3 ms·

Firefox is fast enough for most people, it has a UI as good as Chrome (that maybe is shit for some people, however most people don't care), most people don't ca

by m45t3r 7y ago

Firefox is fast enough for most people, it has a UI as good as Chrome (that maybe is shit for some people, however most people don't care), most people don't care if Pocket is included or not (it is not like Firefox keeps nagging you to use it either). The only point I concur with you is that all sites should work, however the majority of times I see a site broken in Firefox is because of the developer not testing in other browsers and not a Firefox fault (it would be the same if the developer just develop on Firefox and didn't test on Chrome). Firefox is not as popular as Chrome thanks to the intense Google advertising some time ago. Even nowadays Google still advertises "this sites runs best on Chrome", kinda like Coca Cola still advertises its products even if they are already the leaders in the segment.

rukshn 7y ago
Why should the developers worry about a browser that is only covering 10% as I remember that is the cover ? Specially if you have a small team who has time and people to make multiple versions to run on different browsers? You can just put a banner saying this website works well on chrome. FF should be more active in making all the sites work on their browser.
- sfink 7y ago
  > FF should be more active in making all the sites work on their browser. How? By matching any bugs or spec incompatibilities Chrome has that makes the site only work in Chrome? Or by begging the site authors to fix the HTML or CSS or JS? Because I don't see any other options. The first defeats the purpose of having an independent browser (or web standards). The second won't work -- or at least, its success is determined entirely by market share, not directly by what Mozilla does. I'm really not sure what you're asking for.
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
  I guess it depends if you are a web developer or a Chrome developer... What Chrome only features are you possibly using that would mean a separate Firefox version?
- krzyk 7y ago
  > You can just put a banner saying this website works well on chrome. Indeed Chrome is the new IE
- feanaro 7y ago
  Or perhaps don't design your site with browser-specific features from the start? The web is interoperable by default.

by m45t3r 7y ago

rukshn 7y ago

Why should the developers worry about a browser that is only covering 10% as I remember that is the cover ? Specially if you have a small team who has time and people to make multiple versions to run on different browsers? You can just put a banner saying this website works well on chrome. FF should be more active in making all the sites work on their browser.

sfink 7y ago
> FF should be more active in making all the sites work on their browser. How? By matching any bugs or spec incompatibilities Chrome has that makes the site only work in Chrome? Or by begging the site authors to fix the HTML or CSS or JS? Because I don't see any other options. The first defeats the purpose of having an independent browser (or web standards). The second won't work -- or at least, its success is determined entirely by market share, not directly by what Mozilla does. I'm really not sure what you're asking for.
hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
I guess it depends if you are a web developer or a Chrome developer... What Chrome only features are you possibly using that would mean a separate Firefox version?
krzyk 7y ago
> You can just put a banner saying this website works well on chrome. Indeed Chrome is the new IE
feanaro 7y ago
Or perhaps don't design your site with browser-specific features from the start? The web is interoperable by default.