3 ms·

I think Gecko doesn't have a chance. I totally believe trying to fight this fact is crying over spilled milk. Microsoft tried. They tried not to lose ground wit

I think Gecko doesn't have a chance. I totally believe trying to fight this fact is crying over spilled milk. Microsoft tried. They tried not to lose ground with IE 9. Then again with IE 10. Then with IE 11. Then with Edge. If Microsoft couldn't win and had to accept Blink, Mozilla can't compete. In its current form, Firefox can’t win. And this critique comes from someone who’s main browser is Firefox. Mozilla can’t compete with Google and Microsoft contributing to Blink (or Apple to WebKit). From a performance standpoint, Firefox is not better. From a differentiating standpoint, Firefox doesn’t have the extension capabilities it used to. From a user’s perspective, there is very little incentive to recommend Firefox. From a website maintainer’s perspective, every year there is less incentive to support Firefox. This is the same downwards spiral that Microsoft saw. Gecko will die and Mozilla will have to accept Blink. It’s the hard-cold truth. And all of this is ignoring the fact that Mozilla depends economically on Google.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
> From a performance standpoint, Firefox is not better. Neither is it worse. Firefox is faster at some problems, Chromium is faster at some others. I don't agree that Gecko/SpiderMonkey are doomed, and they certainly aren't doomed on the grounds of performance. https://arewefastyet.com/ https://arewefastyet.com/
- josalhor 6y ago
  > Neither is it worse. You are correct. But to be fair, that wasn't my point. My point is that Firefox doesn't work properly on as many web pages as Chrome does. This trend will get worse overtime. Why would an end user choose an alternative that breaks their experience with no perceivable benefit? And yes, there are privacy benefits, but if the end user doesn’t know/doesn’t care then it isn’t a perceivable benefit.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  They are doomed, I think, but because firefox itself has no future. There is also the problem that google services are a huge part of the web and they obviously make sure they run better on chromium than on firefox.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

> From a performance standpoint, Firefox is not better. Neither is it worse. Firefox is faster at some problems, Chromium is faster at some others. I don't agree that Gecko/SpiderMonkey are doomed, and they certainly aren't doomed on the grounds of performance. https://arewefastyet.com/ https://arewefastyet.com/

josalhor 6y ago
> Neither is it worse. You are correct. But to be fair, that wasn't my point. My point is that Firefox doesn't work properly on as many web pages as Chrome does. This trend will get worse overtime. Why would an end user choose an alternative that breaks their experience with no perceivable benefit? And yes, there are privacy benefits, but if the end user doesn’t know/doesn’t care then it isn’t a perceivable benefit.
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
They are doomed, I think, but because firefox itself has no future. There is also the problem that google services are a huge part of the web and they obviously make sure they run better on chromium than on firefox.