I've been using Firefox ever since version 1.5, and watching it go below 10% browser marketshare just makes me really sad.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3051131/web-browsers/microsoft-continues-to-bleed-browser-share-at-record-rates.html
Article is more about IE but it also talks about Firefox, idgaf about Microsoft because they had it coming.
But Firefox used to be a symbol of the power of open source development, all around beautifully software engineered, crafted to be portable to almost every platform in existence and it ran way faster than the competition. It was always "sticking it to the man", showing Mozilla could always do better than Microsoft and their multi-million dollar Internet Explorer team.
Nowadays only neckbeards on /g/ use Firefox, and even some of us are abandoning it for PaleMoon, because Mozilla is now taking every wrong turn on their decisions, dropping features and introducing new ones no one cares about, leaving Bugzilla nearly unattended, and doubling down on all this bullshit when it didn't work the first time.
Electrolysis is gonna be the final nail in Firefox coffin no matter how good or bad it is, but it'll change Firefox so much that people are gonna drop it instantly because it's the point of no return for the browser. It's gonna go so low it'll rival Opera in numbers, and at that point I don't think it'll be worth my time using it either.
>>53970474
Thank catering to the completely wrong target audience for that.
I used PaleMoon for a couple of months, but dropped it because of the lack of 60fps Youtube.
I'm using Cyberfox now.
>>53970520
Is this how Firefox is supposed to live on? As endless forks of the gecko source code?
>>53970474
>But Firefox used to be a symbol of the power of open source development, all around beautifully software engineered, crafted to be portable to almost every platform in existence and it ran way faster than the competition.
GOOGLE EMBRACED, EXTENDED AND EXTIGUISHED IT
>>53970794
Yes, forks created by more competent developers.
In a way, Mozilla brought this upon themselves. The tech stack they chose for Gecko back in the late 90s happens to not gel well with the demands faced by modern web browsers (sandboxing, per-tab processes, etc), so now they've got this situation where modernization also means bastardization.
>>53970872
NOPE
>>53970474
>not a super neckbeard
>still use firefox
What should I be using?
>>53970831
THIS
>>53970872
You mean more competent developers than the ones that basically set most of the standards we all use now ever since Netscape was graced upon us?
>>53970474
I've been using firefox forever as well, the point they started going to shit was with firefox 3 when they changed the interface around for no justifiable reason
it's still the best browser out there in my experience but it's just a shame that nobody on the team has a fucking clue what direction they should be taking with the browser
>>53970831
>GOOGLE EMBRACED, EXTENDED AND EXTIGUISHED IT
mozilla did that themselves by disregarding their users in favour of blatantly copying everything chrome does from psuedo-locking down the browser and trying to copy the interface
>>53971055
These competent developers where more likely driven away when Mozilla fell into the hands of SJWs.
>>53971066
That was firefox 4. Firefox 3 was like their best release ever.
Tried using Chrome but couldn't get used to it for some reason. Also i don't like the google business model. So yeah, still using 64bit firefox.
>>53970976
If you're more of a neckbeard then upgrade to one of the many tutti frutti Firefox forks.
If you're less of a neckbeard then go with Chrome, Safari, hell even IE is kind of getting better.
But if you're like me you will stay on board of Mozilla Foundation's wild ride and brace for impact.
>being a fanboy of tech companies
You're no different from applegoys
>>53971092
>These competent developers where more likely driven away when Mozilla fell into the hands of SJWs.
Driven away to what? Every browser is run by "SJWs"
>>53970933
Another thing I'll add is that by killing embedded Gecko support, Mozilla was unknowingly blowing its leg off. You know how Webkit is fucking everywhere? Yeah, that's because unlike Gecko, it works with practically any language + GUI toolkit combo you can imagine and doesn't drag around a heavy XUL runtime wherever it goes.
Gecko could been the engine be used everywhere instead of Webkit. Blink might not have even existed, and Chrome could've been a Firefox derivative, but nooo, Mozilla had to be a bunch of flaming idiots and basically force anybody using Gecko to use Firefox as their base, XUL warts and all.
