5 ms·

> people using Firefox just to 'stick it to the big bad corpo' is getting us nowhere. Don't underestimate the power of small contributions. You could say the s

> people using Firefox just to 'stick it to the big bad corpo' is getting us nowhere. Don't underestimate the power of small contributions. You could say the same about people using konqueror 20 years ago, it brought KHTML which brought us webkit. You could say the same about people using firefox at the same time. You could say the same about people using linux in middle 90's, the same about GCC... I could go on showing more examples. Simply using a software is a form of contribution: at the least it improves statistics. People making small contributions are important; small donations to wikipedia, bug reports, translations, fixing a small bug, improving a feature you need, talking with devs to guarantee a device works... I personally made many of these small contributions and although most of them didn't ended up on the "market leader project", it certainly made them good enough for people to keep using them and to encourage other people to contribute too.

NayamAmarshe 4y ago
Sure but we're acting as if a few people sticking to Firefox for the sake of it is going to save it, it's not. Not unless Mozilla fixes its underlying problems like the management and development roadmaps. The fact that Firefox got backdrop-blur support in mid 2022 speaks volumes about Firefox's priorities. I get the point you're trying to make, I use FOSS because I believe more people should be using it and if I don't, who would? But that doesn't work when it comes to Firefox. There are a lot of good free and open source browsers right now, no matter what engine they use. If a chromium based FOSS browser gets popular enough, there are better chances of it surviving and breaking away from Google's monopoly at the same time. It does not matter what Google does with Chrome, as long as independent forks are able to exist within that same space and can get just as big.
- cptskippy 4y ago
  > The fact that Firefox got backdrop-blur support in mid 2022 speaks volumes about Firefox's priorities. Perhaps it speaks more to your priorities? I can't see anyone outside of a web developer who needed that feature 1 time or even caring that backdrop-blur wasn't implemented. The fact that you're salty about a specific CSS property and that it's reason enough to boycott a browser speaks volumes.
  - NayamAmarshe 4y ago
    > Perhaps it speaks more to your priorities? I can't see anyone outside of a web developer who needed that feature 1 time or even caring that backdrop-blur wasn't implemented. The point is, if Firefox can't even make basic web features like blur work on the browser (that are available on even no name mobile browsers) I can't expect Firefox to ever surpass Chrome or other competitors and it's evident. > The fact that you're salty about a specific CSS property and that it's reason enough to boycott a browser speaks volumes. As a web developer, I 100% stopped development on Firefox because it doesn't support even the most basic features all other browsers have. Like it or not, it's an inferior product because of the missing web APIs. You know what's better than fighting monopoly with an ideology? Fighting monopoly with an even better product that supports the ideology. Firefox is sadly not that.
    - cptskippy 4y ago
      > Firefox can't even make basic web features like blur work on the browser I wouldn't call backdrop-blur trivial or a basic feature. It's non-trivial to implement and used very little. Why should it be a priority? > (that are available on even no name mobile browsers) What no-name mobile browser that isn't based on an engine like Chromium has implemented more "basic" features than Firefox? The fact of the matter is that large corporations like Microsoft have given up trying to implement their own custom browser engine and pivoted to using Chromium. > it doesn't support even the most basic features all other browsers have. Like backdrop-blur? > Fighting monopoly with an even better product that supports the ideology. You're trivializing browser development as if you could build a better browser in a weekend. Of the 4 major browsers developers only one isn't a billion/trillion dollar corporation; one uses it's monopoly in search to bankroll and push it's browser, one uses their monopoly position in smartphones to force their browser on users and restricts the feature set of it's browser so as not to detract from custom App development, one threw in the towel and just rebranded Chromium, and the last is a non-profit that's financially dependent on the other three for handouts.
      - NayamAmarshe 4y ago
        > I wouldn't call backdrop-blur trivial or a basic feature. It's non-trivial to implement and used very little. Why should it be a priority? Why shouldn't it be? If Firefox can't lead in web development, how do you even expect it to keep up with times? I'm not sure why someone would defend Firefox's incompetency. I see things as they are and I make decisions based on that. Even if I see things as they could be, I'd rather not bet my money on Firefox.
- andy81 4y ago
  Firefox wasting time on re-implementing every pointless Chrome feature is half the reason we're in this space to begin with. A browser doesn't need to be an operating system.

