7 ms·

Only Chromium/Blink browsers are supported, so no Firefox or Safari. This is bad for the web.

by chaz6 5y ago

pier25 5y ago
Just yesterday the Webkit team at Apple announced many open positions. https://twitter.com/Litherum/status/1452770092308054020 https://twitter.com/Litherum/status/1452770092308054020
- mhoad 5y ago
  I saw this on Twitter today also… however, this is after over a decade of taking a very very different approach though mind you. I’ll believe them when we see the outcomes though.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
mhoad 5y ago
Two very underfunded teams there trying to play catch up. Only one of them has an excuse though, the other is literally the most profitable company in the world who is strategically trying to make the web into a subpar platform for their own commercial interests.
- vnorilo 5y ago
  I'd like to support Firefox with a donation as I'm sure many others would, but I don't trust Mozilla foundation to allocate it to something that actually matters.
  - automatic6131 5y ago
    Silence, user. The CEO has more mansions to purchase.
  - anonymousab 5y ago
    I think paying for Mozilla VPN would be one way of donating directly to the corp. But that's not a great option unless you were already looking to use Mullvad, and also doesn't signal intent.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    I do trust the foundation and make a monthly donation, but those donations are not used for Firefox, and I'm not even sure they legally could be the way the foundation is structured. I too would really, really, really like a way to fund Firefox development. I don't use any of the features they make money from (search partnerships, sponsored suggestions, Pocket), and if I'm forced to I will stop using Firefox. I don't understand why they can't do a pay-what-you-want model. Keep the browser free, but encourage people to pay $20 or something if they like it. I would.
- hbn 5y ago
  Hey, I don't think you should discount all of the great work Apple has done on Safari lately, such as... making tabs ugly and hard to use
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Firefox isn't even playing catchup. Mozilla aborted what scant work it's done on PWA support. From the horse's mouth: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1682593 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1682593 Chrome and its variants have already won the PWA space, not by some brilliant strategy or sinister ploy on Google's part, but by default of its competitors.
  - mhoad 5y ago
    I mean I think they are already in an extremely rough position but if they find themselves in the situation where they are seen as a browser for Web pages rather than Web apps I think that could prove fatal for them. It’s clear that there is a lot of new tech on the horizon for browsers that is closing the gap with native very quickly. If they are unable to make that transition which sadly seems like a real possibility then I don’t know where that leaves them.
  - cpeterso 5y ago
    That bug is only about Single Site Browser mode (SSB), where a desktop link would open a website in a Firefox browser window with no browser controls.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      The relevant information is presented in the comment section below the bug report proper. If you would like a particular post to be pointed towards, here is one reprinted and slightly edited for clarity: —————————————————————————————— Dave Townsend [:mossop] Assignee Comment 15 • 10 months ago (In reply to Hexandcube from comment #12) >I disagree, many people have been waiting for PWA support in Firefox. Removing this feature, may result in people (including me, a huge Firefox advocate) switching from Firefox, to a browser that supports PWA. I'm very disappointed. We already don't have the feature working in any decent fashion so I'm not sure removing it will have any impact here. >I also would like to see the results of the research, Dave was talking about. Unfortunately I think that the research is confidential at the moment. (In reply to joshas from comment #13) >You should reconsider this decision. It is understandable that currently there might not be enough resources to finish full PWA support, like in competing browsers, but removing it completely will not only make all work done on it a waste of time, but also send wrong signal to some users. >Leaving feature hidden under flag for enthusiasts to experiment on and, maybe, even submit patches that will nudge it closer to completion - that would be a bigger win, than removing feature altogether. The signal I hope we are sending is that *PWA support is not coming to desktop Firefox anytime soon* {emphasis: mine}. At this point I don't think we would accept patches to improve the feature so I don't think leaving the code in Firefox makes any sort of sense. Speaking as the developer who spent a good deal of time writing most of the code I am frustrated to see it removed too, but it is the decision that makes sense at this time. ——————————————————————————————
- kushan2020 5y ago
  Seeing Firefox teams callous take on a critically important Native file system feature [1], it comes at no surprise that major products are dropping Firefox compatibility. [1] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154
- slig 5y ago
  Half a billion/year from Google is hardly underfunded. Maybe if they used this money better they wouldn't have to kick 250 engineers last year.
- azakai 5y ago
  As others already mentioned, funding is just one factor here. Mozilla decided to stop focusing on porting such applications to the Web before 2020's layoffs, when Mozilla was still growing. The decision came after some management changes, basically: I don't think any individuals changed their minds, just those people happened to leave, and their replacements had different ideas. (I personally disagreed with the new priorities at the time, and ended up leaving.)
- ZetaZero 5y ago
  Firefox has revenues of over $400M per year. I hear they have only 40 developers working directly on FF. Do the math
  - fabrice_d 5y ago
    Of course there are more than 40 full time devs working on Firefox. A quick grep over the last few months of commits of the main gecko repository surfaces more than 200 committers with a mozilla.com email. Keep in mind that some employees don't use a corp address, and that I didn't look at other repositories like the Android specific components or any of the backend services (like sync and push servers). Also add people that work on UI/UX design etc. Yes there are issues with resources and resource allocations at MoCo, but claiming there are only 40 devs on Firefox is way off.
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
Apple is choosing to artificially limit the potential of web image work in Safari anyway. > Safari 15 has a canvas memory limit of 4096 × 4096 pixels where Safari 14 could deal with resolutions up to 16384 x 16384. https://twitter.com/rikschennink/status/1442443774748082185 https://twitter.com/rikschennink/status/1442443774748082185 I'm definitely not one to advocate web apps that only work in one browser, but Apple is certainly going out of their way to make lives harder for developers who do want to support their browser and we all know why that is.
azakai 5y ago
That's not ideal, of course - the point of the Web is that you can visit a website from anywhere - but in practice, when this type of cutting-edge application arrives on the Web, often at least initially it doesn't run optimally in all browsers or has other limitations. That's been the case with things like Mozilla porting Unreal Engine to the Web back in the day, for example. In general, after the initial launch things tend to improve as both browsers and applications focus on compatibility.

