5 ms·
For a decade of so I was in charge internal web page for mobile users. I had control over the devices the end users had, the web browser they used, I maintaine
by rstuart4133 2y ago
For a decade of so I was in charge internal web page for mobile users. I had control over the devices the end users had, the web browser they used, I maintained the back end. In that deployment the best product was Firefox.
There were two major reasons. It could be deployed on all platforms we used (we didn't support iOS). Secondly it was by far the most reliable. We still have the occasional use who would use Chrome on Android or whatever, and at least one or twice a year Chrome would push a broken version. It's odd, as before that I would have put Google's code quality above Mozilla's. At least for Chrome/Firefox it's not, and the difference is large.
- londons_explore 2y agoOccasionally pushing a bad update is a symptom of having 10x as many Devs pushing 10x as many features each month. Even if Googles QA process was triple as good as Mozilla's, the users would still see more breakage.
- michaelmrose 2y agoI don't think you can scale or compare like that numerically. Every commit isn't a chance for it to break for users because they bundle however many commits into a release and resources required to test the release don't scale per commit.
- londons_explore 2y agoI think most of the recent breakage has been server side changes and feature flags. Ie "whoops, people who were in this 1% experiment had their browser crash when we pushed an update to the spell check dictionary because we didn't test that combination". Risks like that scale closer to the number of features/number of Devs, since Devs can be fiddling with server side config outside the release process.
- dartos 2y agoMore devs writing more code causes more bugs. Seems to make sense.