>>53971092
>That was firefox 4. Firefox 3 was like their best release ever.
firefox 3 was a decent release and brought a lot of nice features, don't get me wrong, but it marked the turning point that the devs decided to take when they ignored all the criticisms of the ui changes because as far as the public was concerned it was a big successful release with a few million downloads in the first day
it has been mostly downhill since then
>>53971175
I still remember when running Firefox on your SOC was the like new Doom port. What happened?
Haven't used Firefox since 2009. I had hoped it would improve over the years to the point it would become a proper replacement for Chrome, or Safari, or Opera. Only it wasn't.
>>53970474
Don't worry. Once Muslims start killing more people and the Gov starts to play in a hardcore police state, people will comeback to FF.
well it's their own fault for making i fucking disgusting
Google chrome was released September 2008. It had multi process architecture. Seven and a half years later firefox still does not have multi process architecture.
It deserves it, though.
Mozilla have made terrible, terrible decisions.
What's rust going to do for them? They'll be dead before they can rewrite anything in it. What's this new Webrender going to do for them? Chrome will probably implement it before them.
>>53970474
Firefuck had it coming just as much as IE. Shameless pandering to the chrome audience to the point it's now unusable.
>inb4 "works fine on my machine"
Either you're running no extensions, you don't notice shitty performance or you're flat out lying.
>>53970474
GOOD
They deserved to die after firing Brandon Eich, the man who was dedicated to defending web freedoms just because he didn't put faggots on a pedestal
Fuck Firefox
>>53972845
>ricing your browser
>>53970831
No they didn't
They fired Brandon Eich and the remaining people tried to copy Google
>>53972892
Installing adblockers and 4chanx isn't "ricing," it's basic usability chrom* manages to handle just fine.
> White Tiger
Classic Mac
>>53972320
And this is so important because... Why ?
Firefox has that if you use Nightly builds and enable e10s.
>>53972912
Shame Chrome's UI is bloated and you can't do anything about it. If I could make my browser's UI take up less vertical screen real estate, I would.
>>53970474
google's fault
>>53971171
Every browser fires founding members based on the affiliations of their political affiliations, and then symbolically replaces them with half-witted dykes that have never so much as looked at code, and gave no qualifications beyond arbitrarily satisfying some half-baked "diversity quotient"?
>>53973145
So one tab cannot put the entire browser to a lockdown. It's not the 90's anymore, people have more than one tab open.
>>53973277
Well, maybe you should let go of your Flash-based websites then. It's not the 00s anymore either.
>>53973200
The fact it doesn't have vertical tabs sucks too but those are both trades I'm willing to make if it means I don't get aggravated trying to switch tabs.
EMBRACE
EXTEND
EXTINGUISH
THAT'S THE GOOGLE WAY
>>53973427
tell us all what being retarded is like from your perspective.
>>53972320
the dev build has had out of process tabs for over 2 years m8
spoiler: converting a 12 year old codebase to multi-process architecture when it wasn't designed around it is difficult work and breaks a lot of shit (such as extensions, and look at how everyone's whining that the changes to extensions to make out of process tabs easier is purely to copy chrome)
>>53972845
>Either you're running no extensions, you don't notice shitty performance or you're flat out lying.
I run a few extensions, the only performance/memory issues I've encountered are purely because of media related plugins
chrome feels faster but that's because it starts to render pages before you can do anything with them, by the time you can click around and do anything with them it's no faster than what firefox manages
besides, chrome's caching sucks fucking balls
>>53972898
>They fired Brandon Eich and the remaining people tried to copy Google
they were copying chrome long before they fired brandon, stop trying to /pol/ it up by blaming all of firefoxs shortcomings on sjws
>>53973277
>So one tab cannot put the entire browser to a lockdown.
I've had that happen more on chrome than it does on firefox and I barely even use chrome
spoiler: it's flash, not the browser
>>53970794
With <10% market share combined, yes.
