2 ms·
> While I understand why folks would miss the loss of XUL/XPCOM, stating that it was to ape Chrome feels disingenuous. I wrote the article. I did not state tha
by lproven 3y ago
> While I understand why folks would miss the loss of XUL/XPCOM, stating that it was to ape Chrome feels disingenuous.
I wrote the article. I did not state that. I did not even hint it or imply it, and my eyebrows went so far up when I read this comment that my hat lifted.
I've never even heard this idea before.
Please can you point out where I said that the removal of XUL was in order to ape Chrome?
- arusahni 3y agoThat was my read of this paragraph: > Mozilla, please stop aping Chrome. Copying is rarely the way to win big. The Australis Chrome-like theme in Firefox 29 annoyed users and was a driving force behind Pale Moon. Firefox Quantum killed XUL addons, and drove The Reg FOSS desk to Waterfox Classic.
- lproven 3y agoHmmm. I see what you mean, but that was not my intention. The meaning the author -- me -- intended was: "A drove people to B. It didn't drive me to it, but C drove me to D." Expanding that: 1. Stop copying Chrome. 2. Australis copied Chrome and that drove a whole fork because so many people hated it. [Full stop.] 3. Also, comparably, for the author, Quantum killed XUL and that is why the author switched away from Firefox. However, I note that the marketing claim from Mozilla was that Quantum used the same type of extensions that Chrome used ("webextensions") and that this would be good for the Firefox add-on ecosystem. This is demonstrably false, as I laid out in the Waterfox article which this story links to, but it was what Mozilla claimed at the time.