Only Chromium/Blink browsers are supported, so no Firefox or Safari. This is bad for the web.

by chaz6 5y ago

Only Chromium/Blink browsers are supported, so no Firefox or Safari. This is bad for the web.

Just yesterday the Webkit team at Apple announced many open positions. https://twitter.com/Litherum/status/1452770092308054020 https://twitter.com/Litherum/status/1452770092308054020

mhoad 5y ago
I saw this on Twitter today also… however, this is after over a decade of taking a very very different approach though mind you. I’ll believe them when we see the outcomes though.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

mhoad 5y ago

Two very underfunded teams there trying to play catch up. Only one of them has an excuse though, the other is literally the most profitable company in the world who is strategically trying to make the web into a subpar platform for their own commercial interests.

vnorilo 5y ago
I'd like to support Firefox with a donation as I'm sure many others would, but I don't trust Mozilla foundation to allocate it to something that actually matters.
- automatic6131 5y ago
  Silence, user. The CEO has more mansions to purchase.
- anonymousab 5y ago
  I think paying for Mozilla VPN would be one way of donating directly to the corp. But that's not a great option unless you were already looking to use Mullvad, and also doesn't signal intent.
- burkaman 5y ago
  I do trust the foundation and make a monthly donation, but those donations are not used for Firefox, and I'm not even sure they legally could be the way the foundation is structured. I too would really, really, really like a way to fund Firefox development. I don't use any of the features they make money from (search partnerships, sponsored suggestions, Pocket), and if I'm forced to I will stop using Firefox. I don't understand why they can't do a pay-what-you-want model. Keep the browser free, but encourage people to pay $20 or something if they like it. I would.
hbn 5y ago
Hey, I don't think you should discount all of the great work Apple has done on Safari lately, such as... making tabs ugly and hard to use
Dracophoenix 5y ago
Firefox isn't even playing catchup. Mozilla aborted what scant work it's done on PWA support. From the horse's mouth: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1682593 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1682593 Chrome and its variants have already won the PWA space, not by some brilliant strategy or sinister ploy on Google's part, but by default of its competitors.
- mhoad 5y ago
  I mean I think they are already in an extremely rough position but if they find themselves in the situation where they are seen as a browser for Web pages rather than Web apps I think that could prove fatal for them. It’s clear that there is a lot of new tech on the horizon for browsers that is closing the gap with native very quickly. If they are unable to make that transition which sadly seems like a real possibility then I don’t know where that leaves them.
- cpeterso 5y ago
  That bug is only about Single Site Browser mode (SSB), where a desktop link would open a website in a Firefox browser window with no browser controls.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    The relevant information is presented in the comment section below the bug report proper. If you would like a particular post to be pointed towards, here is one reprinted and slightly edited for clarity: —————————————————————————————— Dave Townsend [:mossop] Assignee Comment 15 • 10 months ago (In reply to Hexandcube from comment #12) >I disagree, many people have been waiting for PWA support in Firefox. Removing this feature, may result in people (including me, a huge Firefox advocate) switching from Firefox, to a browser that supports PWA. I'm very disappointed. We already don't have the feature working in any decent fashion so I'm not sure removing it will