5 ms·

Seriously. They're behind in speed, security, quality of the developer tools etc. and introduce new useless toy features and one re-design after the other. I a

Seriously. They're behind in speed, security, quality of the developer tools etc. and introduce new useless toy features and one re-design after the other. I appreciate a lot of stuff Mozilla do outside the browser for the open internet, but the development of Firefox is pretty bad and it looks like the project leaders are incompetent. Firefox is a sad example of how a successful software can be overtaken by a new competitor within only a few years due to a lack of focus.

syrrim 9y ago
>due to a lack of focus. And due to their competitors ability to advertise on the majority of people's home page. For most people, chrome wasn't a firefox alternative, it was an internet explorer alternative.
- yAnonymous 9y ago
  I'd like to know how much of an impact that had, but nonetheless Chrome is technically in many areas the best browser today and Mozilla, being the clear market leader at one point, could have done a lot more to prevent that. Firefox was in need of technical improvements for some time, but they only started acting when Chrome already had a noticeable market share and that's not how you stay at the top.
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  I would buy that if FF would be technically the best or most secure browser. But for a very long it hasn't been.
alex_duf 9y ago
For every 100 experiment maybe one will be fruitful. No one is criticising Mozilla for coming up with Rust, yet if they didn't take the time to experiment Rust wouldn't be around. So yeah, good on them, I'm happy for them to try voice recognition and other endeavours, who knows what they might discover?
- dmitriid 9y ago
  Rust, at least, had a clear design goal.
- yAnonymous 9y ago
  Rust is a technical improvement, so it's exactly what many users are asking. >who knows what they might discover? They'll discover, just like Opera, that an abundance of useless features doesn't make up for a browser that is lacking speed, security, a clear design, ease-of-use and configurability.
Vinnl 9y ago
> speed, security, quality of the developer tools Coincidentally, all of the examples you mention have been a major focus for far more people within Mozilla than their experiments are, and improvements in these areas have really been noticeable if you've been using Firefox lately.
- yAnonymous 9y ago
  Yes, but these changes take time and they only started working on them when users started leaving for Chrome. Like many others, I used Firefox for a long time despite it being technically inferior to Chrome, but at some point you say 'fuck it' and make the change. Mozilla, given their market share, should have been first to offer 64-bit support, separate processes for tabs, sand-boxing and a lot of other stuff, but they've been asleep, because for a long time there was no strong competitor.
  - Vinnl 9y ago
    Those are accurate comments about Mozilla in the past, but you can't say development currently is bad when they're working exactly on what you say they should be working on (and some other things).

syrrim 9y ago

>due to a lack of focus. And due to their competitors ability to advertise on the majority of people's home page. For most people, chrome wasn't a firefox alternative, it was an internet explorer alternative.

yAnonymous 9y ago
I'd like to know how much of an impact that had, but nonetheless Chrome is technically in many areas the best browser today and Mozilla, being the clear market leader at one point, could have done a lot more to prevent that. Firefox was in need of technical improvements for some time, but they only started acting when Chrome already had a noticeable market share and that's not how you stay at the top.
_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
I would buy that if FF would be technically the best or most secure browser. But for a very long it hasn't been.

alex_duf 9y ago

For every 100 experiment maybe one will be fruitful. No one is criticising Mozilla for coming up with Rust, yet if they didn't take the time to experiment Rust wouldn't be around. So yeah, good on them, I'm happy for them to try voice recognition and other endeavours, who knows what they might discover?

dmitriid 9y ago
Rust, at least, had a clear design goal.
yAnonymous 9y ago
Rust is a technical improvement, so it's exactly what many users are asking. >who knows what they might discover? They'll discover, just like Opera, that an abundance of useless features doesn't make up for a browser that is lacking speed, security, a clear design, ease-of-use and configurability.

Vinnl 9y ago

> speed, security, quality of the developer tools Coincidentally, all of the examples you mention have been a major focus for far more people within Mozilla than their experiments are, and improvements in these areas have really been noticeable if you've been using Firefox lately.

yAnonymous 9y ago
Yes, but these changes take time and they only started working on them when users started leaving for Chrome. Like many others, I used Firefox for a long time despite it being technically inferior to Chrome, but at some point you say 'fuck it' and make the change. Mozilla, given their market share, should have been first to offer 64-bit support, separate processes for tabs, sand-boxing and a lot of other stuff, but they've been asleep, because for a long time there was no strong competitor.
- Vinnl 9y ago
  Those are accurate comments about Mozilla in the past, but you can't say development currently is bad when they're working exactly on what you say they should be working on (and some other things).