7 ms·

I don't see how that's a problem, you can just modify the CSS. If you too decide that's too much work and consumes too much of your resources for not enough gai

I don't see how that's a problem, you can just modify the CSS. If you too decide that's too much work and consumes too much of your resources for not enough gain, well then now you know why Mozilla made the decision.

wilkystyle 5y ago
I think you just answered exactly how that's a problem...
- lavabiopsy 5y ago
  I'm sorry I don't understand. Is the problem that modifying computer code takes effort? If so then sure, that's true, but Firefox (or any other browser) can't be blamed for that.
  - wilkystyle 5y ago
    No problem, let me clarify: You suggested that the answer to a constant stream of changes was to either "just modify the CSS" or (if it's too much work for too little gain) then you essentially just accept Mozilla's decision. If those are indeed the only other options besides users finding another product, I'd say you answered exactly why Firefox is in decline.
    - lavabiopsy 5y ago
      I'm sorry, I still don't understand. This is exactly the way it is with any other browser. If you don't like changes in Chrome for example, you can either modify them, accept their decision, or find another product. And Chrome is not in decline.
      - wilkystyle 5y ago
        > If you don't like changes in Chrome for example, you can either modify them, accept their decision, or find another product. And Chrome is not in decline. Yes, my point exactly. You can answer "just modify the CSS" every time someone complains about a change in Firefox, but in reality users will find another product instead.
        lavabiopsy 5y ago
        I'm still not sure what that has to do with Firefox specifically? Those "other products" could very easily be modified versions of Firefox or Chrome, of which there are many. Some of them might even take the time to modify the CSS for you. So it's still unclear what your specific complaint is. Also if you're going to switch products constantly because of a few lines of CSS, that seems like you would always be switching constantly, and would never find one to settle on anyway.
        wilkystyle 5y ago
        Try looking at it from the other direction: If other products have the same playing field (modify, live with it, or change products), and Firefox is in decline while their primary competitor is not, doesn't it stand to reason that Firefox is making decisions that lose them users while their competitor is making decisions that gain them users? (edit to fix typos on mobile)
        lavabiopsy 5y ago
        I don't really have any comments on that, sorry. I was mentioning a fix for that specific issue, or other specific issues you might have with other browsers. Most complaints I see about Firefox tend to be about specific issues rather than about overall decisions made versus their competitors.
        thayne 5y ago
        The problem isn't any single one decision. It is a pattern of making changes that cause users don't like and ignoring negative feedback.
        lavabiopsy 5y ago
        I don't understand what that has to do with Firefox specifically, if you do a search you can find various amounts of negative feedback about any product in existence. It's impossible to make a product that will please everyone, so you'll have to be more specific about which changes and which users you mean if we want to discuss this meaningfully.
Arech 5y ago
Yes, you can. But once you think about it, you'll see that you actually can't. Because once you're making changes to components instead of formalized settings, you are doomed to re-apply them each software update. Not a smart way to customize.
- lavabiopsy 5y ago
  But that's exactly what you're asking Mozilla to do when you ask them to keep that as a formalized setting, it's exactly the same work just it's done by a Mozilla employee and not you. So it really sounds like you're asking them to do something which you acknowledge yourself is not a smart or efficient thing to do.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Yeah, because it's so much more efficient if every user who liked the old interface gets to write and maintain a bunch of CSS for themselves, in stead of a Mozilla employee not doing the work of removing already-present settings... Sheesh, don't you even notice how you're coming off here?
thayne 5y ago
The ability to change that css is another one of those things that has been moved to enabling options in about:config that will probably get removed int the future. And any firefox update could potentially break your css fix.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lavabiopsy 5y ago
  I don't mean about:config, I mean editing the CSS directly. Yes an update could break your CSS fix, but if you follow the beta releases then this isn't a problem. You usually have at least a few weeks to update your patches before the release goes out.
  - thayne 5y ago
    You have to change a setting in about:config to enable custom css. Unless you mean making a custom build of Firefox, which is even more difficult to do.
    - lavabiopsy 5y ago
      I don't see what difference it makes for somebody else implementing it as about:config setting versus you doing that yourself in a custom build. Firefox is not really any more difficult to build than any other large open source project.
      - thayne 5y ago
        Is that something you would expect a typical user to do? Especially users that aren't developers? > Firefox is not really any more difficult to build than any other large open source project. That has not been my experience. Granted, chromium also has a very difficult and slow build, and browsers are big complicated things. But my point is it isn't easy.
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
You think editing this [1] is acceptable configuration?? [1] view-source:chrome://browser/content/browser.xhtml
- lavabiopsy 5y ago
  Yes, why wouldn't it be? Editing that is exactly what you would be asking Mozilla to do. If you think it's hard to work on, well, maybe you can sympathize with Mozilla for trying to cut down on the number of settings that complicate it further.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Yeah but it takes way too many steps to modify the CSS and it's not really worth it when they could have just left it alone.
- lavabiopsy 5y ago
  I don't know the details of this specific change, but in my experience its removal probably means it couldn't be left alone. If another piece of code that touches it gets refactored, the developer has to choose between trying to spend time fixing it, or just removing it. If it's an unpopular feature then removing it can be seen as the most reasonable option. And I know I've said this already but taking those "way too many steps" is exactly what you'd be asking them to do, so it's unclear why it's not worth it for you but it would be for them.

