3 ms·

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.