3 ms·

The main reason they plan to break all old plugins are because of performance issues. They will probably lose some users, but they might gain others if they mak

The main reason they plan to break all old plugins are because of performance issues. They will probably lose some users, but they might gain others if they make Firefox sufficiently smoother and/or less memory hungry than Chrome. I use several plugins that won't work and I'm not happy about it at all, but what's the alternative?

Karunamon 9y ago
Chrome. Mozilla's basically asking their user base to use a worse browser for some amount of time, during which they will have absolutely no tangible benefits over Chrome. They're not faster right now (judging by nightlies), they won't be faster on day one. Firefox's current advantage is its addon system. It's losing a lot of functionality there. Once that goes away, what's left? And is that "what's left" better than the competition?
- bbatha 9y ago
  I find firefoxs performance to beat chrome. While it's true Firefox lags slightly behind chrome in benchmarks, it also uses about a quarter of the RAM as chrome and electrolysis has fixed most of the hang problems I have. Why would I want something imperceptibly faster that makes every other app on my machine slower. And even with the nerfed addon system it's not like all the addons are going away, though some really popular ones will. RIP tab groups. Then there's the soft arguments, chrome is designed to share my data with google and isn't fully FOSS, etc.
- sorenjan 9y ago
  Chrome doesn't support more than web extensions either, and I think Firefox have other benefits over Chrome. One is that it isn't from Google, another is that I don't like how Chrome seems to have become the new de facto standard browser. The first site I found when searching just now has Chrome usage at 61.2% and Firefox at 6.3% [0]. I don't like monopolies, so I won't switch to Chrome. I've also used Firefox since before it was called Firefox, so there's a certain amount of sentimentality and brand loyalty, even though I certainly don't agree with every decision they make. [0] https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
- JohnTHaller 9y ago
  A clean Firefox install with Electrolysis enabled will get similar performance to Chrome for most folks these days. And you're using a browser that's more customizable even without legacy addons than Chrome is. One advantage non-speed for many people is that it's not written by a company with a vested interest in ensuring you see advertisements and use their search engine. This can turn into technical and user experience advantages, too. As an example, Firefox on Android can use uBlock or AdBlock Plus to block ads. Chrome on Android can't.

Karunamon 9y ago

Chrome. Mozilla's basically asking their user base to use a worse browser for some amount of time, during which they will have absolutely no tangible benefits over Chrome. They're not faster right now (judging by nightlies), they won't be faster on day one. Firefox's current advantage is its addon system. It's losing a lot of functionality there. Once that goes away, what's left? And is that "what's left" better than the competition?

bbatha 9y ago
I find firefoxs performance to beat chrome. While it's true Firefox lags slightly behind chrome in benchmarks, it also uses about a quarter of the RAM as chrome and electrolysis has fixed most of the hang problems I have. Why would I want something imperceptibly faster that makes every other app on my machine slower. And even with the nerfed addon system it's not like all the addons are going away, though some really popular ones will. RIP tab groups. Then there's the soft arguments, chrome is designed to share my data with google and isn't fully FOSS, etc.
sorenjan 9y ago
Chrome doesn't support more than web extensions either, and I think Firefox have other benefits over Chrome. One is that it isn't from Google, another is that I don't like how Chrome seems to have become the new de facto standard browser. The first site I found when searching just now has Chrome usage at 61.2% and Firefox at 6.3% [0]. I don't like monopolies, so I won't switch to Chrome. I've also used Firefox since before it was called Firefox, so there's a certain amount of sentimentality and brand loyalty, even though I certainly don't agree with every decision they make. [0] https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
JohnTHaller 9y ago
A clean Firefox install with Electrolysis enabled will get similar performance to Chrome for most folks these days. And you're using a browser that's more customizable even without legacy addons than Chrome is. One advantage non-speed for many people is that it's not written by a company with a vested interest in ensuring you see advertisements and use their search engine. This can turn into technical and user experience advantages, too. As an example, Firefox on Android can use uBlock or AdBlock Plus to block ads. Chrome on Android can't.