4 ms·

>Their current userbase is mostly less-tech-savvy people Really? I thought it was the complete opposite, as it's the free software browser (chromium/chrome are

by sandov 8y ago

>Their current userbase is mostly less-tech-savvy people Really? I thought it was the complete opposite, as it's the free software browser (chromium/chrome aren't really free in spirit because they are too closely related to Google), and the standard browser on Linux.

superkuh 8y ago
Weather or not it is true Mozilla only cares about the less-tech-savvy userbase now. Just look at what they've done with Firefox instead of what they say.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  It’s fast and works well?
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    Except it isn't and it doesn't. Extensions are still limited in countless little ways many months after the Quantum release. Every one of them makes the browser a bit worse than it was before. The claims about making extensions safer and more reliable have proven to be optimistic, with a string of problems around both instability and privacy since the big change. More generally, I come across sites that don't work properly with Firefox several times a week these days. Chrome is the new "This site displays best at 800x600 in Netscape Navigator" and Firefox's market share has fallen so low that a lot of web developers simply don't test with it properly any more. Maybe this isn't Mozilla's fault, but realistically it is still their problem. As for speed, while some people seem to find Quantum a big improvement in speed, it hasn't made Firefox noticeably faster than other major browsers for most day-to-day use. I want to like Firefox. It was my primary browser for years, thanks to a combination of flexibility through add-ons, being relatively good for privacy and security, and having relatively good developer tools (all of these being somewhat related). But as someone who uses all the major browsers professionally, I can only assume that the leadership at Mozilla have chosen a strategy of trying to out-Chrome Chrome, and that is going about as well as anyone more objective might expect while still giving up almost everything that was a natural strength for Firefox before.
  - superkuh 8y ago
    Yes! That's half of it. They've made it really fast for running JS web apps and safe for people who don't know not to do dangerous things. The other have is removing functionality like the user customization of XUL and jetpack style extensions (killing off a giant ecosystem that has yet to recover). And there's also the anti-freedom (pro-security) changes like the removal of the ability to install (or modify) your own extensions without Mozilla's approval and signing. And no, using a beta (developer/etc) manually installed does not count.
- ilikehurdles 8y ago
  This is total FUD. What about developer edition? WebIDE? The grid tool works great, the network tab has been better than chrome’s for at least as long as I can remember; and unlike Chrome, I don’t have to sideload add-ons that challenge Google’s business model (AdNauseam for instance). You’ve said a lot in your comments but it’s hard to figure out what specifically you’re referring to in any complaint.
MikusR 8y ago
Firefox is used by people that had it installed by friends/family/techsupport in place of IE. With exception where Google has managed to scam Chrome on them.
- hrktb 8y ago
  That’s the narrative of a decade ago. Those people got switched to chrome in the meantime (most of these 2000 era computers are long dead now). Actually replacing these machines with Chromebboks is a often heard advice now. Since a year or two Firefox was actually good while Chrome stagnated, and use cases for multiple browsers also flourished (ex: keeping a “facebook browser”, or splitting google accounts between browsers). I’d expect heavy computer users to be more sensible to these merits.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Even if that's the case the point still stands: you market yourself to the friends/family/tech support, i.e. tech-savvy people.

by sandov 8y ago

superkuh 8y ago

Weather or not it is true Mozilla only cares about the less-tech-savvy userbase now. Just look at what they've done with Firefox instead of what they say.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
It’s fast and works well?
- Silhouette 8y ago
  Except it isn't and it doesn't. Extensions are still limited in countless little ways many months after the Quantum release. Every one of them makes the browser a bit worse than it was before. The claims about making extensions safer and more reliable have proven to be optimistic, with a string of problems around both instability and privacy since the big change. More generally, I come across sites that don't work properly with Firefox several times a week these days. Chrome is the new "This site displays best at 800x600 in Netscape Navigator" and Firefox's market share has fallen so low that a lot of web developers simply don't test with it properly any more. Maybe this isn't Mozilla's fault, but realistically it is still their problem. As for speed, while some people seem to find Quantum a big improvement in speed, it hasn't made Firefox noticeably faster than other major browsers for most day-to-day use. I want to like Firefox. It was my primary browser for years, thanks to a combination of flexibility through add-ons, being relatively good for privacy and security, and having relatively good developer tools (all of these being somewhat related). But as someone who uses all the major browsers professionally, I can only assume that the leadership at Mozilla have chosen a strategy of trying to out-Chrome Chrome, and that is going about as well as anyone more objective might expect while still giving up almost everything that was a natural strength for Firefox before.
- superkuh 8y ago
  Yes! That's half of it. They've made it really fast for running JS web apps and safe for people who don't know not to do dangerous things. The other have is removing functionality like the user customization of XUL and jetpack style extensions (killing off a giant ecosystem that has yet to recover). And there's also the anti-freedom (pro-security) changes like the removal of the ability to install (or modify) your own extensions without Mozilla's approval and signing. And no, using a beta (developer/etc) manually installed does not count.
ilikehurdles 8y ago
This is total FUD. What about developer edition? WebIDE? The grid tool works great, the network tab has been better than chrome’s for at least as long as I can remember; and unlike Chrome, I don’t have to sideload add-ons that challenge Google’s business model (AdNauseam for instance). You’ve said a lot in your comments but it’s hard to figure out what specifically you’re referring to in any complaint.

MikusR 8y ago

Firefox is used by people that had it installed by friends/family/techsupport in place of IE. With exception where Google has managed to scam Chrome on them.

hrktb 8y ago
That’s the narrative of a decade ago. Those people got switched to chrome in the meantime (most of these 2000 era computers are long dead now). Actually replacing these machines with Chromebboks is a often heard advice now. Since a year or two Firefox was actually good while Chrome stagnated, and use cases for multiple browsers also flourished (ex: keeping a “facebook browser”, or splitting google accounts between browsers). I’d expect heavy computer users to be more sensible to these merits.
Vinnl 8y ago
Even if that's the case the point still stands: you market yourself to the friends/family/tech support, i.e. tech-savvy people.