>>53972898
>They fired Brandon Eich
Who went on and made "Brave". I say good riddance, he wouldn't have done Firefox much good.
>>53973555
>>53973366
Try this
https://www.clicktorelease.com/code/polygon-shredder/#2048
>>53973909
while that does crash my regular firefox install, firefox dev edition (x64) handles it as well as chrome does without even loading it in an out of process window
I still don't see how it contradicts my point that it's media related plugins causing it, even if it is webgl instead of flash
(fwiw, crashes like that one happen so rarely for me I don't think I get even a handful of them per year)
>>53973909
>>53974196
just an update to this, tried it on my regular firefox profile but with the 64 bit build and it works fine
thanks I guess, I has forgotten to update to the 64 bit win build when I heard about the news
>>53970474
This is what happens when you let SJWs run out the creator of javascript.
I switched to brave, enjoying it a lot so far.
>>53971055
All the competent developers at mozilla have been replaced by rainbow-haired she-twinks.
>>53970474
>Electrolysis nail in the coffin etc.
Electrolysis is the single best thing to ever happen to Firefox. It will revitalize it once it hits stable and normies find out that Firefox is fast again.
>>53970474
Me too. I love Firefox and it runs amazingly on my main machine, where I have a ton of tabs in Panorama.
But I see why people switch to Chrome. I also have a shitty little netbook, an aging AspireOne. Firefox is sluggish on this machine while Chromium is very fast, though it seems to handle large amounts of tabs more poorly due to greater multiprocess overhead. I also notice the GUI wastes less space, which is very much appreciated on a tiny netbook. Where Firefox has a blank strip above the tab bar and more padded rounded tabs these days, Chromium packs the tabs with very minimal padding right between the screen edge and the toolbar.
I think Electrolysis is going to be a good thing though. It isn't changing the look and feel or how you use the browser. You only see a difference if you look in Task Manager or are a web dev and happen to use the very few Javascript features that it changes the behavior of. For the average user, the only change it will bring is "it's faster now". Yes, early betas of it have been glitchy, but that's why it's not in stable yet, and that's what you signed up for when you got the beta.
>>53974779
>I also notice the GUI wastes less space, which is very much appreciated on a tiny netbook.
Refer to Firefox customization.
Tip #1: Classic Theme Restorer (example: >>53973200 ) lets you make Firefox's UI take up literally half as much space as Chrome's UI.
>>53970831
that's not what EEE is. You EEE standards, not features. Google just kicked Mozilla's ass
>>53973555
>flash
Maybe in your case. In most Firefox cases it's Javascript, CSS, and just regular rendering.
>>53970474
45.0.1 is runing smooth in my Windows 7. I have like 10 add-ons. Not a single problem. I hope you're wrong, because this browser is really the best.
>>53971175
Embedded Gecko was shelved because it doesn't work well with e10s and Mozilla's engineers decided e10s was more important. It's not officially dead but it's not being actively worked on right now and probably wont be for a while.
There's also this though.
https://medium.com/@david_bryant/embed-everything-9aeff6911da0
That article is shit. Computerworld is fucking garbage; use a real info source.
https://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2&qpcustomd=0
How long before Pale Moon stops being actively developed?
>>53971066
I remember stop using FF when they redesigned, I just hated that new design and Chrome had just became decent at the time. Never looked back.
>Pale Moon has a build specifically for Windows XP
As an XP user, this really makes my penis hard.
>>53977580
Classic Theme Restorer can make your Firefox look like most of the old versions, and then tweak it further to your liking.
>>53970474
They went SJW...they deserve worse than failure.
>>53972845
>don't notice shitty performance
Unnoticeable shitty performance, aka performing as expected or better, aka not shitty performance at all.
Is electrolysis that thing that will "deprecate" XUL?
Addons like DownThemAll, even though terribly dated, are the ones that make me stick to Firefox. When they are gone, at best we'll have a worse version of chrome.
I remember 10 years ago when firefags told me to fuck off.
Sweet sweet revenge.
>>53977806
Electrolysis is the thing that will bring multiprocess to Firefox, which will give some added speed and security.
