4 ms·
>All for user's convenience, so they can switch to Chrome, Edge or Opera. Nah, it's the other way(s) around - it's for [longterm] developer convenience; so use
by JBiserkov 9y ago
>All for user's convenience, so they can switch to Chrome, Edge or Opera.
Nah, it's the other way(s) around - it's for [longterm] developer convenience; so users don't have to switch to another browser because an add-on they need isn't available in FF.
- drdaeman 9y agoThis too, but to the lesser extent. That's because Firefox had much more powerful extension system than other browsers.
- 51Cards 9y agoUnfortunately I don't think so. The only draw keeping FF alive for years has been its extension system. They gave up the unique UI flexibility, now they are giving up the flexible extensions. When Google makes it so easy to find and install Chrome everywhere, and sync it with your mobile device, now that the extensions world will be on "par" FF is even less distinct than it was and thus less reason to use it. This is the beginning of Firefox's final dive. In a few more releases I really won't have any concrete reason to recommend FF over Chrome anymore (and no, 99% of users outside of this forum don't care about memory usage and keeping 100 tabs open at the same time)