[deleted]
Why Firefox Deserves Its Sad Decline
11–20 of 44 posts
Re: Why Firefox Deserves Its Sad Decline
#12Pretty extensive but leaves out Phoenix and the meteoric adoption of the lightweight browser and then the co-opting, injection of XUL, and return to bloatware.
People left Mozilla products because they didn't have enough RAM to run them.
Phoenix was the first time I started looking at Mozilla again.
Re: Why Firefox Deserves Its Sad Decline
#13Let me TL;DR it: Spends ages telling us a revisionist history we mostly know. Then says it deserves this because the chairperson of Mozilla has a ridiculous salary (agreed). That's nonsense though.
Firefox did a lot of stupid things (FF OS etc.) and took too long to deliver things like quantum, security, etc. But they got there eventually and they're still a non-profit. So while I don't support the salary of the chairperson, I do support it. It's also a better product than Chrome at this point in time (for my usage). Still has ways to go.
It seems that OP is just looking for attention by being an a-hole. Pretty lame behavior IMHO.
Re: Why Firefox Deserves Its Sad Decline
#14Any article about Firefox and it's relevance that doesn't strongly highlight the "David v. Goliath" nature of what it's up against -- and implies that it gets developed in roughly the same way and for the same purposes as its competitors -- is dumb at best and dangerously misleading at worst.
Mozilla was getting $50m from search to develop a browser that gained market share. How is that different from the goals of Google or Microsoft?
Re: Why Firefox Deserves Its Sad Decline
#15Pretty extensive but leaves out Phoenix and the meteoric adoption of the lightweight browser and then the co-opting, injection of XUL, and return to bloatware. People left Mozilla products because they didn't have enough RAM to run them. Phoenix was the first time I started looking at Mozilla again.
"Extensive?" This isn't exactly fact-filled:
"It all started with an app called Netscape Navigator, developed by a group of people, which was then bought..."
This reads like a poorly-researched junior-high report.
Re: Why Firefox Deserves Its Sad Decline
#16I don't understand the ideas in this article. Or the writing itself, which is horrible.
> Firefox was a legend. It’s of course, still underused by millions and millions of people, but not the way it was before. It was without a doubt one of the most dominant software before.
What the fuck does that even mean? Is it underused but not as underused as before? Was it the dominant software before? Before what, exactly?
> For example, the mobile version of chrome integrates well with Android and is the default browser in android because both Android and Chrome was owned by Google.
> Since google chrome just started giving good competition, and also making itself and default for Android, the marketing and popularity of Chrome flew through the sky.
Is competition given? Do browsers give competition? Also, is this good competition, really? I remember a certain software giant who got into some legal trouble over similar mechanics. But I'm happy that the popularity of Chrome didn't flew through the dirt or through water. Flying through water is not as good as it was 'before'
Re: Why Firefox Deserves Its Sad Decline
#17I can't tell if I'm having a brain fart Sunday morning or this is just generally a very poorly written article. Can someone give a summary? I read half of it and I still don't see a single "point" being made. The closest it got making a point is:
> It seemed to be this software that tried to keep up with the pace of Google Chrome more than a software that actually had its own ideas.
That sentence answers itself. Obviously the issue is that it had to try to keep up with a huge corporation pouring orders of magnitude more money and time.
The article is just filled with memes but doesn't really say much at all.
Re: Why Firefox Deserves Its Sad Decline
#18Let me TL;DR it: Spends ages telling us a revisionist history we mostly know. Then says it deserves this because the chairperson of Mozilla has a ridiculous salary (agreed). That's nonsense though. Firefox did a lot of stupid things (FF OS etc.) and took too long to deliver things like quantum, security, etc. But they got there eventually and they're still a non-profit. So while I don't support the salary of the chai…
Not to mention the juvenile and lazy writing, often lacking in specifics or even purpose.
Re: Why Firefox Deserves Its Sad Decline
#19Any article about Firefox and it's relevance that doesn't strongly highlight the "David v. Goliath" nature of what it's up against -- and implies that it gets developed in roughly the same way and for the same purposes as its competitors -- is dumb at best and dangerously misleading at worst.
Mozilla was getting $50m from search to develop a browser that gained market share. How is that different from the goals of Google or Microsoft?
$50M is tiny compared to how much Google invested in Chrome. That barely pays 100 engineers.
Re: Why Firefox Deserves Its Sad Decline
#20I can't tell if I'm having a brain fart Sunday morning or this is just generally a very poorly written article. Can someone give a summary? I read half of it and I still don't see a single "point" being made. The closest it got making a point is: > It seemed to be this software that tried to keep up with the pace of Google Chrome more than a software that actually had its own ideas. That sentence answers itself. Obvi…
It's not you. It's piss-poor "writing."