3 ms·

> I'm not changing because they removed one tiny feature used by a very vocal minority Seems you have trouble keeping count. Let me remind you how many feature

> I'm not changing because they removed one tiny feature used by a very vocal minority Seems you have trouble keeping count. Let me remind you how many features FF has nuked in recent times https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25589177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25589177 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24231017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24231017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24128865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24128865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24554393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24554393

toyg 6y ago
The XUL argument is the only significant one; and it was years ago, and there were very clear technical trade-offs.
- addicted 6y ago
  And security trade offs.
dralley 6y ago
Literally the top comment on each of these was something along the lines of "this is 1) not true 2) not a big deal" > "Some of these are a bit spurious. I mean, Venkman was replaced by Firebug, which was much better. MXR was similarly replaced by DXR." > "CNET (and Mozilla)[1] say that Firefox still has a fully functional security team. The source for this is an unsourced tweet. I'm going to flag it because HN does not seem like a good venue to hash out rumors." > Kind of misleading title – what isn’t planned to be supported is installing PWA:s as standalone apps on desktop Firefox: https://twitter.com/englishmossop/status/1344428028315590656 https://twitter.com/englishmossop/status/1344428028315590656... Try harder.
- thayne 6y ago
  > what isn’t planned to be supported is installing PWA:s as standalone apps on desktop Firefox That is still something that I very much wanted.
antman 6y ago
And the Firefox Android addon ecosystem disaster. A big thank to an HN user that once pointed me to Kiwi Android browser that accepts Chrome addons. I had stuck to firefox 68 because after that https over ssl could be disabled remotely for corporate computers but now I switched to Chrome. I think the end result will be Firefox removing itself from the browser pool.

toyg 6y ago

The XUL argument is the only significant one; and it was years ago, and there were very clear technical trade-offs.

addicted 6y ago
And security trade offs.

dralley 6y ago

Literally the top comment on each of these was something along the lines of "this is 1) not true 2) not a big deal" > "Some of these are a bit spurious. I mean, Venkman was replaced by Firebug, which was much better. MXR was similarly replaced by DXR." > "CNET (and Mozilla)[1] say that Firefox still has a fully functional security team. The source for this is an unsourced tweet. I'm going to flag it because HN does not seem like a good venue to hash out rumors." > Kind of misleading title – what isn’t planned to be supported is installing PWA:s as standalone apps on desktop Firefox: https://twitter.com/englishmossop/status/1344428028315590656 https://twitter.com/englishmossop/status/1344428028315590656... Try harder.

thayne 6y ago
> what isn’t planned to be supported is installing PWA:s as standalone apps on desktop Firefox That is still something that I very much wanted.

antman 6y ago

And the Firefox Android addon ecosystem disaster. A big thank to an HN user that once pointed me to Kiwi Android browser that accepts Chrome addons. I had stuck to firefox 68 because after that https over ssl could be disabled remotely for corporate computers but now I switched to Chrome. I think the end result will be Firefox removing itself from the browser pool.