7 ms·
> It baffles me that some people thinks Firefox is becoming a “Chrome clone”, it’s just not the case, it’s just plain silly to make such statement. That's prob
by AdmiralAsshat 9y ago
> It baffles me that some people thinks Firefox is becoming a “Chrome clone”, it’s just not the case, it’s just plain silly to make such statement.
That's probably the single most reassuring statement about Firefox that I've heard in some time, coming from a serious dev who makes a popular cross-platform addon for both Firefox and Chrome.
- homero 9y agoWhat do you think of Opera becoming Chrome?
- msla 9y agoI don't know. I haven't used Opera since the 1990s. I fully expect most people will share my view.
- abritinthebay 9y agomost people will say "What's Opera?"
- msla 9y agoKill da wabbit, kill da wabbit!
- nvr219 9y agoMan I remember when Opera was THE one to use
- unexistance 9y agodoes not matter, happily 'stuck' using 12.x series :D
- mtgx 9y agoI think I preferred it, but what killed Opera for me was being bought by a Chinese company + seeing what that company did to Opera Max (which I thought was a "killer app" before the acquisition).
- gsnedders 9y ago> seeing what that company did to Opera Max (which I thought was a "killer app" before the acquisition) What did they do?
- Piskvorrr 9y agoIt never did - Opera was killed just after Kestrel, and a new Chrome clone was slapped with the logo and name. There is no Opera, and hasn't been for some time.
- gsnedders 9y agoOpera was killed just after 9.6? I thought it survived till Wahoo.
- NewEntryHN 9y agoI think as an extension developer he is particularly sensitive to the tech behind Firefox, which makes him understand some of Mozilla's decisions. For example, the move from legacy add-ons to WebExtensions is surely one less maintenance burden for Mozilla. As a user who doesn't think about such issues, it terribly looks like it's becoming a Chrome clone. I think it's Mozilla's responsibility to have a clearer communication if that's not the case.
- Paul-ish 9y agoAlso, the move to WebExtensions is a move to a more secure extension model. Traditional XUL extensions were comparable to the extension developer compiling their own code into the browser. Yikes. WebExtensions should be better sandboxed and have better permissions management. You can't get those security benefits if you allow older XUL extensions to stick around. You have to sunset XUL extension at some point.
- Karunamon 9y agoTo be perfectly honest I'm not at all interested in "better permissions" for plugins when it comes with the removal of flexibility that you get for free. If I've got plugin-installing malware on my system, I've got worse problems than a rogue plugin. Give me more useful over more secure any day of the week.
- smkdtr 9y agoAs someone worried about security; I hope that is not the majority opinion.
- Silhouette 9y agoIt's not entirely unreasonable. We use software because it's useful. If you make it so secure that it is no longer useful, what have you got left? In the case of Firefox extensions, I'm aware of the risks of the old model, but the fact is that the only observable difference it has made to me so far is that when I accidentally hit back on a page with an unsubmitted form the other day I lost about 20 minutes' worth of work, because the extension I used to use that would have saved everything automatically no longer works. This is not progress.
- BuuQu9hu 9y agoThat's because he doesn't understand the sentiment people are conveying when they say "Chrome clone". Very few mean "Firefox is literally becoming the same as Chrome". They mean that Mozilla has begun following the same design philosophy as Google: 1) limit the ability to change the browser behavior and interface 2) over-simplify the default interface
- f4rker 9y agoFF is going to fail because they lost focus. If they want to survive they need to fold into Chrome, immediately. FF will not be around in 7 years.