3 ms·

If I gave off a sense of entitlement, thats the last thing I feel, concerning FF. However, I don't feel like its that big of an expectation to want software tha

by Zev 17y ago

If I gave off a sense of entitlement, thats the last thing I feel, concerning FF. However, I don't feel like its that big of an expectation to want software that works well. Am I mistaken here? Or did you mistake my responding to a dev asking "whats wrong?" and listing the problems I had as something else? My problem with reporting issues to Mozilla is that they seem to fall on deaf ears. Every issue I've mentioned I've discussed with people on irc.mozilla.org or seen a number of bugzilla tickets for. None of them have been completely fixed. And, I don't use FF. I would like to have it as a secondary browser, incase Safari acts up, or for testing websites. But, that doesn't work; it doesn't even render content the same on Windows, Linux and Mac. So that's out the window. As to why I don't go and fix it myself? I don't use it. I'm happy with the browser I have. There are more interesting (to me) projects to contribute to. I have more interesting ideas to hack on then a web browser that has a company dedicated to working on it.

rbanffy 17y ago
"I don't feel like its that big of an expectation to want software that works well." Define "working well". Firefox is far from perfects, but good enough is good enough. "they seem to fall on deaf ears" Developers have the right of assigning priorities when fixing bugs. You only feel this way because their priorities are not the same as yours. I have a collection of old computers, mostly Unix workstations from mid to late 90's and several earlier Macs and Firefox support is somewhat sparse for them. You won't see me complaining 3.5 was not released for AIX 3 or MacOS 7 or Solaris 2.6. I assume, if they did, they would have one download each, from me. "it doesn't even render content the same on Windows, Linux and Mac." Here is an interesting point: you complain it doesn't "blend" into the GUI as native apps do, but you complain it does not render pages the same way on the three platforms you mention. All three platforms have different fonts and their users expect a different look (crappy from Windows, less crappy from X, good-looking from OSX) when they render text. So, would it be fair to break user expectations on one side and address them on the other? It's supposed to run on all possible platforms (and, mind you, there is Firefox for really tiny user-bases), not to be the same on all of them. Not even Webkit looks exactly the same on all browsers that use it. You will still have to test for pixel accuracy on your target platforms. That (and for doing internet banking for one of my accounts) is why I keep a couple Windows VMs around and a Mac on my desktop to the left of the Linux netbook I am writig this on. "As to why I don't go and fix it myself? I don't use it. I'm happy with the browser I have." So, if you are happy with what you have, please use it and stay happy. You don't _have_ to frustrate yourself with software that mis-behaves in some narrow (or, to be fair, not-so-narrow) corner-cases. Everyone who uses Firefox has the right to inspect its code, to modify it, to improve it and, if they want, to release another browser based on that code. This far outweights the "blending-in" problem in my book. If someone feels so strongly about them, it's only a question of time someone will submit a patch that fixes it.

by Zev 17y ago

rbanffy 17y ago

"I don't feel like its that big of an expectation to want software that works well." Define "working well". Firefox is far from perfects, but good enough is good enough. "they seem to fall on deaf ears" Developers have the right of assigning priorities when fixing bugs. You only feel this way because their priorities are not the same as yours. I have a collection of old computers, mostly Unix workstations from mid to late 90's and several earlier Macs and Firefox support is somewhat sparse for them. You won't see me complaining 3.5 was not released for AIX 3 or MacOS 7 or Solaris 2.6. I assume, if they did, they would have one download each, from me. "it doesn't even render content the same on Windows, Linux and Mac." Here is an interesting point: you complain it doesn't "blend" into the GUI as native apps do, but you complain it does not render pages the same way on the three platforms you mention. All three platforms have different fonts and their users expect a different look (crappy from Windows, less crappy from X, good-looking from OSX) when they render text. So, would it be fair to break user expectations on one side and address them on the other? It's supposed to run on all possible platforms (and, mind you, there is Firefox for really tiny user-bases), not to be the same on all of them. Not even Webkit looks exactly the same on all browsers that use it. You will still have to test for pixel accuracy on your target platforms. That (and for doing internet banking for one of my accounts) is why I keep a couple Windows VMs around and a Mac on my desktop to the left of the Linux netbook I am writig this on. "As to why I don't go and fix it myself? I don't use it. I'm happy with the browser I have." So, if you are happy with what you have, please use it and stay happy. You don't _have_ to frustrate yourself with software that mis-behaves in some narrow (or, to be fair, not-so-narrow) corner-cases. Everyone who uses Firefox has the right to inspect its code, to modify it, to improve it and, if they want, to release another browser based on that code. This far outweights the "blending-in" problem in my book. If someone feels so strongly about them, it's only a question of time someone will submit a patch that fixes it.