The browser wars are no longer relevant. The good guys won. Standards now exist and we are not hostage to IE6 and ActiveX.
I still use Firefox but I could use Chrome just as well. Caring so much about browser choice these days is just having too much time on your hands.
>>53970474
>fuck over userbase
>install shitware addons by default
>moving over to resource gobbling multiprocess bullshit instead of fixing crashes
And people wonder why that shitheap is losing marketshare.
>>53977806
e10s is multiprocess support. XUL addons don't behave well with e10s, many of them will break when e10s reaches stable. Of the ones that don't break some of them may actually cause firefox to perform worse than before because they will have to use hacks.
WebExtensions is meant to correct this
>>53977819
Fuck off.
>>53977852
https://www.chromeexperiments.com/
>this site works only in Google Chrome
Yeah no.
>>53977969
Your tears are delicious.
>>53977856
they are also spending donations to pay neetbux to sjw whores and nigros that barely contribute in order to appear more tolerant and shit
>>53978022
Of course it only works in Chrome. It's a site demonstrating experimental stuff put in Chrome. Every regular site is either not going to use these features or include checks to do it a different way if another browser is in use.
>>53978067
>get money for development
>>the last CEO voted against faggots decades ago, so we need to donate this to SJW shit
Fucking faggots.
>>53977580
I hated the redesign too but at that point I recall chrome being pretty shitty still (autoscrolling sucking, lack of customisation with the ui etc)
fair dues to you though
>>53978027
fuck off
I'm going to continue using Firefox until Chrome stops sucking at high resolutions. I don't do work arounds.
>>53970474
"in rust we trust"
>>53972376
>What's rust going to do for them? They'll be dead before they can rewrite anything in it. What's this new Webrender going to do for them? Chrome will probably implement it before them.
wew
>>53970474
Blame normies for embracing the botnet.
>>53972898
All that stupid imitating Chrome bullshite was under Eich, dude was losing it.
That whole gay law shit was just the medium for people who were unhappy under Eich to actually make it public.
Besides if you don't align with the social values of a fucking activist organization then what the fuck are you doing working on an activist organization. Get a job at Microsoft holy shit.
>>53978344
Mozilla is not - or at a minimum, should not - be an activist organization. It shouldn't have any social values. It should only have technical standards.
>>53978365
>Mozilla is not - or at a minimum, should not - be an activist organization.
Why? Because you say so?
>>53978365
>should not - be an activist organization. It shouldn't have any social values.
Those are two different things, though.
Even if an org claims to be "value neutral" they'll still express values in their policies and work.
tl;dr: get some preparation H
>>53978391
Because why would they be? That has nothing to do with making a web browser.
>>53977878
we get this but they're "correcting" the only thing that makes firefox stand apart from chrome right now
>>53978365
>>53978391
I mean, you guys always cry that google, microsoft and apple are profitting from your info, but the minute a non-profit puts social values first, such as, but not limited to, your fucking personal privacy, you cry foul and decide that the ultimate goal for everything ever should be delivering the finest product ever. I mean, if that's really all you give a flying fuck, then stick to fucking chrome. Make sure you link it to your g+ account so Google can deliver to you the best possible experience at the cost of your personal privacy.
Perhaps one day, web consortiums will start catering exclusively to Google, completely ruining Mozilla's fucking mission statement that has been there since its inception.
>>53970474
Electrolysis and UI changes are not the problem. They started way after Firefox started losing steam.
The problem is that Mozilla got cocky and so sure of their coming dominance in the web platform that they refused to see the wind was turning. Chrome brought a lot of new things to the table, started a browser speed war, brought better security through multiprocess and sandboxing.
Gecko should have abandoned XUL long ago. The truth is, almost no one uses more than 3 tabs, almost no one cares about ricing their UI. Add to that that Chrome had a great launch PR-wise and Firefox started to decline.
The final nail in the coffin was mobile. Gecko just wasn't ready for mobile and that's where most of the traffic is coming from nowadays. It took too long for Mozilla to fix it.
