4 ms·

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 t

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.
      - thayne 5y ago
        For me at least, it seems like ways of customizing the browser are being systematically removed without being replaced with new ways to customize it. User css and js, which were once first class are now very hidden and require messing with about:config. There's no way to prevent tabs from being on top. Many extensions are no longer possible Post-Quantum. And I do think switching to WevExtensions was the right move, but they've been slow in adding capabilities to make some extensions work as well as they did before. Removing compact mode (they added it back but behind an about:config flag). They removed SSB with no plans to ever add it back. True SSB didn't fully work, but I had high hopes that it could let me run web apps in a way that felt more native. And part of my frustration is with the response. The reason for removing things is often "no one is using it." But then when people who show up saying they use it, and it is important to them, Mozilla generally either outright ignores them, or dismisses those opinions as invalid.
        lavabiopsy 5y ago
        I don't mean to be disappointing, but usually out-of-context internet commenters saying that they use something doesn't carry much weight. The reason why they have telemetry data is so they can so say for certain what people are using, with actual numbers. If the telemetry shows that a feature isn't being used, and another feature is being used, then the one being used is what they will put resources towards. Think of this from an organizational perspective -- employees have to use this information in meetings with their boss to justify what they are working on to earn the paycheck, so with that considered they will always go with what the numbers show. Some disappointed comments on internet forums from a small vocal minority are expected, but dealing with that is just a cost of doing business. Now after this you may want to refer back to the article. I have seen various pieces and rants like this article that complain about this but none of them offer any more reliable sources of information. The article makes an unverifiable claim of "Almost everyone hated the changes" and unfortunately those type of claims seem to be extremely common instead of presenting some data. That's not enough to change anyone's course. But in the end, I don't know what you mean by "systematically removed" in that way, frequent addition and removal of various features is completely normal for a large project. And technically only the setting was removed -- you can still customize all that but you'll have to modify the browser itself. No they probably won't add back in the setting but as I explained above, those have a cost, and when the cost-benefit analysis doesn't play out the right way, it doesn't make sense to blame an organization for cutting it.

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.
    - thayne 5y ago
      For me at least, it seems like ways of customizing the browser are being systematically removed without being replaced with new ways to customize it. User css and js, which were once first class are now very hidden and require messing with about:config. There's no way to prevent tabs from being on top. Many extensions are no longer possible Post-Quantum. And I do think switching to WevExtensions was the right move, but they've been slow in adding capabilities to make some extensions work as well as they did before. Removing compact mode (they added it back but behind an about:config flag). They removed SSB with no plans to ever add it back. True SSB didn't fully work, but I had high hopes that it could let me run web apps in a way that felt more native. And part of my frustration is with the response. The reason for removing things is often "no one is using it." But then when people who show up saying they use it, and it is important to them, Mozilla generally either outright ignores them, or dismisses those opinions as invalid.
      - lavabiopsy 5y ago
        I don't mean to be disappointing, but usually out-of-context internet commenters saying that they use something doesn't carry much weight. The reason why they have telemetry data is so they can so say for certain what people are using, with actual numbers. If the telemetry shows that a feature isn't being used, and another feature is being used, then the one being used is what they will put resources towards. Think of this from an organizational perspective -- employees have to use this information in meetings with their boss to justify what they are working on to earn the paycheck, so with that considered they will always go with what the numbers show. Some disappointed comments on internet forums from a small vocal minority are expected, but dealing with that is just a cost of doing business. Now after this you may want to refer back to the article. I have seen various pieces and rants like this article that complain about this but none of them offer any more reliable sources of information. The article makes an unverifiable claim of "Almost everyone hated the changes" and unfortunately those type of claims seem to be extremely common instead of presenting some data. That's not enough to change anyone's course. But in the end, I don't know what you mean by "systematically removed" in that way, frequent addition and removal of various features is completely normal for a large project. And technically only the setting was removed -- you can still customize all that but you'll have to modify the browser itself. No they probably won't add back in the setting but as I explained above, those have a cost, and when the cost-benefit analysis doesn't play out the right way, it doesn't make sense to blame an organization for cutting it.