Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 340 posts

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#241

Post by eganist »

tmnvix wrote: post #239

Unfortunately, at this point I am just too comfortable with Chrome's inspector. It might seem like a small thing, but I have a dozen other 'small things' to familiarise myself with every day, so reacquainting myself with Firebug is likely to never become a priority. At this stage it'll take something stupid on Chrome's behalf to encourage me to make a move. Having said that, I might start using FF as my non-work brow…

Took me a bit to switch from Firebug to Chrome's inspector when Chrome became better a number of years ago.

Took me not as much to switch back.

You can do it. It just takes some getting used to and perhaps a few compromises until the next updates are released, but it'll encourage Google to actually play nice with the web again.

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#242

Post by Fnoord »

blub wrote: post #114
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My gut reaction was to be suspicious of Mozilla, but then I remembered that they're Mozilla. They're probably just trying to figure out which features are confusing for users. It's strange because we do this type of tracking in all facets of webapps, but desktop apps trigger our suspicion meter.

Mozilla ain't what it used to be: http://www.zdnet.com/article/firefox-tests-cliqz-engine-whic...

Agreed this is an ill effort which should be shot down but even though Mozilla isn't perfect, they're still miles ahead of Google, Apple, and Microsoft. My point being, what you linked isn't a reason to not go for Firefox 57 or to not be enthusiastic about Firefox 57.

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#243

Post by clivestaples »

tmnvix wrote: post #239

Unfortunately, at this point I am just too comfortable with Chrome's inspector. It might seem like a small thing, but I have a dozen other 'small things' to familiarise myself with every day, so reacquainting myself with Firebug is likely to never become a priority. At this stage it'll take something stupid on Chrome's behalf to encourage me to make a move. Having said that, I might start using FF as my non-work brow…

I thought the same thing regarding the inspector in previous versions of Firefox, but the dev tools in Quantum feel right.

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#245

Post by Daishiman »

bla2 wrote: post #244

Great pr, but Quantum sounds like they finally ported some of chrome 1's tech over. It's great that they're multiprocess now, but it seems more like they've caught up after 9 years, not like they're ahead much. And the UI is still off on macOS.

No, there is seriously new and innovative tech in the case engine with parallel layouts as well as safety improvements with Rust.

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#246

Post by aylons »

wils1245 wrote: post #86
spystath wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think that a technology-oriented magazine like wired would at least try to aim for cross-browser compatibility in their infrastructure. But why bother, make your CMS Chrome-only a policy and free yourself of extra testing. And it's not only wired. I've come across a lot of internal sites and intranets that are poorly tested on anything but Chrome. I know, it's not exactly the same thing as the old IE/ActiveX bu…

It’s the parent company’s CMS, not Wired’s. I’d bet that the people at Wired are more annoyed by it than anyone.

Well, they also own Ars Technica, which I suppose has its own CMS, but still...

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#247

Post by vatotemking »

vhiremath4 wrote: post #142

With all this push for Quantum, I wonder what the extension landscape is like. I’ve heard people complain about FF dropping support for old extension APIs (absolutely no idea if this is true - just murmurs). As a Dev, would now technically be a good time to consider building an extension for Firefox?

The extensions API is pretty stable. I've built my own add-on for it a few weeks ago [1].

If you want to get into add-ons, now is the perfect time. The tutorials are a bit sparse atm, but I found this treasure trove of examples straight from MDNs repo [2]

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ametrican/

[2] https://github.com/mdn/webextensions-examples

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#249

Post by kuschku »

subbz wrote: post #207
merb wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why is the header ugly on MacOS? it actually has the same color and looks like it's part of the menu bar.

The tabs don't hang in the top left corner but there's some space. I don't get this design decision. Also I dislike the hard dark outlines on some icons (e.g. for folders).

> The tabs don't hang in the top left corner but there's some space.

Which is configurable.

Re: Ciao, Chrome: Firefox Quantum Is the Browser Built for 2017

#250

Post by kuschku »

arianon wrote: post #191
jedberg wrote: post #30

And yet 95% of the time I try to watch YouTube in Firefox, it just hangs, never actually playing. Yet Chrome works flawlessly every time. I'm not saying Google is doing anything malicious here, I think it's more of a "we put a lot more effort into making YouTube work" kinda thing.

YouTube is now written in Polymer, a library made by Google that uses the Web Components specifications, which currently only Chrome supports natively[1], so they have to rely on polyfills on the rest of the browsers, so it's understandable that YouTube can perform bad on browsers other than Chrome. [1]: https://caniuse.com/#search=web%20components

> which currently only Chrome supports natively

Firefox Nightly supports it, too, but Google still uses the polyfill there, and not even their normal polyfill, but a significantly slower one.

Post reply on HN