7 ms·

it's a shame , competition is important.

by kgbcia 4y ago

solardev 4y ago
Webkit/Safari is the closest thing to competition that Chrome has. Firefox is so rarely used it that it doesn't really factor into any decision making anymore. If Safari (especially iPhone) doesn't support something, that's a big deal. If Firefox doesn't support something, people shrug and move on.
- prophesi 4y ago
  Even so, letting the "competition" just be 75% Chrome and 25% Safari still isn't a good thing.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    "Competition" requires competitors to actually compete. Firefox is clearly not interested. If you want me to use a competitor, build one that doesn't fuck me over. Begging me to use something because "the other guy is too big!" is just not going to fly when I have to actually use it for practical purposes.
    - SECProto 4y ago
      > "Competition" requires competitors to actually compete. Firefox is clearly not interested. I exclusively use Firefox because of ublock on mobile. Other browsers cant compete. I have no issues using FF, and major annoyances when I use chrome on someone else's computer (wrong shortcut to open a new private tab, can't press backspace to navigate back 1 page in history, etc)
      - solardev 4y ago
        You can use what you want, but that doesn't really make Firefox relevant... I think a lot of Firefox users also tend to be power users who have unusual settings and blockers, like you. To companies who own websites, that's even less incentive to support them.
        betwixthewires 4y ago
        Firefox users used to be the power user crowd, but "hardly anybody uses that feature so we removed it" changed all that. Nowadays Firefox users are little more than ideological contrarians.
        SECProto 4y ago
        I guess "being able to block ads on the platform on which I do 50% of my browsing" is my ideology, yup.
        betwixthewires 4y ago
        Why do you do 50% of your browsing on Firefox?
        SECProto 4y ago
        I do 100% of my browsing on firefox, but half of it is on firefox mobile. If i used chrome, that mobile portion would not have adblocking.
        somebehemoth 4y ago
        Container tabs, real ublock origin, and an API that truly supports privacy extensions. Enjoy chrome and all the ads and tracking: https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/27/google_chrome_manifest_v2_extensions/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/27/google_chrome_manifes... Ideological contrarian? Seriously? Grow up.
        Delk 4y ago
        I use mostly Firefox to support tech diversity on the web. (Also because it works for my use. So would Chrome/Chromium. I wouldn't use either if it didn't.) I don't think that makes me an "ideological contrarian". That would mean opposing something just to oppose, and that's not why I'm doing it.
      - betwixthewires 4y ago
        I exclusively used Firefox on mobile and desktop for years, and I complained to myself every time I updated, then told myself "but the only other option is google", then one day I updated the mobile browser and I was only allowed to install 5 "curated" add-ons. I was done. I rage quit Firefox on all devices within an hour and I have not regretted the decision. I'm done making excuses for them. Now I use kiwi browser on mobile (chromium fork with extensions support) and qutebrowser on desktop (uses chromium's engine, keyboard focused and fun to use) and ungoogled chromium for dev related stuff when I need to. I don't like web browsers and I don't like the web. But I don't find myself constantly making excuses for a piece of software I have to use anymore.
        vlod 4y ago
        > ... kiwi browser on mobile.... and qutebrowser on desktop > ... I don't like web browsers and I don't like the web. Errh.. the web gives you the ability to switch browsers (to kiwi or qutebrowser). I strongly believe in the open-web (although I agree it was a pita with android firefox and their limited set of addons). I shudder at the prospect of using a gazillion apps to consume content, like I see others doing.
        betwixthewires 4y ago
        I don't. I want a protocol oriented network. If you're using web apps, you are already using a gazillion apps, you're just using tabs as a taskbar and one full screen window at a time. The browser becomes the OS. You're just changing where the abstraction happens, and creating a more hostile UX. Consuming content is not the only focus of the web. In my opinion, it would be better to have an application to read documents, a different application to stream media, and if there's any complex interaction it warrants its own application, so things like chat, git GUIs like github, social interactions all warrant an application. It used to be like this, you had IM, IRC, a web browser that just delivered HTML documents, things were less user hostile and easier to implement. If we had continued along with this paradigm instead of cramming everything into http and web browsers I think we would have a better web today. For one, it wouldn't be impossible to implement a do it all browser from scratch, and you'd have a more open web than we have today.
  - solardev 4y ago
    If a better browser comes along, great. But Firefox ain't it. Shrug. Nobody uses it because it's just not memorable or useful in any significant way, but it has more and more compatibility issues every year.
verdverm 4y ago
Do these concerns extend to the Linux kernel? Is a single browser kernel really that bad for everyone?
- josephcsible 4y ago
  Linux has significant competition: all of the BSDs (including Darwin) and Windows.
  - verdverm 4y ago
    the internet pretty much only uses the linux variety, I don't really think of end user machines as competing in the same space as servers
- Ygg2 4y ago
  Of course. The more same kernel there is, more will a single bug be able to wreak havoc.
- LinAGKar 4y ago
  At least Linux has a better governance than Blink

it's a shame , competition is important.

by kgbcia 4y ago

it's a shame , competition is important.

