3 ms·

Browsers that split off because of the killing of XUL and establishment of the Firefox walled garden continue to operate using XUL and the giant (and still impr

Browsers that split off because of the killing of XUL and establishment of the Firefox walled garden continue to operate using XUL and the giant (and still improving) ecosystem of add-ons that defined what Firefox was. There are no problems even with a ten thousandth of the resources that Mozilla has. Mozilla removed XUL and all the power features because they were incompatible with building a chrome clone that could protect users from themselves. They did this because market share became more important than features and the vast majority of people don't want or even understand that their browser can be customized.

Yoric 6y ago
Can I assume that you didn't read the article?
- superkuh 6y ago
  No. But I can assume that you weren't paying attention back when all this happened rather than this rewrite of history. Also, did you even read the article? It literally follows the thread I laid out but then tries to justify itself. ie, "Around this time, Mozilla started paying serious attention to Chrome."
  - Yoric 6y ago
    Well, I did write that article, and I'm fairly confident that the only intersection with the narrative you're suggesting is that once sentence.
    - superkuh 6y ago
      It's likely you'll never understand why so many former Firefox users are still angry about you killing Firefox and replacing it with a user-hostile chrome clone then. But just in case you do actually care and aren't just trying to re-write history as you see it: It's because of the "fixes" you describe were all making things easier, faster, and less powerful. Those aren't what Firefox's old userbase wanted. Firefox was the customizability. Now FF is just another safe javascript engine with a GUI. The forks of FF that remained FF still exist just fine on a fraction of the resources Moz has despite all your complaints of unmaintainability.
      - detaro 6y ago
        > Those aren't what Firefox's old userbase wanted. What some vocal subset of Firefox's old userbase wanted. I understand the frustration (some tools I used also broke in the transition), but for me the tradeoff of a faster and less crashy browser is easily worth it (EDIT: this is of course assuming full multi-process was indeed not realistic while maintaining XUL). And plenty Firefox users barely use add-ons.
      - Yoric 6y ago
        Do I understand correctly that you have now read the article? Because otherwise, I'd rather wait until you have, as most questions are already answered within.

Yoric 6y ago

Can I assume that you didn't read the article?

superkuh 6y ago
No. But I can assume that you weren't paying attention back when all this happened rather than this rewrite of history. Also, did you even read the article? It literally follows the thread I laid out but then tries to justify itself. ie, "Around this time, Mozilla started paying serious attention to Chrome."
- Yoric 6y ago
  Well, I did write that article, and I'm fairly confident that the only intersection with the narrative you're suggesting is that once sentence.
  - superkuh 6y ago
    It's likely you'll never understand why so many former Firefox users are still angry about you killing Firefox and replacing it with a user-hostile chrome clone then. But just in case you do actually care and aren't just trying to re-write history as you see it: It's because of the "fixes" you describe were all making things easier, faster, and less powerful. Those aren't what Firefox's old userbase wanted. Firefox was the customizability. Now FF is just another safe javascript engine with a GUI. The forks of FF that remained FF still exist just fine on a fraction of the resources Moz has despite all your complaints of unmaintainability.
    - detaro 6y ago
      > Those aren't what Firefox's old userbase wanted. What some vocal subset of Firefox's old userbase wanted. I understand the frustration (some tools I used also broke in the transition), but for me the tradeoff of a faster and less crashy browser is easily worth it (EDIT: this is of course assuming full multi-process was indeed not realistic while maintaining XUL). And plenty Firefox users barely use add-ons.
    - Yoric 6y ago
      Do I understand correctly that you have now read the article? Because otherwise, I'd rather wait until you have, as most questions are already answered within.