wilkystyle 5y ago

I think you just answered exactly how that's a problem...

lavabiopsy 5y ago
I'm sorry I don't understand. Is the problem that modifying computer code takes effort? If so then sure, that's true, but Firefox (or any other browser) can't be blamed for that.
- wilkystyle 5y ago
  No problem, let me clarify: You suggested that the answer to a constant stream of changes was to either "just modify the CSS" or (if it's too much work for too little gain) then you essentially just accept Mozilla's decision. If those are indeed the only other options besides users finding another product, I'd say you answered exactly why Firefox is in decline.
  - lavabiopsy 5y ago
    I'm sorry, I still don't understand. This is exactly the way it is with any other browser. If you don't like changes in Chrome for example, you can either modify them, accept their decision, or find another product. And Chrome is not in decline.
    - wilkystyle 5y ago
      > If you don't like changes in Chrome for example, you can either modify them, accept their decision, or find another product. And Chrome is not in decline. Yes, my point exactly. You can answer "just modify the CSS" every time someone complains about a change in Firefox, but in reality users will find another product instead.
      - lavabiopsy 5y ago
        I'm still not sure what that has to do with Firefox specifically? Those "other products" could very easily be modified versions of Firefox or Chrome, of which there are many. Some of them might even take the time to modify the CSS for you. So it's still unclear what your specific complaint is. Also if you're going to switch products constantly because of a few lines of CSS, that seems like you would always be switching constantly, and would never find one to settle on anyway.
        wilkystyle 5y ago
        Try looking at it from the other direction: If other products have the same playing field (modify, live with it, or change products), and Firefox is in decline while their primary competitor is not, doesn't it stand to reason that Firefox is making decisions that lose them users while their competitor is making decisions that gain them users? (edit to fix typos on mobile)
        lavabiopsy 5y ago
        I don't really have any comments on that, sorry. I was mentioning a fix for that specific issue, or other specific issues you might have with other browsers. Most complaints I see about Firefox tend to be about specific issues rather than about overall decisions made versus their competitors.
        thayne 5y ago
        The problem isn't any single one decision. It is a pattern of making changes that cause users don't like and ignoring negative feedback.
        lavabiopsy 5y ago
        I don't understand what that has to do with Firefox specifically, if you do a search you can find various amounts of negative feedback about any product in existence. It's impossible to make a product that will please everyone, so you'll have to be more specific about which changes and which users you mean if we want to discuss this meaningfully.

Arech 5y ago

Yes, you can. But once you think about it, you'll see that you actually can't. Because once you're making changes to components instead of formalized settings, you are doomed to re-apply them each software update. Not a smart way to customize.

lavabiopsy 5y ago
But that's exactly what you're asking Mozilla to do when you ask them to keep that as a formalized setting, it's exactly the same work just it's done by a Mozilla employee and not you. So it really sounds like you're asking them to do something which you acknowledge yourself is not a smart or efficient thing to do.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Yeah, because it's so much more efficient if every user who liked the old interface gets to write and maintain a bunch of CSS for themselves, in stead of a Mozilla employee not doing the work of removing already-present settings... Sheesh, don't you even notice how you're coming off here?

thayne 5y ago

The ability to change that css is another one of those things that has been moved to enabling options in about:config that will probably get removed int the future. And any firefox update could potentially break your css fix.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lavabiopsy 5y ago
I don't mean about:config, I mean editing the CSS directly. Yes an update could break your CSS fix, but if you follow the beta releases then this isn't a problem. You usually have at least a few weeks to update your patches before the release goes out.
- thayne 5y ago
  You have to change a setting in about:config to enable custom css. Unless you mean making a custom build of Firefox, which is even more difficult to do.
  - lavabiopsy 5y ago
    I don't see what difference it makes for somebody else implementing it as about:config setting versus you doing that yourself in a custom build. Firefox is not really any more difficult to build than any other large open source project.
    - thayne 5y ago
      Is that something you would expect a typical user to do? Especially users that aren't developers? > Firefox is not really any more difficult to build than any other large open source project. That has not been my experience. Granted, chromium also has a very difficult and slow build, and browsers are big complicated things. But my point is it isn't easy.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago

You think editing this [1] is acceptable configuration?? [1] view-source:chrome://browser/content/browser.xhtml

lavabiopsy 5y ago
Yes, why wouldn't it be? Editing that is exactly what you would be asking Mozilla to do. If you think it's hard to work on, well, maybe you can sympathize with Mozilla for trying to cut down on the number of settings that complicate it further.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Yeah but it takes way too many steps to modify the CSS and it's not really worth it when they could have just left it alone.

lavabiopsy 5y ago
I don't know the details of this specific change, but in my experience its removal probably means it couldn't be left alone. If another piece of code that touches it gets refactored, the developer has to choose between trying to spend time fixing it, or just removing it. If it's an unpopular feature then removing it can be seen as the most reasonable option. And I know I've said this already but taking those "way too many steps" is exactly what you'd be asking them to do, so it's unclear why it's not worth it for you but it would be for them.