because a smaller portion of their crashes is within their control.
load more comments
(1 replies)
No, the exact % depends on how stable everything else is.
Like a trivial example, if you have 3 programs, one that sets a pointer to a random address and tries to dereference it, one that does this but only if the last two digits of a timer it checks are "69", and one that never sets a pointer to an invalid address, based on the programs themselves, the first one will crash almost all the time, the second one will crash about 1% of the time, and the third one won't crash at all.
If you had a mechanism to perfectly detect bit flips (honestly, that part has me the most curious about the OP), and you ran each program until you had detected 5 bit flip crashes (let's say they happen 1 out of each 10k runs), then the first program will have something like a 0.01% chance of any given crash being due to bit flip, about 1% for the 2nd one, and 100% for the 3rd one (assuming no other issues like OS stability causing other crashes).
Going with those numbers I made up, every 10k "runs", you'd see 1 crash from bit flips and 9 crashes from other reasons. Or for every crash report they receive, 1 of 10 are bit flips, and 9 of 10 are "other". Well, more accurately, 1 of 20 for bit flip and 19 of 20 for other, due to the assumption that the detector only detects half of them, because they actually only measured 5%.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Firefox kept crashing on me a few days ago. Decided to run MemTest86 and sure enough. Bad RAM.
Ouch, my condolences to your wallet
Time to make a compromise by buying the cheapest €130 8GB stick.
Luckily for me, I was already running 64GB so now I’m down to 32GB. I can try to wait it out. -_- I don’t really need that much anyway, but I’m glad I had it when it was cheap
This is how dev humblebrag sounds like.
Our app is so stable only random hardware events like bitflips can crash it.
LOL, nah, Firefox isn't that stable. If 10% of crashes were caused by bad RAM, it means 90% were still caused by something else.
(My install regularly gets a memory leak that eventually makes my system unusable, BTW. I don't think it's necessarily the fault of Firefox itself -- more likely Javascript running in tabs, maybe interacting with an extension or something, and some of the blame goes to the kernel's poor handling of low memory conditions -- but it's definitely not "dev humblebrag stable" for me.)
10% of all crashes is definitively a brag. Crashes due to faulty hardware/bitflips is rare rare, generally I would expect that percentage to be less than 1% in any complex app
Well, that's unnerving.
How so?
Didn't it just highlight how stable the software is?
I assume bitflipping crashes most softwares. If your software is so stable that hardware errors that effect everyone equally(which may be my erroneous assumption I'll admit) then it is staying that if Firefox is crashing on you, it might be time to run some diagnosis on your hardware.
A litmus test as a browser
Fair question. I find it unnerving, because there's very little a software developer can meaningfully do if they cannot rely on the integrity of the hardware upon which their software is running, at least not without significant costs, and ultimately if the problem is bad enough even those would fail. This finding seems to indicate that a lot of hardware is much, much less reliable than I would have thought. I've written software for almost thirty years and across numerous platforms at this point, and the thought that I cannot assume a value stored in RAM to reliably retain it's value fills me with the kind of dread I wouldn't be able to explain to someone uninitiated without a major digression. Almost everything you do on any computing device - whether a server or a smart phone relies on the assumption of that kind of trust. And this seems to show that assumption is not merely flawed, but badly flawed.
Suppose you were a car mechanic confronted with a survey that 10 percent of cars were leaking breaking fluid - or fuel. That might illustrate how this makes me feel.
Hmm thanks, also please massively digress if you would like to.
I interpreted it like 10% is a lot if it's 10% of a million. That 100,000. So if there's a million things that crash Firefox that's a high number.
If Firefox only crashes 10 times a year because it runs that well, 10% or that 1 time it crashes from a bitflip is impressive that the rare bitflip takes up such a high percentage of total crashes because Firefox just doesn't crash very often.
If your dread is found to be justified that won't be too surprising, to me, if hardware is getting made less reliable these days thing. Enshitification being the norm, and tech being in everything nowadays
We obviously need more context from Mozilla, but this could be a canary in the mine type situation.
But it would be kind of neat if Firefox became something of a reliable test for bitflipping unintentionally
view more: next ›