5 ms·

I disagree. Most "normal" users who used Firefox before Chrome came around are savvy enough to understand that software improves and evolves. There's no doubt

I disagree. Most "normal" users who used Firefox before Chrome came around are savvy enough to understand that software improves and evolves. There's no doubt that Chrome gave Firefox a much-needed shot in the arm. Many developers/advanced users, including myself, see Firefox as a bastion of freedom in what is otherwise a land grab by major OS vendors, an attempt to further increase their lock-in. Users remember Firefox as the browser that was so flexible, Firebug was possible, which sent every browser vendor into a tizzy to try to clone the featureset natively. Users remember Firefox as the browser that gives them control over their experience, unlike Chrome which babysits and won't let you interfere with Google's need to harvest data. The first 2 years that Chrome was out, it trounced Firefox all around. I switched back to Fx around that time. These days, Firefox's JavaScript performance is comparable if not better than Chrome's [0] and its extension ecosystem and extreme configurability make it a much better option than Chrome for me. The only reason I use Chrome now is to take advantage of the proprietary extensions that allow me to use Netflix or Flash on Linux. Mozilla has always and will always be a tinkerer's vendor. These people are not going to be offended when reasonable experiments are conducted, nor when reasonable experiments fail, as Firefox OS did. The biggest grudge I hold against Mozilla is really more about the community than the company itself, and that's the Brendan Eich debacle. [0] http://arewefastyet.com/ http://arewefastyet.com/

Karunamon 11y ago
Users remember Firefox as the browser that gives them control over their experience Power users, or users? Among the crowd here, sure. But in the rest of the world? unlike Chrome which babysits and won't let you interfere with Google's need to harvest data. Firefox has been getting more and more nannyish and chromelike with every release. * There's the "let's throw out semantic versioning since Chrome already did it" * There's the UI rework which sacrificed information density and usability for what I evaluate as a weak attempt to look more like Chrome. * There's the "thou shalt not install plugins from places other than we say is okay" rule that was recently implemented - which Chrome did first. * There's the upcoming "all your plugins are going to break, many permanently" when XUL gets thrown out and the new hotness won't have feature parity at release (in other words, Firefox plugins will be as limited as Chrome plugins)
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Version numbers and menu placement have nothing to do with being "nannyish" or data collection. Can you name three good plugins? Removing an insecure legacy tech is not a big problem when the extension API is right there.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    I said more nannyish AND chromelike. Three good plugins? Have nine. Here's my plugin load right now: * uBlock * Privacy Badger * HTTPS Everywhere * Calomel SSL Validation * FoxReplace * Vimperator (which used to be Pentadactyl before Mozilla decided that I can't use it anymore[1]) * Noscript * DevEdition theme enabler * 1Password And please spare me the "insecure legacy tech" argument. The new plugin architecture explicitly can't do things that the existing plugins can, per Mozilla's own words[2]. And also per Mozilla's own words, the new architecture takes after Chrome. if I wanted to use Chrome and have its limitations, I'd fucking use Chrome. And I have zero faith that they will fix those limitations by launch time either. seeing as how their attitude towards adding features nobody wants (Pocket, Hello, Australis) or removing features people actually want (installing whatever plugins I damn well please without a nann^H^H^H^H approval process, accessing sites with broken certs) up until now has been to ignore all feedback and just do it anyways. [1]: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZVvYtKUsAAtMl7.png:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZVvYtKUsAAtMl7.png:large [2]: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-dev...
    - pcwalton 11y ago
      XUL is insecure legacy tech. There isn't a coherent argument otherwise: XUL is insecure in that it gives addons all the power of the browser, and XUL is legacy, unspecified, single-implementation-wedded XML stuff from the '90s whose functionality has been entirely superseded by HTML at this point. The idea that nothing can be insecure and legacy unless the new alternatives support absolutely everything the old technology did is absurd: that would prevent us from calling DOS "obsolete and legacy" because apps running in ring 0 can do things that apps running in ring 3 can't. XUL may well be insecure legacy tech that performs a useful task for you, and that's why care is being taken to make sure the important extensions continue to work in the new Web Extensions world.

Karunamon 11y ago

Users remember Firefox as the browser that gives them control over their experience Power users, or users? Among the crowd here, sure. But in the rest of the world? unlike Chrome which babysits and won't let you interfere with Google's need to harvest data. Firefox has been getting more and more nannyish and chromelike with every release. * There's the "let's throw out semantic versioning since Chrome already did it" * There's the UI rework which sacrificed information density and usability for what I evaluate as a weak attempt to look more like Chrome. * There's the "thou shalt not install plugins from places other than we say is okay" rule that was recently implemented - which Chrome did first. * There's the upcoming "all your plugins are going to break, many permanently" when XUL gets thrown out and the new hotness won't have feature parity at release (in other words, Firefox plugins will be as limited as Chrome plugins)

Dylan16807 11y ago
Version numbers and menu placement have nothing to do with being "nannyish" or data collection. Can you name three good plugins? Removing an insecure legacy tech is not a big problem when the extension API is right there.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  I said more nannyish AND chromelike. Three good plugins? Have nine. Here's my plugin load right now: * uBlock * Privacy Badger * HTTPS Everywhere * Calomel SSL Validation * FoxReplace * Vimperator (which used to be Pentadactyl before Mozilla decided that I can't use it anymore[1]) * Noscript * DevEdition theme enabler * 1Password And please spare me the "insecure legacy tech" argument. The new plugin architecture explicitly can't do things that the existing plugins can, per Mozilla's own words[2]. And also per Mozilla's own words, the new architecture takes after Chrome. if I wanted to use Chrome and have its limitations, I'd fucking use Chrome. And I have zero faith that they will fix those limitations by launch time either. seeing as how their attitude towards adding features nobody wants (Pocket, Hello, Australis) or removing features people actually want (installing whatever plugins I damn well please without a nann^H^H^H^H approval process, accessing sites with broken certs) up until now has been to ignore all feedback and just do it anyways. [1]: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZVvYtKUsAAtMl7.png:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CZVvYtKUsAAtMl7.png:large [2]: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-dev...
  - pcwalton 11y ago
    XUL is insecure legacy tech. There isn't a coherent argument otherwise: XUL is insecure in that it gives addons all the power of the browser, and XUL is legacy, unspecified, single-implementation-wedded XML stuff from the '90s whose functionality has been entirely superseded by HTML at this point. The idea that nothing can be insecure and legacy unless the new alternatives support absolutely everything the old technology did is absurd: that would prevent us from calling DOS "obsolete and legacy" because apps running in ring 0 can do things that apps running in ring 3 can't. XUL may well be insecure legacy tech that performs a useful task for you, and that's why care is being taken to make sure the important extensions continue to work in the new Web Extensions world.