3 ms·

This makes sense to me. There are over 10,000 open bugs on Core and over 10,000 open bugs on Firefox, not to mention Dev tools and mobile versions. If switchin

This makes sense to me. There are over 10,000 open bugs on Core and over 10,000 open bugs on Firefox, not to mention Dev tools and mobile versions. If switching to Chromium, Mozilla could focus on * standards * Mozilla accounts integration instead of Google (including extensions store) * important features such as enabling extensions on mobile

smt88 8y ago
1) Standards are meaningless if there is effectively one rendering engine. 2) Why would Mozilla want to mimick Google’s account integrations? I switched to FF and miss nothing about Google accounts. 3) Firefox extensions already work on Android. Do they not on iOS? FF and all other browsers are just Safari on iOS due to Apple restrictions, so maybe extension support is impossible.
- mariushn 8y ago
  > 3) Firefox extensions already work on Android. True. Chrome doesn't support extensions on mobile though, hence the proposal that Mozilla could implement that.
  - smt88 8y ago
    So you're arguing that Mozilla should stop developing FF so that they can improve an inferior, competing product? That still makes no sense for either Mozilla or us. Just use FF on mobile.
mruts 8y ago
I’m not sure open bugs is a metric that anyone cares about.
stephenr 8y ago
> There are over 10,000 open bugs on Core and over 10,000 open bugs on Firefox According to https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list, there are 60K+ open issues against Chromium, so maybe Google should drop it in favour of Mozilla's engine then?
TheOperator 8y ago
Standards are dead the moment there is one rendering engine. It doesn't matter what W3C says it only matters whst Chromium does. That was the status quo we had with IE6. That's the point of having multiple browsers. You took one of the strongest arguments against a browser engine monoculture and made it into an argument in favour of browser monoculture? We've ALREADY HAD browser monoculture and it resultee in the death of standards.
- mariushn 8y ago
  My thinking was that Mozilla could have a significant market share (30%+) through a better browser, therefore having a say in standards. It would also implement and adapt the Mozilla Chromium branch in its best interest. Vs now having Google do whatever it wants as most people use Chrome anyway.
  - TheOperator 8y ago
    Having 0% control over the engine limits their influence inherently. Maket share of the gui wrapper would give them control over... themes? Extensions? I also think Firefox would be less appealing without Quantum.

smt88 8y ago

1) Standards are meaningless if there is effectively one rendering engine. 2) Why would Mozilla want to mimick Google’s account integrations? I switched to FF and miss nothing about Google accounts. 3) Firefox extensions already work on Android. Do they not on iOS? FF and all other browsers are just Safari on iOS due to Apple restrictions, so maybe extension support is impossible.

mariushn 8y ago
> 3) Firefox extensions already work on Android. True. Chrome doesn't support extensions on mobile though, hence the proposal that Mozilla could implement that.
- smt88 8y ago
  So you're arguing that Mozilla should stop developing FF so that they can improve an inferior, competing product? That still makes no sense for either Mozilla or us. Just use FF on mobile.

mruts 8y ago

I’m not sure open bugs is a metric that anyone cares about.

stephenr 8y ago

> There are over 10,000 open bugs on Core and over 10,000 open bugs on Firefox According to https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list, there are 60K+ open issues against Chromium, so maybe Google should drop it in favour of Mozilla's engine then?

TheOperator 8y ago

Standards are dead the moment there is one rendering engine. It doesn't matter what W3C says it only matters whst Chromium does. That was the status quo we had with IE6. That's the point of having multiple browsers. You took one of the strongest arguments against a browser engine monoculture and made it into an argument in favour of browser monoculture? We've ALREADY HAD browser monoculture and it resultee in the death of standards.

mariushn 8y ago
My thinking was that Mozilla could have a significant market share (30%+) through a better browser, therefore having a say in standards. It would also implement and adapt the Mozilla Chromium branch in its best interest. Vs now having Google do whatever it wants as most people use Chrome anyway.
- TheOperator 8y ago
  Having 0% control over the engine limits their influence inherently. Maket share of the gui wrapper would give them control over... themes? Extensions? I also think Firefox would be less appealing without Quantum.