4 ms·
That's what I said, Webkit has recently sped up their development, for all the wrong reasons. As for Firefox, as much as I sentimentally align with it and stil
by fleddr 4y ago
That's what I said, Webkit has recently sped up their development, for all the wrong reasons.
As for Firefox, as much as I sentimentally align with it and still use it, it's a dead browser. I have access to some analytics of websites with a billion+ views/year and it doesn't even show up. It has like 0.5% market share on mobile.
They're irrelevant in this iteration of the browser wars.
- psxuaw 4y agoMaybe Firefox usage statistics could be distorted, because of its various mechanisms of blocking trackers.
- rerdavies 4y agoIt would surprise me greatly if Firefox were sending invalid User-Agent headers. User-Agent headers are mandatory; and it would be counterproductive for everybody, including Mozilla, if Firefox were sending invalid User-Agent headers.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoFor years I sent a blank UA string. It worked surprisingly well until about 2010. Only real issue was some Tomcat servers would just barf out stack traces. UA switcher is a pretty popular addon in the Mozilla ecosystem. So it may well be more popular than UA stats alone can surmise. (Though probably not enough to matter to businesses too lazy to test anything besides the top two.)
- moffkalast 4y agoAccording to Mozilla only like a third of all Firefox users have installed any add-on at all. So multiply the number by 150% and you have the highest possible Firefox usage rate.
- rerdavies 4y agoSimilar experience. :-P It didn't seem to be mandatory until suddenly it was.
- nordsieck 4y ago> Maybe Firefox usage statistics could be distorted, because of its various mechanisms of blocking trackers. I didn't think that that blocked the user-agent header. But I guess I could be wrong.