4 ms·
Are they...issues? Like, I frankly couldn't care less if Chrome is capable of running some funky JS that is mainly used on sites that I don't visit a bit faste
by genocidicbunny 3y ago
Are they...issues?
Like, I frankly couldn't care less if Chrome is capable of running some funky JS that is mainly used on sites that I don't visit a bit faster, or is capable of rendering some css animation that I would honestly prefer died in a fire a bit faster.
- fooker 3y agoThey aren't if the goal is having a Firefox useful to you. They are, if the goal is to figure out why Firefox market share has plummeted. People do care about `funky` websites being faster. The modern web has immensely useful software which a good fraction of web users depend on that are rendered unusable on Firefox once in a while.
- genocidicbunny 3y agoI don't disagree, I'm just trying to address the incredulity that perhaps for some people, Firefox might not have problems, or (gasp!) for some, Chrome might be the one with problems.
- fooker 3y agoI'd argue that the market share reflects the ratio of these two `some`s. Unfortunately the party with the deeper pocket tends to win in these cases as long as they care to.
- genocidicbunny 3y agoWhich is why it's even more frustrating when Mozilla ends up wasting a bunch of money on some boondoggle or other. They don't have the warchest Google has, they need to be smarter with how they spend their limited resources, especially since their income is proportional to their market share.