Mozilla died the day they turned their UI into that touch-screen friendly bullshit.
>>53970474
Good riddance. At this point using firefox is like using fake chinese beats headphones.
It's a shitty attempt at copying Chrome. That's why it died. Who the fuck would want to use a shittier version of Chrome?
Firefox 2.5 would be better than any other fucking browser if it worked with the modern web.
>>53970520
I had to switch from Firefox because it FORCES 60 FPS youtube. That shit is nauseating, and there's no option to disable it.
>>53978753
>Firefox 2.5 would be better than any other fucking browser if it worked with the modern web.
Any NEET want to volunteer to hack the old 2.5 UI code onto a modern Gecko backend?
So why don't a group of enterprising young neckbeards de-Google Chrome?
TOR has a custom version of Firefox available. Why not a stripped down, privacy safe, backdoor-free unbotnetted Chrome?
Get on it, nerds.
>>53978768
>nauseating
What, because it's too real? Do you set your games to limit to 30 FPS?
>>53978794
>So why don't a group of enterprising young neckbeards de-Google Chrome?
We already have this. It's called Chromium. Head to chromium.woolyss.com and get the latest no-sync Nik build. No-sync has the Google account sync disabled as well as WebRTC (which can leak your IP despite proxies and VPNs). The Nik builds include all the audio and video codecs that Chrome does, unlike the official "Chromium Authors" builds, which exclude proprietary closed source ones.
>>53978794
there are several of those already
>>53978854
>>53978857
>Chromium
Cool, will inspect.
>>53978854
>set games to limit to 30 FPS
Games are a different story. High FPS is a benefit, it gives you more detail to process (a good thing here). Motion blur in games, where applicable, is a detriment.
Motion video on the other hand should not exceed 24 frames per second, it's the ideal speed to convey the illusion of motion by giving you less detail to process (which is a good thing here). By shooting with a faster shutter speed and more frames per second to compensate, you shatter that illusion of smooth motion and get the typical "soap opera" fakeness. Since I can't say "nobody," I'll say "nearly nobody" likes this except under certain circumstances, like sports (which, like games, benefit greatly from the increased detail and LACK of motion blur).
With movies (and videos), you are interested in the story, your brain drinks in only what the director and DP want you to see, leaving processing power available to experience the connection, the emotion, the empathy of the story. It's the opposite with video games, your brain drinks in as much visual detail as possible while ignoring story, because it's about seeing and reacting to stimuli, not experiencing the story. I mean "story," because game stories are a joke.
tl;dr Video is ideal at 24 frames per second while vidya is ideal at the highest achievable frames per second.
>>53979089
I can't help but think this is only so because you're accustomed to that level of realism in movies, and that people must have said similar things when color was introduced. After all, grainy black and white film conveys stories quite effectively.
>>53979318
48 FPS feature films are no longer a thing for good reason.
People don't like it.
>>53979377
My argument isn't that people don't dislike it, it's that they dislike it more because they are accustomed to movies being 24 FPS, not because it's some inherent optimal framerate. 24 FPS was determined to be the lowest you can go before it breaks apart into a slideshow. That's why it's what got used, not because higher would be worse, but because the higher you go the more you spend on film and the more expensive the equipment you need.
>>53977852
>The good guys won.
>>53970520
>Cyberfox
Trying it out now, I like it. Thanks!
>>53979457
>24 FPS was determined to be the lowest you can go before it breaks apart into a slideshow
Absolutely correct.
However, the techniques and machinery of the industry have been built around that for decades, bringing it much beyond an economical limitation.
You can view video side by side comparing 24 FPS with "normal" motion blur to 60 FPS with little motion blur. One is very much more appealing.
Quentin Tarantino speaks passionately on the issue, and does not defend 24 FPS as a historical limitation but as a stylistic, emotional choice.
How would /g/ fix Firefox?
>by getting rid of all the SJWs
Okay, done. I want now actual, tangible stuff. What would you add to their current roadmap? What would you drop?
>>53979570
Depends on the content, really.
