11–20 of 80 posts
I wonder if people realize how low Firefox marketshare has fallen, or if people are stuck in a 2010s-era idea of what the web browser landscape is like. I also think the prevalence of Firefox among the (overall tiny) desktop Linux demographic tends to warp developer perspectives. It's under 4% - for all intents and purposes a dead browser. I certainly wouldn't devote any engineering hours towards supporting it.
I wonder if people realize how low Firefox marketshare has fallen, or if people are stuck in a 2010s-era idea of what the web browser landscape is like. I also think the prevalence of Firefox among the (overall tiny) desktop Linux demographic tends to warp developer perspectives. It's under 4% - for all intents and purposes a dead browser. I certainly wouldn't devote any engineering hours towards supporting it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention, the core development team has been cut. Mozilla is rebranding itself into a “Social Justice For Tech” marketing firm. There are two significant platforms left Chromium and WebKit. I hope that isn’t the future, but browser dominance is such an obscure, indirect problem to the industry that no company would bother touching it.
Not sure where you got the idea that the core development team has been cut, Firefox development remains strong. For example, here's a 1,000+ line patch that just landed two days ago. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1779952
I wonder if people realize how low Firefox marketshare has fallen, or if people are stuck in a 2010s-era idea of what the web browser landscape is like. I also think the prevalence of Firefox among the (overall tiny) desktop Linux demographic tends to warp developer perspectives. It's under 4% - for all intents and purposes a dead browser. I certainly wouldn't devote any engineering hours towards supporting it.
Firefox's marketshare is hardly the point here. As bob1029 said, there's no earthly reason why you wouldn't just build a standards-based site and have it work on any modern browser.
I wonder if people realize how low Firefox marketshare has fallen, or if people are stuck in a 2010s-era idea of what the web browser landscape is like. I also think the prevalence of Firefox among the (overall tiny) desktop Linux demographic tends to warp developer perspectives. It's under 4% - for all intents and purposes a dead browser. I certainly wouldn't devote any engineering hours towards supporting it.
Firefox's marketshare is hardly the point here. As bob1029 said, there's no earthly reason why you wouldn't just build a standards-based site and have it work on any modern browser.
So the bank has to test in Firefox, they can't just put all their hope in web standards that may or may not represent reality.
When Firefox falls to a certain marketshare it makes no sense for the bank to keep testing on Firefox.
I wonder if people realize how low Firefox marketshare has fallen, or if people are stuck in a 2010s-era idea of what the web browser landscape is like. I also think the prevalence of Firefox among the (overall tiny) desktop Linux demographic tends to warp developer perspectives. It's under 4% - for all intents and purposes a dead browser. I certainly wouldn't devote any engineering hours towards supporting it.
In most industries increasing your reach by 3% is worth doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox's marketshare is hardly the point here. As bob1029 said, there's no earthly reason why you wouldn't just build a standards-based site and have it work on any modern browser.
It's a bank. If a customer uses Firefox and loses money because of a Firefox bug or incompatibility, who do you think will be liable? The customer? No way. The bank is on the hook because it's their website that resulted in the loss. So the bank has to test in Firefox, they can't just put all their hope in web standards that may or may not represent reality. When Firefox falls to a certain marketshare it makes no sen…
I'm also not sure what error you're expecting? If browser bugs are a serious risk like this, you should surely be able to cite a few example lawsuits from the last year or two?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bank. If a customer uses Firefox and loses money because of a Firefox bug or incompatibility, who do you think will be liable? The customer? No way. The bank is on the hook because it's their website that resulted in the loss. So the bank has to test in Firefox, they can't just put all their hope in web standards that may or may not represent reality. When Firefox falls to a certain marketshare it makes no sen…
"It makes no sense to appeal to 4% of the population" seems like a bizarre claim, especially since that 4% is likely to be programmers in the top 25% of income. I'm also not sure what error you're expecting? If browser bugs are a serious risk like this, you should surely be able to cite a few example lawsuits from the last year or two?
My bank (B of A) started complaining about Debian's firefox-esr being too old and out of date, so I loaded the bleeding edge version just to access my bank account, but use the esr version for general browsing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most industries increasing your reach by 3% is worth doing.
You are not losing all that 4%, most will just launch another browser to for your site if they have to
(This is what I do. No problems so far…)