5 ms·

> Then the other guys pretty much reached feature parity while Firefox was busy tossing XUL out the window with all its plugins. In the case of Chrome, which a

> Then the other guys pretty much reached feature parity while Firefox was busy tossing XUL out the window with all its plugins. In the case of Chrome, which ate Firefox's lunch, the new guy was built with isolation and security in mind, while the old guy was dragging a very modular but much less secure architecture. There's a case for keeping the old XUL, but I'd much rather use the more recent multiprocessing, sandboxed browsers than a less secure one that lets me re-skin its UI at will. My understanding is that the two weren't compatible, and a meaningful sandbox could only be added by breaking existing extensions.

guilhas 5y ago
Firefox always had more features because of the XUL addons, Chrome addons wouldn't even compare, and only really developed after Firefox scrapped XUL Chrome was practical and fast. But Firefox was where the magic happened. Chrome was like driving a car, simple controls for everyone, Firefox was like driving an airplane, a button for everything At the time no one cared about sandboxing, and who did was using firejail, or similar, with multiple profiles, noscript, umatrix...
JohnFen 5y ago
> lets me re-skin its UI at will For me, that wasn't what made plugins great. What made them great was that they were powerful enough that they could be used to fix or work around the various bad functional decisions that Mozilla has long had a habit of making. When they were neutered and could no longer do that, it made the browser much less attractive.