NayamAmarshe 4y ago

Sure but we're acting as if a few people sticking to Firefox for the sake of it is going to save it, it's not. Not unless Mozilla fixes its underlying problems like the management and development roadmaps. The fact that Firefox got backdrop-blur support in mid 2022 speaks volumes about Firefox's priorities. I get the point you're trying to make, I use FOSS because I believe more people should be using it and if I don't, who would? But that doesn't work when it comes to Firefox. There are a lot of good free and open source browsers right now, no matter what engine they use. If a chromium based FOSS browser gets popular enough, there are better chances of it surviving and breaking away from Google's monopoly at the same time. It does not matter what Google does with Chrome, as long as independent forks are able to exist within that same space and can get just as big.

cptskippy 4y ago
> The fact that Firefox got backdrop-blur support in mid 2022 speaks volumes about Firefox's priorities. Perhaps it speaks more to your priorities? I can't see anyone outside of a web developer who needed that feature 1 time or even caring that backdrop-blur wasn't implemented. The fact that you're salty about a specific CSS property and that it's reason enough to boycott a browser speaks volumes.
- NayamAmarshe 4y ago
  > Perhaps it speaks more to your priorities? I can't see anyone outside of a web developer who needed that feature 1 time or even caring that backdrop-blur wasn't implemented. The point is, if Firefox can't even make basic web features like blur work on the browser (that are available on even no name mobile browsers) I can't expect Firefox to ever surpass Chrome or other competitors and it's evident. > The fact that you're salty about a specific CSS property and that it's reason enough to boycott a browser speaks volumes. As a web developer, I 100% stopped development on Firefox because it doesn't support even the most basic features all other browsers have. Like it or not, it's an inferior product because of the missing web APIs. You know what's better than fighting monopoly with an ideology? Fighting monopoly with an even better product that supports the ideology. Firefox is sadly not that.
  - cptskippy 4y ago
    > Firefox can't even make basic web features like blur work on the browser I wouldn't call backdrop-blur trivial or a basic feature. It's non-trivial to implement and used very little. Why should it be a priority? > (that are available on even no name mobile browsers) What no-name mobile browser that isn't based on an engine like Chromium has implemented more "basic" features than Firefox? The fact of the matter is that large corporations like Microsoft have given up trying to implement their own custom browser engine and pivoted to using Chromium. > it doesn't support even the most basic features all other browsers have. Like backdrop-blur? > Fighting monopoly with an even better product that supports the ideology. You're trivializing browser development as if you could build a better browser in a weekend. Of the 4 major browsers developers only one isn't a billion/trillion dollar corporation; one uses it's monopoly in search to bankroll and push it's browser, one uses their monopoly position in smartphones to force their browser on users and restricts the feature set of it's browser so as not to detract from custom App development, one threw in the towel and just rebranded Chromium, and the last is a non-profit that's financially dependent on the other three for handouts.
    - NayamAmarshe 4y ago
      > I wouldn't call backdrop-blur trivial or a basic feature. It's non-trivial to implement and used very little. Why should it be a priority? Why shouldn't it be? If Firefox can't lead in web development, how do you even expect it to keep up with times? I'm not sure why someone would defend Firefox's incompetency. I see things as they are and I make decisions based on that. Even if I see things as they could be, I'd rather not bet my money on Firefox.
andy81 4y ago
Firefox wasting time on re-implementing every pointless Chrome feature is half the reason we're in this space to begin with. A browser doesn't need to be an operating system.