Comments on: Why Wikipedia might need a fail-pet — and why Mozilla does not

By: Fail-Hampster? | fredericiana

Fail-Hampster? | fredericiana — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:40:57 +0000

[...] by Twitter’s fail whale, more and more Web 2.0 companies feel the necessity to add a fail-pet to their “OMG” error [...]

By: ahmed707

ahmed707 — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:46:00 +0000

How about naming and shaming plug-ins that crash per-process tabs (that I assume will come in Firefox 4..) ?

By: Is Twitter down? | fredericiana

Is Twitter down? | fredericiana — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:48:51 +0000

[...] fact, it is “too down” even to display the fail-whale. I’ve not seen that [...]

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 06:50:25 +0000

@john: That would be a good idea, I think. Not even only to “blame” the right component, but also because it helps fix the problem. If a user’s Flash plugin frequently crashes, they might consider upgrading it, for example.

By: John Drinkwater

John Drinkwater — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:54:28 +0000

How about naming and shaming plug-ins that crash per-process tabs (that I assume will come in Firefox 4..) ?
Colourise the page background for type (plugin, gecko, jit, etc), stick a big icon of the offender in the middle, and say ‘oops, %1% crashed again!’

By: mitcho

mitcho — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:58:05 +0000

I personally really like the 404 page on the new npr.org:

http://www.npr.org/apagethatdoesntexist

although it doesn’t apply to Mozilla’s case.

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:13:30 +0000

Thanks, mrz, I think I have seen it once — which arguably speaks for Mozilla’s IT department Also, I think it kind of proves my point. In spite of the dino head on the hardhat. Do you disagree?

By: mrz

mrz — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:07:52 +0000

Have you seen http://status.mozilla.com/en-US/outages.html ? That’s the page that gets displayed if a site fails.