https://twitter.com/firefox/status/734867770853068801
Mozilla is confident they will get tons of users now and they are able to fight the competition.
Believable or not?
No.
Mozilla is killing their core technologies: XUL, XPCOM, NPAPI, Gecko engine, etc. They're also killing/have killed other Mozilla products: Thunderbird, Seamonkey, Sunbird and so on.
There is nothing valuable left in this company. Most of the people from the Netscape and old Firefox days have left. All they have is the Firefox brand, the relevance of which is growing smaller and smaller every day.
It's mainly pajeets and feminists who have no idea how to program now. It makes sense considering they want to move to a full HTML browser and entirely different engine with Chrome extensions.
TL;DR Firefox is going the way of Opera real soon. Mozilla is nothing but a shell of what it once was.
>>54787034
I should also add, the people working at Mozilla barely understand half of the Firefox/Netscape browser codebase. They just upgrade to a new version of Visual Studio, add some new "standards", and change the frontend again to piss off all the users every few years.
>>54787084
Again? I have been thinking Australis is the last UI change for now?
What they are doing next?
>they are seriously implying that chrome extensions are in any way better that firefox extensions and that there are any worth to mention chrome-exclusive extensions
>>54787034
>Mozilla is killing their core technologies: XUL, XPCOM, NPAPI, Gecko engine, etc. They're also killing/have killed other Mozilla products: Thunderbird, Seamonkey, Sunbird and so on.
And nothing of value is lost.
>>54787034
>Thunderbird
Hey, I'm still using thunderbird, because it's the best.
>>54787084
They also don't understand what made users like Firefox in the first place, and why they used Firefox and not Chrome.
The market doesn't need or want Chrome 2.0. People using Chrome will keep using Chrome, even if Firefox is the same shit.
>>54787217
Quite some amount will switch. Alone for the fact that if you have 2 almost equal browsers stupidity wise, Firefox from Mozilla has less spy features and offers more privacy.
>>54787217
Not so sure. A Chrome 2 which is real Open Source and has more privacy... This could be more attractive to a lot of Chrome users.
>>54787084
This explains why it took them 7 years to get electrolysis working.
>>54787155
Actually a lot is lost. The Gecko platform (including XUL) is used to make more than just web browsers. Entire programs can be designed with it.
Losing one of the most popular standalone mail clients is also a bad thing.
>inb4 hurr webmail
>>54787242
Nobody who uses windows cares about "spy features".
Mozilla/Firefox might be dead but their new browser.html project with a servo backend could be quite something. Although i most definitely will use a build thats not maintained by them.
Since Addons are now/soon more or less "standardized" between Firefox/Chrome i guess it will be no problem for the new browser to pick up the pieces.
Using a privacy enhanced Chrome and a minimalistic Firefox with tons of about:config options is quite tiresome these days. I check every half year what new shit i have to disable that they messed up. I yearn for a new browser thats not based up on either Firefox or Chrome and is maintainable and reliably upgradeable. Vivaldi, Edge, Brave, etc. are not even in the game. I
want a modular browser that i control and can rip out shit that i don't need to browse the web. Thanks for Firefox Mozilla, but please invest the rest of your capital into your new browser and get off my lawn when your done.
>>54787257
Like any Chrome users give a shit on what you call "privacy" and if it's open source or not.
>>54787280
Why not Brave? It is Open Source and is not even using Chromium. They use the Blink rendering part minus the botnet parts and minus the UI parts of Chrome/Chromium and it also has browser.html technology.
Basically, Brave is Electron without the big Chromium content module which makes it not really Chromium.
You can for sure not say that the rendering engine alone is Chromium. It is Blink!
Just use Pale Moon when they rebase off one of the new Firefox versions (instead of being tied to ancient FF24) and uncuck yourself from Mozilla.
No Australis means more customization in the browser layout as well as compatibility with older, yet still useful extensions.
>>54787264
It's an unmaintainable garbage abomination of a codebase. Thunderbird is holding Firefox back by wasting developers and money. If people really cared about Thunderbird, they will step in to maintain the project once it becomes independent of Mozilla.
>>54787415
Guess you are not liking customization and tons of features?
Speed is important, but features have also their place in a product, speed is not everything. Also benchmarks are not everything. It is wrong if every software is today for simple users only.
>>54787438
features is a codeword for unmaintained garbage. every flag doubles the number of configurations that won't be tested before shipping.
>>54787415
There have bee times where advanced users have been of utter importance for all software developers.
This should be the case again. Simple users have no loyalty, advanced users do.
And no, features are important and it does not mean they are non-maintained. Bare-bone like software is useless, ugly and terrible.