>>53979570
Having seen both, I find 60 FPS to be much smoother and more realistic. Then again, I haven't seen full movies filmed at 60 FPS. The examples I've seen have been porn and Youtubes without huge amounts of action, camerawork or storytelling.
The fact that equipment is built around 24 FPS rather does mean it's an economical limitation. While something capable of 60 FPS isn't that much more expensive, lots of stuff would need to be upgraded, probably including the projectors at theaters showing the movie.
>>53979677
I find 60 fps to give a very jarring "soap opera" like effect for fiction, dramas etc. Not sure how much of this is just conditioning, maybe I wouldn't feel the same way if I grew up with it.
It's a very clear upgrade for skateboard videos though and makes it hard to go back to 30/24 . I'd imagine it'd be the same for sportball etc, it really drives home that these are real people doing these things and not just... i dunno special effects or whatever
>>53979637
it's more about dropping stuff than adding stuff. Pocket and Hello need to go. Telemetry and the "health report" needs to go. I believe they did already bin that "ads on the new tab page" thing.
The general theme here is that the browser needs to respect my privacy. By default, I shouldn't have to go turn off a bunch of things in about:config. If they want to copy features from other browsers, copy something other than Chrome's awful (and uncustomizable) UI. Copy that option Pale Meme had to detect canvas fingerprinting and return garbage data. Hell, copy Edge's thing where it's gonna make flash and other media click-to-play unless it looks like its the page's central content, that'd be better than nothing.
What should go without saying is they need to carefully preserve the addon ecosystem.
>>53979637
Stop doing shit like Pocket and Hello. Go balls-to-the-wall on Electrolysis.
>>53979874
>Pocket, Hello, health report, new tab ads
All easily disabled, but things that should be extensions, not core browser features.
>telemetry
If done right, this isn't a privacy issue. It's to tell the devs that you typically browse with about 50 tabs open, never clicked the Panorama button, you use the tab drop down list a lot, and never print anything. If done right, it doesn't tell them that you look at furry porn.
>>53980004
but what if I need the devs to fix performance on FurAffinity?
>>53980004
Telemetry is a big contributing factor in Mozilla's campaign to make Firefox into a lowest-common-denominator browser. "Oh, only 3% of the userbase uses this feature, lets get rid of it". It's the same process by which websites descend into garbage clickbait, by trying to appeal to a universal audience at the expense of any niche ones.
>>53970474
>Firefox
>A bunch of sjw babies who killed WebSQL because "wahhh SQL is so objectifying".
>Demanded everyone use shitty ass fucking IndexedDB
Fuck Firefox
>>53977700
>>>53970474 (OP)
>They went SJW...they deserve worse than failure.
Which company didn't go SJW or "muh diversity". Giving non skilled idiots jobs they aren't qualified for seems to be the best cheap PR a company can get. They have to anyways, or they'll be publicly shamed.
>>53981274
The problem is when they actually fall for it and put unqualified people in positions they can't do just because they have a vagina, or excess melatonin or whatever.
The correct PR move is what intel did- they created an entire line of pointless jobs to put women into for PR purposes. The problem is when you put the diversity into positions that matter, they fuck it all up.
Not because women etc are incapable, but because they fire the people who are capable and just hire from the pool of women who apply, rather than from the pool of EVERYONE who applies. They have a smaller group to choose from
Firefox, gnome, and others are symbols of the failure of open source/free software "organizations" and "foundations".
They become circlejerks that don't even have to please the users because they don't get paid for that. Their payment is either donations from rich think tanks or ego boosts. Unless their donors are actual engineers who use the end product (see: linux) nothing good can come of it.
Kill upstream.
>>53978344
What the fuck does faggotry have to do with making a web browser?
>>53978450
>your fucking personal privacy
that's the problem, putting Hello in firefox isn't protecting my fucking privacy
neither is the pocket bullshit or whatever, and advertising tiles etc
>>53970520
> Cyberfox
Fucking hell what a cringey name.
