> XUL / XPCOM had significant, tangible problems. Significant problems that could have been fixed > XUL primitives are not, on average, faster or more "platfo

> XUL / XPCOM had significant, tangible problems. Significant problems that could have been fixed > XUL primitives are not, on average, faster or more "platform-native". At least on Windows they mapped to their native components. Sure spacing and a few other things were a little off (maybe because it mapped to GTK? I don't remember) but the look and feel then was vastly superior than the Electron-looking garbage that extensions have to do now. > You understand the problem here, do you not? People complain that they're almost completely reliant on Google for revenue, and they also complain about "weird commercial initiatives" to mitigate their reliance. You're not understanding me. Most folks have no problem with Pocket and whatever else. What they have a problem with is bundling it with the browser in a way that can't be removed, and then putting out a press release full of PR speak about how important and essential these extras are. These commercial iniatives were made mandatory, even when their beta versions were downloadable extensions I'm all for Mozilla reaching out to whoever they want to partner with. But keep that shit out of the master repo. The downloadable base should be pure platform and nothing else, with extras as preinstalled, removable extensions. Essentially, the Winamp model > https://mozilla.github.io/firefox-browser-architecture/text/.. https://mozilla.github.io/firefox-browser-architecture/text/.... What I see there are mostly people issues that come with not wanting to pay for the talent you need to get the job done. It looks like they had the money to do this but it feels like they spent it on admin and marketing folks instead The XBL document mentions more systemic problem but I maintain that they could have been fixed iteratively