5 ms·

> My main assumption is that 3% of users shouldn't want/need this thing, and 97% of users shouldn't be paying startup costs for it. Removing user freedom becau

> My main assumption is that 3% of users shouldn't want/need this thing, and 97% of users shouldn't be paying startup costs for it. Removing user freedom because "users shouldn't want/need this thing" seems like a Google move.

vidarh 7y ago
If that one stat is actually significant, I'd understand it, but strace'ing Firefox during startup on my machine gives ~2500 stat calls, split between ~1400 stat(), and the rest roughly evenly spread between lstat and fstat. Obviously that will vary between platforms and depending on what you have installed, but the one stat() needed to determine whether or not user.js is present would not seem to be the right thing to focus on.
addicted 7y ago
If that is indeed the case, the 3% is the only reason Firefox has the remaining 97%. If it wasn’t for the “freedom” types everyone would be recommending everyone to simply use Chrome and save themselves the support hassles when a Chrome optimized site doesn’t load on their parents’ laptop.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
gdulli 7y ago
Firefox has definitely become synonymous to me with loss of functionality and control.
- zo1 7y ago
  All the major browsers are doing it.
  - beatgammit 7y ago
    Which is a great reason for Firefox to not do it. Firefox sets itself apart by being different from the other major browsers, with a focus on user control and privacy by default. I can understand removing features by default, but they should not be removed entirely. If user.js is causing startup to take longer and nobody uses it, then come up with a different way to check for it (e.g. about:config setting). If it's causing runtime or maintenance issues, then it might be worth asking the community if it's worth keeping.
  - gowld 7y ago
    If Firefox is destined to be a low quality Chrome clone, it may as well just be a redirect to the Chrome installer.
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  Yes, I thought, instead the browser should be made, increase the functionality/control availability to the user, make less things available to the document author.

vidarh 7y ago

If that one stat is actually significant, I'd understand it, but strace'ing Firefox during startup on my machine gives ~2500 stat calls, split between ~1400 stat(), and the rest roughly evenly spread between lstat and fstat. Obviously that will vary between platforms and depending on what you have installed, but the one stat() needed to determine whether or not user.js is present would not seem to be the right thing to focus on.

addicted 7y ago

If that is indeed the case, the 3% is the only reason Firefox has the remaining 97%. If it wasn’t for the “freedom” types everyone would be recommending everyone to simply use Chrome and save themselves the support hassles when a Chrome optimized site doesn’t load on their parents’ laptop.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

gdulli 7y ago

Firefox has definitely become synonymous to me with loss of functionality and control.

zo1 7y ago
All the major browsers are doing it.
- beatgammit 7y ago
  Which is a great reason for Firefox to not do it. Firefox sets itself apart by being different from the other major browsers, with a focus on user control and privacy by default. I can understand removing features by default, but they should not be removed entirely. If user.js is causing startup to take longer and nobody uses it, then come up with a different way to check for it (e.g. about:config setting). If it's causing runtime or maintenance issues, then it might be worth asking the community if it's worth keeping.
- gowld 7y ago
  If Firefox is destined to be a low quality Chrome clone, it may as well just be a redirect to the Chrome installer.
zzo38computer 7y ago
Yes, I thought, instead the browser should be made, increase the functionality/control availability to the user, make less things available to the document author.