4 ms·

Firefox is a standards-conforming web browser. If some nincompoop puts a web page out there and my browser can't render it, I'm not going back. I make an exce

Firefox is a standards-conforming web browser. If some nincompoop puts a web page out there and my browser can't render it, I'm not going back. I make an exception for restaurant websites, because I want to see the menu and they all seem to have been defrauded by the same bad designer.

twostoned 9y ago
It was me. I made a fortune.
Qwertie 9y ago
The comments said that the reason the page doesn't work on firefox is they detect the user agent for firefox and don't load the css if its found.
- taneq 9y ago
  Could this finally be the end of every user-agent string starting with Mozilla/?
  - foobarchu 9y ago
    No, because the parent comment here is incorrect. They stated that they are using feature detection, and specifically mention user-agent as something they don't use.
    - computerfriend 9y ago
      The above comment was a joke about user agent strings.
DanWaterworth 9y ago
The rule of thumb for restaurants is the poorer the website, the better the food. Restaurants with Flash-only pages that haven't been updated for 15 years are the best. Also, the cleaner the bathrooms, the cleaner the kitchen.
- taneq 9y ago
  That's why I only go to restaurants whose website is a menu dropped in my letter box every couple of months.
- xori 9y ago
  > The rule of thumb for restaurants is the poorer the website, the better the food. While I think this is a stupid rule, I can't deny that for my top 10 restaurants it's true.
drb91 9y ago
Hell, in the short term, this could improve the internet for Firefox users.
chrisseaton 9y ago
> Firefox is a standards-conforming web browser. If some nincompoop puts a web page out there and my browser can't render it, I'm not going back. Well... yeah... that's the point of what they're doing.
- sevensor 9y ago
  I don't think it is. I don't use ad blockers, but I also don't come back to websites where I've had a bad experience. If you do something hostile, like auto-play video, I'm gone and I'm not coming back. It makes for a fairly serene web browsing experience.
  - chrisseaton 9y ago
    It literally says > Manager says that we should just discourage the users of Firefox (not optimizing for Firefox, and poor UI) from visiting our website as they bring a loss.
    - sevensor 9y ago
      Ah, right you are. That's what I get for skimming. I suppose this is the same strategy as using all caps in 419 emails. Savvy users are a waste of effort, better to chase them off early.
    - Sylos 9y ago
      How can they actively bring a loss, though? Does the power and bandwidth needed to have the server serve Firefox users cost more than Firefox users bring in over all?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
ravenstine 9y ago
I also intend on quitting web development if the web turns into a big DRM mess. Life's too short to conform to all the wants of ad tech and IP lawyers.

twostoned 9y ago

It was me. I made a fortune.

Qwertie 9y ago

The comments said that the reason the page doesn't work on firefox is they detect the user agent for firefox and don't load the css if its found.

taneq 9y ago
Could this finally be the end of every user-agent string starting with Mozilla/?
- foobarchu 9y ago
  No, because the parent comment here is incorrect. They stated that they are using feature detection, and specifically mention user-agent as something they don't use.
  - computerfriend 9y ago
    The above comment was a joke about user agent strings.

DanWaterworth 9y ago

The rule of thumb for restaurants is the poorer the website, the better the food. Restaurants with Flash-only pages that haven't been updated for 15 years are the best. Also, the cleaner the bathrooms, the cleaner the kitchen.

taneq 9y ago
That's why I only go to restaurants whose website is a menu dropped in my letter box every couple of months.
xori 9y ago
> The rule of thumb for restaurants is the poorer the website, the better the food. While I think this is a stupid rule, I can't deny that for my top 10 restaurants it's true.

drb91 9y ago

Hell, in the short term, this could improve the internet for Firefox users.

chrisseaton 9y ago

> Firefox is a standards-conforming web browser. If some nincompoop puts a web page out there and my browser can't render it, I'm not going back. Well... yeah... that's the point of what they're doing.

sevensor 9y ago
I don't think it is. I don't use ad blockers, but I also don't come back to websites where I've had a bad experience. If you do something hostile, like auto-play video, I'm gone and I'm not coming back. It makes for a fairly serene web browsing experience.
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  It literally says > Manager says that we should just discourage the users of Firefox (not optimizing for Firefox, and poor UI) from visiting our website as they bring a loss.
  - sevensor 9y ago
    Ah, right you are. That's what I get for skimming. I suppose this is the same strategy as using all caps in 419 emails. Savvy users are a waste of effort, better to chase them off early.
  - Sylos 9y ago
    How can they actively bring a loss, though? Does the power and bandwidth needed to have the server serve Firefox users cost more than Firefox users bring in over all?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

ravenstine 9y ago

I also intend on quitting web development if the web turns into a big DRM mess. Life's too short to conform to all the wants of ad tech and IP lawyers.