So, Firefox needs to add functionality that makes the surfing experience better for all users when more users use Firefox. Totally. I have a couple ideas. One

So, Firefox needs to add functionality that makes the surfing experience better for all users when more users use Firefox. Totally. I have a couple ideas. One is to improve the Javascript library so that richer and more responsive applications can be written. Another would be to pull the rendering components into their own processes so that I don't lose N tabs of state when one plugin decides to lose its mind. Getting a multiple-core performance boost would be gravy here, too. Firefox got pretty good mileage out of being just a browser. URL in, rendered page out. Chrome stands to do the same thing to Firefox that Firefox did to IE, in that it represents a clean, simple, technically enhanced browser. Google has come out and said "here is some stuff, please just copy it and put it in yours", and they'd be walking a really fine antitrust line for dubious benefit if they actually did have a large market share. But the response to Chrome shouldn't be to launch new features. I'm assuming this doesn't mean "add no features at all" because the rest of his article would make no sense in that context. I can only imagine that it means "the FF team's response to Chrome shouldn't be back end, technical features". (Sorry if I've built a straw man here, but I really can't figure out what else this could mean in this context.) Why does nobody take the Chrome release and comic at face value? What causes this idiocy in the echo chamber saying GOOGLE is the NEW MICROSOFT, it's BROWSER WAR! Don't copy the FAST JAVASCRIPT it's a TRAP! Deploy TAG CLOUDS! I'm completely mystified and would love to have someone explain this to me.