Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[deleted]
I Switched to Firefox and Never Looked Back
231–240 of 536 posts
Re: I Switched to Firefox and Never Looked Back
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have trouble seeing that as irony in a world where "embrace, extend, extinguish" exists.
Agreed. It would be ironic if it wasn't literally the exact same arc that every single company in this industry goes through. * Scrappy upstart catches the industry off guard * Wild success and growth * Becomes bloated, unable to innovate, and addicted to its cash cow * Begins turning the screws on its users to appease shareholders
It's all just a natural part of the enshittification progression.
Re: I Switched to Firefox and Never Looked Back
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
People just remember the shitty decisions more vividly and for longer than people remember the dozens of good decisions made in between. Most good decisions don't get a full press cycle (because they are boring).
Mozilla's brand identity is tethered to specific moral prescriptions[0] that their products are supposed to abide by. People sold on that identity are bound to care. [0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
This seems unrelated to whether or not Mozilla makes bad decisions more often than not.
I'm talking about frequency, you're talking about severity. People don't remember the 1000 times you did something correctly.
Re: I Switched to Firefox and Never Looked Back
#234I switched from Firefox and Never Looked Back
Re: I Switched to Firefox and Never Looked Back
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What doesn't work with YouTube on Firefox? The performance is way worse (which Google engineers will explain by some browser API being slower in Firefox and they haven't yet had time to optimize it, N years later [they did the same with Inbox + Firefox before]) and you'll also see more ads if you're not a paying user and using Firefox compared to if you used Google Chrome.
The last serious performance issue I saw with FF+YT was when YT added a glowing border around videos when the tab was in dark mode. FF just wasn't able to efficiently run that effect. I don't think it's very reasonable to say that YT or any other site should be limited by the performance problems of FF. Maybe they should have detected the issue before release but the explosion of browser x platform x dark/light theme…
"Should have detected the issue" implies it was an accident. YouTube has intentionally tanked performance in non-Chrome browsers before and been caught. Even when they weren't actively sabotaging other browsers they had big Chrome banners and "Works Better in Chrome" signs for several years in the past. If they did it _then_, it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt that they just "missed it" now, and easier to assume they do things that are broken in other browsers intentionally.
Re: I Switched to Firefox and Never Looked Back
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You forgot to tell another half of this story where this cafe used all sorts of tactics to kill competition and uses semi-related businesses to ensure its dominance. Then they nicely suggested everyone to pay what they can, or else. It's not an innocent local cafe as you paint it. It is a corporate network monster whose win strategy is "leave no survivors".
And rather than stop going to this evil cafe, people just go and don't pay.
So as long as you make out your flavor of the month business as "greedy and evil" you can paint yourself a moral crusader by going there and taking things for free. How convenient, eh?
"This coffee shop is a terrible place, therefore I will eat there for free everyday in protest!"
Re: I Switched to Firefox and Never Looked Back
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is so backwards it seems like a joke. Honestly it reads like a rebel group announcing peace with the dictator and joining the oppression.
Linux foundation is far from a rebel group. Look at who is involved.
Linux Foundation is much closer to an Evil Corporate than a rebel group. It is a pay-for-legitimacy scheme that abuses the Linux name and goodwill.
I wish Linus & co would distance themselves from these people.
Re: I Switched to Firefox and Never Looked Back
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do web dev and prefer safari. It’s less power hungry on a laptop. If you develop for the lowest common denominator, every other browser just works. There’s something to be said for adding _less_ features to web browsers. A simple web is a web where open source solutions can compete with chrome. It helps avoid a browser monoculture.
Yeah but we’re not in a simple web. Safari isn’t trying to make it simple for you, they just use it to keep you in their walled garden. PWAs are a great example of this. The general idea was even a product of the Jobs era of Apple, before the App Store. Safari and iOS’s poor support of PWAs is exactly a result of Apple wanting to prevent app distribution channels other than their App Store. Choosing safari is choosin…
> exactly a result of Apple wanting to prevent app distribution channels other than their App Store
Nah, it's because PWAs were a standard created by Google, with Google being the primary market driver, solely with the interest of advancing Google's own interests (both in undermining Apple, and making lower-end devices more usable in developing markets). Don't think Google invented PWAs, or heavily pushed them, out of some charity. Notice also that as the ultra-cheap phones (~$100) have become more powerful, and as Apple refused to take the bait, that Google's efforts behind PWA have mostly ended.
The same goes for RCS, even though it was initially made by a neutral vendor forum. Google became the heavy pusher of RCS, not just for the sake of Android, but because they had carrier deals to use Google's own infrastructure (Jibe) for RCS, and forcing Apple to accept and integrate with their own infrastructure is a better position to be in.
This is also, let's be clear, not the first time that Google has tried an "open" standard to advance their interests and bludgeon competition. AMP is what happens when the standard catastrophically fails.
Re: I Switched to Firefox and Never Looked Back
#239Currently the main attack facing Firefox is coming from advertising companies such as YouTube. It’s crazy to think that some software engineers might actually intentionally degrade user experience on non-Google browsers or for people using adblockers. The mentality here is pretty disturbing: it’s almost like punishing users for making the choice to browse the web without ads, or without the surveillance mechanisms th…
> Currently the main attack facing Firefox is coming from advertising companies such as YouTube. Can you explain this more? I don't understand what this means.
Google has a habit of intentionally delivering degraded versions of their services to not Chromium based browsers, particularly non-Chrome versions of their browsers (determined by User Agent).
There's a pretty famous example of Google deploying a specific variations of Youtube to Microsoft Edge browsers (back when Edge had it's own engine) and that specific variation would cause Edge's hardware acceleration to break. If you overrode the user agent to present as google chrome, the problematic invisible parts of the page disappeared and everything worked as intended. And what the specific problem HTML was would change just as fast as the MS team could roll out fixes. In effect they were playing a game of "break the browser" against their competitors to force them to apply temporary fixes that would then later have to be removed resulting in unnecessary code churn in their competitors' code bases.
Re: I Switched to Firefox and Never Looked Back
#240Currently the main attack facing Firefox is coming from advertising companies such as YouTube. It’s crazy to think that some software engineers might actually intentionally degrade user experience on non-Google browsers or for people using adblockers. The mentality here is pretty disturbing: it’s almost like punishing users for making the choice to browse the web without ads, or without the surveillance mechanisms th…
It's not the engineers making these decisions. They write the code they are told to write. Some middle manager / VP gets a promotion if they 'increase engagement', 'increase ad-spend', or some other hollow metric they chase. They are the ones deciding to send any 1-3 star ratings to customer support, and 4-5 ratings recorded as an actual rating. It's not about the users at all. It's about gaming the system for some m…
I am not a person who normally moralizes to others, but I can say I have quit jobs where I found the work to be unethical or that company policies required me to bend my ethics.
The engineers implement all of the "features" that these management types decide on. I understand there are infinite engineers so eventually the features will get implemented, but I do not blame the managers alone for tasks done by unethical engineers who do not consider the effect of their work in the long run.