It is a shame that you simple users have such a large saying today where the journey is going technology wise.
Utterly sucks!
>>54787264
No one sane makes anything with XUL anymore, it's a flaming garbage pile. Basically everyone would rather take chromium and node.js and build their shitty application on top of them. Mozilla is losing partly because of that pile of shit.
>>54787463
I would say if you feel so insecure about features, learn how they work, learn how you can use them for your advantage.
Perhaps then you feel not such an animosity and such hate for them that you want it gone because you can not comprehend them as a whole.
It is ty´pical..
>I do not get that feature so i want it gone because it hurts my pride, fuck off advanced users!
>>54787463
It can have features and not be unmaintainable garbage. Firefox's codebase is huge and poorly designed. Chrome has a better design so it's faster in performance, faster in development time, and breaks extension compatibility way less often.
>>54787337
Didn't acutally know it was open source
https://github.com/brave/browser-laptop
The main reason for chrome is the flash plugin for sites that still depend on it.
The main reason for Firefox is years of baggage, browser history, bookmarks and addons..
Since i sandbox/jail all my shit these days and don't save any logins in the browser i suppose it doesn't really matter anyways, might give Brave a try.
I still can't trust blink, because a bug in it has to would much value and impact. Any code execution level thing there would reach billions of browsers and devices these days. Same goes for gecko, though, thats why both need additional sandboxing.
By the looks of it though the Brave people might also be in a perfect position to be one of the first to rip it out and replace it with servo, that theoretically doesn't suffer from this kind of bugs.. huh, Thanks anon
>>54787505
They are losing because they sacrifice their whole product to be Chrome like with the hope they can absorb Chromiums user base.
If they would care for their old user base again, market share will rise. If they continue to fuck users, they will lose even more.
Being like Chrome will gain them nothing at all. Because the simplicity and minimalism of Chrome is of lesser value than Firefox flexibility and features of the past.
Unbelievable that they sacrifice it all to gain Chrome audience.
>>54787264
>Losing one of the most popular standalone mail clients is also a bad thing.
Mozilla is cutting Thunderbird off because they have different needs compared to Firefox and trying to keep them together just hinders both of them. Thunderbird doesn't even need all of the shit gecko provides it's a mail client it doesn't need to have the ability to render html5 canvas elements or play video or shit like that. The fact that it's using firefox's rendering engine just makes it more complicated and difficult to maintain.
>>54787438
>>54787487
>>54787513
Mozilla is bringing new extension API's in addition to web extensions. They want to offer a highly extensible browser in addition to not running on ancient shit code.
>>54787522
Chrome and design? It is a simplistic and minimalist waste of time. Chrome does have no features. It does not have one redeeming feature to be willing to use Chromium/Chrome in unmodified form and it does not have any redeeming value to model your own product in the way it resembles Chromium as much as possible.
>>54787558
A few cheap API does not replace customization. This is nothing of value. Webextensions are shit and they stay shit.
>>54787558
Mozilla hates customization. They have removed almost all customization from Firefox because they care only for design, minimalism and simplicity today.
Who wants features have to create them on their own or has bad luck if nothing like that does exist.
This is a disgusting change of mentality. That is even more than disgusting. That is betrayal at the highest level!
>>54787579
>>54787603
Mozilla reached out to developers who complained that their extensions won't be usable in the future and asked for what parts of Firefox they relied on. This famously includes the NoScript developers. You can submit what parts of Firefox your extensions rely on in a google form or bug report and they are porting the code in order by the popularity of the request.
>>54787242
>>54787257
But that's like what, 2%, 3%, 5% at most? Fact is, these days no one really cares. Even here on /g/ of all places, you have people that simply don't care anymore. I personally go out of my way and don't bother using slightly worse alternatives if it means better privacy, but we live in a world where most people just don't care anymore, and no matter how much you try, you just are never safe if you want to use anything connected to the Web.
We're pretty fucked in that concern, honestly. And we'll never get a good browser either, by the looks of it.
>>54787522
And that's because chrome doesn't do flags.
>>54787463
Leave this board rajeesh
I'm looking forward to what firefox looks like in the next year or two, hopefully by then webextensions will be out and e10s and sandboxing are enabled. I only use one extension and it already works on chromium anyway so basically nothing changes for me. I'm curious what servo+browser.html will bring over also.
>>54787537
I use chrome because it's the most secure browser. Chrome is literally the reason we've seccomp. Why would I use a product from a company that hires based on diversity quotas and not and merit and whose browser is, as a consequence, full of security holes?
>>54786940
post the fucking article, you fucking retard
>>54787854
It's behind a wall you need an account to view past the first few paragraphs. What a load of bullshit.
