191–200 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried, but I can't do it. I need tabs.
Firefox Focus has had tabs for a while
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Firefox's dominant past plays against I'm sorry, what? It was either the underdog of MSIE or of Chrome, it never was dominant the way the actual dominant browser at the time was dominant. The peak was 30%, and when Chrome took over from MSIE, it had 21% with MSIE and Chrome at 30% each.
You have a short memory. Netscape Navigator 3 had a >75% market share. Mozilla, which became Firefox, was a total rewrite, but that rewrite was done by the same people and was released as Netscape 6 - 9.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, I'll bite. Having two implementations of a browser engine is a good thing. Without competing implementations, we're writing Chrome apps , not web apps . The important difference there is that monopolies are self-sustaining and that competition prevents Google from exercising complete control over the Web without some other player having a say in it. I think you might realize this, although your GitHub post was…
I answer late because I was blocked for "spamm", anyway here's my long answer. Well, first of all thank you . You actually added intellectual value to the thread and help me better understand others. That said, let's analyse what is right and what might be wrong from your comment. First of all, let's name A the hypothetical scenario where Firefox switch to chromium and maitain a soft fork where disagreement might occ…
> The issue is: Firefox marketshare is shrinking, in parts because most of their limited resources are allocated a reimplementing features already implemented by chromium instead of focusing their resources on differenciating features, marketing, performance of key parts, etc (but mostly (sadly) marketing)
You make a very valid point here. It matters less what Firefox does when their market share makes Firefox users a negligible part of the userbase of a product.
I would really like to see your idea play out in parallel to what Mozilla is currently doing. You're right that neither of us have a whole lot of data (especially with regards to the economical part), so it would be very cool to analyze the two comparatively to see which way produces a better browser (and a better Web).
Ultimately, however, I would like for the Web to better respect user privacy, be more performant, and be interoperable across every kind of device and platform. With very few vendors controlling the whole thing, it's much easier for them to make decisions that don't benefit the user, and then not allow users to have anywhere to go. Again, I don't know how hard it would be for Mozilla to "swim upstream" with changes they don't like in Chromium; a soft fork might turn harder and harder the more there is for Mozilla to cancel out. I guess the existence of Ungoogled Chromium proves that it's at least somewhat possible to retrofit Chromium into something better for the web. Having the weight of Mozilla behind a project like that would surely be a good thing (but would it be better than that same energy poured into a completely separate browser? That's the question).
Thank you again for your perspective. Have you tried writing a short and clear proposal to the mailing list mentioned and seeing what you get back?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox was a lot better than IE, but decimated is not the right word. I think it had about 25% market share at its peak? Chrome might be better than Firefox for some use cases, but the difference is definitely not as big as it used to be between Firefox and IE. Yet its market share is way higher. Which leads me to think it's not (just) about being better. I'd guess lock-in/cross-product marketing is another major fa…
>but decimated is not the right word. I think decimated is the right word, as it seems it took somewhere around 10% of IE's market share.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox was a lot better than IE, but decimated is not the right word. I think it had about 25% market share at its peak? Chrome might be better than Firefox for some use cases, but the difference is definitely not as big as it used to be between Firefox and IE. Yet its market share is way higher. Which leads me to think it's not (just) about being better. I'd guess lock-in/cross-product marketing is another major fa…
decimate: kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but decimated is not the right word. I think decimated is the right word, as it seems it took somewhere around 10% of IE's market share.
Hmm OK, there might be some misunderstanding there because I'm not a native speaker, but in my mind it's a small step below "obliterated". If it also refers to just taking a small bite out of its market share, then my apologies for the misunderstanding.
Originally, decimated came from when the Roman army would conquer another group, and would assert dominance (and instill fear) by killing off 1 in every 10 soldiers. So it literally meant removing a tenth.
English has mutated the meaning to mean "nearly wipe out", which is very different from the original meaning. But that's common in language. Confusing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome also has a persistent advantage in being able to advertise Chrome on google search results. Which they do, if you access them using a non-Chrome browser, or at least used to... I confess I'm not sure because I still use Chrome. I agree with you about the advantage of "if you're already using it, something has to be a LOT better to get you to switch".
> Chrome also has a persistent advantage in being able to advertise Chrome on google search results. And also on gmail, googlemaps and YouTube… They even paid for ads in the subway here in Paris! They also bundled it with software like Adobe Flash, which made it available on virtually every computer circa 2010… And they ship it as their default browser on Android…
It's not the default browser on most Android phones sold. Samsung Internet is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm interested to know why you feel that way. "It's open source, so it's your fault something doesn't meet your preferences" is an extremely common conversation bomb in this space. I included the opening phrase to highlight the fact that I'm aware of the possibility that this was a bad-faith response, but I chose to interpret it in the best possible light. What's gratuitous? Is "naive…
Sure, naive is a pejorative. But the insinuation of "deliberate attempt to mislead" is worse. The site guidelines ask everyone simply to assume good faith, so there's no need to highlight the possibility of bad faith. Doing that doesn't add any information and just distracts from the rest of your comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I prefer firefox, but I'm on a mac and it runs pretty hot. I believe they're improving this though. Once performance is solved it'll be my default browser.
Some fixes for this have landed in Nightly. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1429522