Webkit/Safari is the closest thing to competition that Chrome has. Firefox is so rarely used it that it doesn't really factor into any decision making anymore. If Safari (especially iPhone) doesn't support something, that's a big deal. If Firefox doesn't support something, people shrug and move on.

prophesi 4y ago
Even so, letting the "competition" just be 75% Chrome and 25% Safari still isn't a good thing.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  "Competition" requires competitors to actually compete. Firefox is clearly not interested. If you want me to use a competitor, build one that doesn't fuck me over. Begging me to use something because "the other guy is too big!" is just not going to fly when I have to actually use it for practical purposes.
  - SECProto 4y ago
    > "Competition" requires competitors to actually compete. Firefox is clearly not interested. I exclusively use Firefox because of ublock on mobile. Other browsers cant compete. I have no issues using FF, and major annoyances when I use chrome on someone else's computer (wrong shortcut to open a new private tab, can't press backspace to navigate back 1 page in history, etc)
    - solardev 4y ago
      You can use what you want, but that doesn't really make Firefox relevant... I think a lot of Firefox users also tend to be power users who have unusual settings and blockers, like you. To companies who own websites, that's even less incentive to support them.
      - betwixthewires 4y ago
        Firefox users used to be the power user crowd, but "hardly anybody uses that feature so we removed it" changed all that. Nowadays Firefox users are little more than ideological contrarians.
        SECProto 4y ago
        I guess "being able to block ads on the platform on which I do 50% of my browsing" is my ideology, yup.
        betwixthewires 4y ago
        Why do you do 50% of your browsing on Firefox?
        SECProto 4y ago
        I do 100% of my browsing on firefox, but half of it is on firefox mobile. If i used chrome, that mobile portion would not have adblocking.
        somebehemoth 4y ago
        Container tabs, real ublock origin, and an API that truly supports privacy extensions. Enjoy chrome and all the ads and tracking: https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/27/google_chrome_manifest_v2_extensions/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/27/google_chrome_manifes... Ideological contrarian? Seriously? Grow up.
        Delk 4y ago
        I use mostly Firefox to support tech diversity on the web. (Also because it works for my use. So would Chrome/Chromium. I wouldn't use either if it didn't.) I don't think that makes me an "ideological contrarian". That would mean opposing something just to oppose, and that's not why I'm doing it.
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      I exclusively used Firefox on mobile and desktop for years, and I complained to myself every time I updated, then told myself "but the only other option is google", then one day I updated the mobile browser and I was only allowed to install 5 "curated" add-ons. I was done. I rage quit Firefox on all devices within an hour and I have not regretted the decision. I'm done making excuses for them. Now I use kiwi browser on mobile (chromium fork with extensions support) and qutebrowser on desktop (uses chromium's engine, keyboard focused and fun to use) and ungoogled chromium for dev related stuff when I need to. I don't like web browsers and I don't like the web. But I don't find myself constantly making excuses for a piece of software I have to use anymore.
      - vlod 4y ago
        > ... kiwi browser on mobile.... and qutebrowser on desktop > ... I don't like web browsers and I don't like the web. Errh.. the web gives you the ability to switch browsers (to kiwi or qutebrowser). I strongly believe in the open-web (although I agree it was a pita with android firefox and their limited set of addons). I shudder at the prospect of using a gazillion apps to consume content, like I see others doing.
        betwixthewires 4y ago
        I don't. I want a protocol oriented network. If you're using web apps, you are already using a gazillion apps, you're just using tabs as a taskbar and one full screen window at a time. The browser becomes the OS. You're just changing where the abstraction happens, and creating a more hostile UX. Consuming content is not the only focus of the web. In my opinion, it would be better to have an application to read documents, a different application to stream media, and if there's any complex interaction it warrants its own application, so things like chat, git GUIs like github, social interactions all warrant an application. It used to be like this, you had IM, IRC, a web browser that just delivered HTML documents, things were less user hostile and easier to implement. If we had continued along with this paradigm instead of cramming everything into http and web browsers I think we would have a better web today. For one, it wouldn't be impossible to implement a do it all browser from scratch, and you'd have a more open web than we have today.
- solardev 4y ago
  If a better browser comes along, great. But Firefox ain't it. Shrug. Nobody uses it because it's just not memorable or useful in any significant way, but it has more and more compatibility issues every year.

verdverm 4y ago

Do these concerns extend to the Linux kernel? Is a single browser kernel really that bad for everyone?

josephcsible 4y ago
Linux has significant competition: all of the BSDs (including Darwin) and Windows.
- verdverm 4y ago
  the internet pretty much only uses the linux variety, I don't really think of end user machines as competing in the same space as servers
Ygg2 4y ago
Of course. The more same kernel there is, more will a single bug be able to wreak havoc.
LinAGKar 4y ago
At least Linux has a better governance than Blink