have any impact here. >I also would like to see the results of the research, Dave was talking about. Unfortunately I think that the research is confidential at the moment. (In reply to joshas from comment #13) >You should reconsider this decision. It is understandable that currently there might not be enough resources to finish full PWA support, like in competing browsers, but removing it completely will not only make all work done on it a waste of time, but also send wrong signal to some users. >Leaving feature hidden under flag for enthusiasts to experiment on and, maybe, even submit patches that will nudge it closer to completion - that would be a bigger win, than removing feature altogether. The signal I hope we are sending is that *PWA support is not coming to desktop Firefox anytime soon* {emphasis: mine}. At this point I don't think we would accept patches to improve the feature so I don't think leaving the code in Firefox makes any sort of sense. Speaking as the developer who spent a good deal of time writing most of the code I am frustrated to see it removed too, but it is the decision that makes sense at this time. ——————————————————————————————
kushan2020 5y ago
Seeing Firefox teams callous take on a critically important Native file system feature [1], it comes at no surprise that major products are dropping Firefox compatibility. [1] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/154
slig 5y ago
Half a billion/year from Google is hardly underfunded. Maybe if they used this money better they wouldn't have to kick 250 engineers last year.
azakai 5y ago
As others already mentioned, funding is just one factor here. Mozilla decided to stop focusing on porting such applications to the Web before 2020's layoffs, when Mozilla was still growing. The decision came after some management changes, basically: I don't think any individuals changed their minds, just those people happened to leave, and their replacements had different ideas. (I personally disagreed with the new priorities at the time, and ended up leaving.)
ZetaZero 5y ago
Firefox has revenues of over $400M per year. I hear they have only 40 developers working directly on FF. Do the math
- fabrice_d 5y ago
  Of course there are more than 40 full time devs working on Firefox. A quick grep over the last few months of commits of the main gecko repository surfaces more than 200 committers with a mozilla.com email. Keep in mind that some employees don't use a corp address, and that I didn't look at other repositories like the Android specific components or any of the backend services (like sync and push servers). Also add people that work on UI/UX design etc. Yes there are issues with resources and resource allocations at MoCo, but claiming there are only 40 devs on Firefox is way off.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

Apple is choosing to artificially limit the potential of web image work in Safari anyway. > Safari 15 has a canvas memory limit of 4096 × 4096 pixels where Safari 14 could deal with resolutions up to 16384 x 16384. https://twitter.com/rikschennink/status/1442443774748082185 https://twitter.com/rikschennink/status/1442443774748082185 I'm definitely not one to advocate web apps that only work in one browser, but Apple is certainly going out of their way to make lives harder for developers who do want to support their browser and we all know why that is.

azakai 5y ago

That's not ideal, of course - the point of the Web is that you can visit a website from anywhere - but in practice, when this type of cutting-edge application arrives on the Web, often at least initially it doesn't run optimally in all browsers or has other limitations. That's been the case with things like Mozilla porting Unreal Engine to the Web back in the day, for example. In general, after the initial launch things tend to improve as both browsers and applications focus on compatibility.