You know, I come to think that informatics is doing more harm than good in certain areas.I just have to look at my superiors; they worked on pre-workstation shit. They still use Fortran77 and abide almost to the 77 standard. They don't give a SHIT about how great the design of the software is, if it's gone in 10 years it is not worth relying on. And you know what? From a user's perspective this is a correct pov. Period. You can shove your "good design" up your arse. You can take your "fresh, modern concepts" and go fuck yourself. You can take your "easily extensible" code and throw it in the trash because noone will EVER extend it. At some point when people get old they stop seeing the need to revolutionize, they become conservative. If you can't let your project grow the fuck up, die with it. Real life does not give a shit about your precious logical arguments.
I tried to go back to it but it was sluggish. It behaved like every action had a small lag to it. It annoyed me to much. Couldn't even browse google maps properly, shit was slow and tiles often froze. I'm sticking with Opera till electrolysis arrives in stable, which should be this year hopefully.
>>54786940
You know
FUCK the era of fad-based development.
I'm so fucking glad I don't develop software for a fucking living, I could not stand the levels of design memery I'd have to get past
>Use Firefox because it can block ads and kill scripts with addons
>Only usable alternative is Chrome
>Broswer made by company earning money with ads and scripts
>>54788939
after all is said and done firefox is still the only viable browser
>>54788939
uhm, and how do you think mozilla (both mozilla corp and foundation) get money?
>>54789296
donations and search sponsors
>>54789296
well duh
and just like wikimedia the abundance of money encouraged them to go off on tangents to find excuses to spend it, and as a result their core product deteriorated.
>>54789385
>search sponsors
and those are... companies that live off ads.
>>54789451
I want to see stats on mozilla's revenue. lemme guess: most (as in, tens/thousands of millions) of the money actually comes from google/yahoo.
>>54787217
This. Mozilla doesn't understand that people who are still using Firefox are using it because it *isn't* Chrome.
And yet, they're trying to turn Firefox into a carbon copy of chrome, which only serves to hasten their death since now Firefox will just be a worse version of Chrome.
It's 2016, let's recap what I want from my browser:
1. The ability to style every single user element with CSS.
2. The ability to block ads, including cosmetic rules. Should be compatible with ABP/uBlock filter syntax.
3. A matrix policy-based content blocker (like uMatrix or Policeman), with the ability to block at the very minimum: cookies, scripts, css, images, XHRs and iframes; plus the ability to selectively enable referer masking and user agent randomization.
4. Support for ICCv4 profiles and full color management, including color management of images, CSS colors and <video> elements
5. Support for pentadactyl, vimium, vimperator or equivalents. Basically, vim-like modal browsing with hints.
6. Support for mouse gestures
7. Support for privacy-centric addons like Decentraleyes or HTTPS Everywhere
8. Support for styling arbitrary websites with my own user CSS (like Stylish)
9. Strong privilege separation, especially between the website rendering agent and the component that actually communicates with my (vulnerable) graphics drivers.
10. A typical suite of web debugging tools (e.g. element inspector, JavaScript console, network request log, etc.)
11. The ability to turn off all telemetry, developer pings, link prefetching, malware checks and other spyware / antifeatures.
12. The ability to plug in libmpv (or a program of my choice) for rendering <video> elements
Firefox currently seems to be the browser that comes closest to providing all of these, although it's still missing:
- Strong privilege separation
- <video> color management
- Ability to use libmpv (well)
>>54786940
God, Firefox's twitter feed is so trash. Why do companies always hire 19 year olds with ADHD to manage their social networking.
So... i wonder how they are handling Firefox OS now, my Panasonic TV has it and it's pretty nice. It'd suck if support is dropped.
Pity, could've been an alternative to chromeOS.
>>54789558
>1. The ability to style every single user element with CSS.
do you mean the ability to edit pages like putting bezels on 4chan posts and then saving the preset?
that would possibly be the best browser ever made
>>54787415
>It's an unmaintainable garbage abomination of a codebase
Is losing years or decades worth of legacy code/functionality worth it for performance gains?
Old Mozilla software/add-on had utilitarian design to them.
>>54791152
No, that's what I mentioned under #8
>>54786940
>Turns out, the good folks at Mozilla took their shrinking market share to heart and fought back with one of the most notably improved products I have seen in recent memory
I'm pretty sure they started losing their market share when they started dropping every feature to make a chrome clone
>>54786940
>that image
OMG why are there more women going to the lose side? Why are all the 'losers' colored black? I have been triggered.
>>54791601
>design memers
>caring about making useful software
Don't you know: Code Functionality Considered Useful (avoid at all costs)