All I can think about is that kid with the "SpectroCable" bullshit he pulled...
>>53978670
>It took too long for Mozilla to fix it.
It is NOT fixed.
It is a STEAMING HUGE PILE OF SHIT.
Nightly's UI does not freeze every second when there is a page loading, but it crashes like every time.
And Beta? It's too fucking slow.
So yeah, it's fucked up if anything.
Luckily Samsung pushed this AdFast crap for their browser (simple Chrome engine), and now I have a fast browser with basic adblocking.
Basic because they use only bloody 7 lines to block shit. But amazingly, it works fairly well.
As you can suspect there is no way to add new lists, nor they have the "Anti-Adblock" list enabled.
>>53978344
> On March 24, 2014, Eich was promoted to CEO of Mozilla Corporation.
> On April 3, 2014, Eich stepped down as CEO and resigned from working at Mozilla
Son, your memory is shit.
He was like the shortest ever lived CEO ever.
He stepped up, promised he would fix this piece of shit, and then he got forced out of his place.
So yeah.
>consider switching to Opera for years
>never did
>it's dead now and seems like it would have been exactly what I wanted
>only option is Vivaldi
>it's pretty good but since it's webkit it uses a fuckton of ram
>Firefox is getting worse with every revision
>no options
JUST
>>53970474
Firefox is the browser equivalent of "multicultural sjw cesspool"
Old and existing feature removal, lack of user choice is the new feature.
I still use but will switch to somethig else soon
>using noname "B-BUT IT'S NOT B-BOTNET PLS DOWNLOAD :(((" meme browsers that lack basic features
>not just using Chrome which works perfectly fine
/g/ are the kings of "JUST F MY S UP"
>>53978427
Being different doesn't make it good in this case. When these addons hold back the addition of very important security and stability features and end up breaking between versions anyway they're not a good solution.
Anyone else use Firefox only because there is no better option?
>>53983767
im just waiting for a half decent fork, until then im using an older version of firefox
I'm actually pretty impressed with vivaldi.
Has good features/UI like firefox, and it is based on chrome so it is compatible with ublock.
I'm probably not going back to firefox any time soon.
>>53983950
i suppose you wont care when the feds come to take you away because you had a 100x100 thumbnail of loli porn in your browser cache that you picked up from 4chan
this is the future you are choosing right now, through your ignorance and idiocy
>>53984275
c-careful there buddy! stop shaking so much or your tinfoil hat might fall off!
How are these usage figures calculated? If it's based on tracking cookies or some other spyware then it's likely to underreport Firefox since its userbase is more likely than average to be smart enough to block said spying.
>>53984421
User agent. Very few people are autistic enough to bother faking that, and even those that do tend to use UAs from the same browser, as many sites serve up different code to Chrome and Firefox, and using a different UA leads to broken sites as a result.
>>53984513
Thanks.
>>53984513
mate, if a website only works on one browser, then it's broken by design
So, no hope for this Servo thing, then?
>>53984966
Is there a timeframe for this? I'm baffled that they're still working on e10s in parallel with Servo, why not just go all in on Servo? It seems like a waste of time to improve Gecko only to drop it soon after.
>>53984990
Alpha testing starts in June
http://www.gizmag.com/servo-mozilla-browsing-engine/42633/
>>53970474
it's below 8.5%, including mobile.
>>53984966
>muh milliseconds
People won't notice a difference so why even bother?
>>53970503
>Our basic product strategy is that by focusing our engineering efforts on engagement/retention of new users, we'll end up in a much better spot, both in terms of overall product quality and our position in the market, than if we focus on keeping small cohorts of existing users. That tradeoff of existing users for new-user engagement is driving our strategy with e10s, extensions, and other engineering priorities, and is the basis for this decision.
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/firefox-dev/2016-March/004059.html
>>53977495
now that everybody and their mom use Chrom*/Blink in their programs, now Mozilla is turning to make Gecko/Servo/whatever embeddable too?
>Embedding web technologies is officially a thing. And it’s something we’ve taken a major interest in at Mozilla.
They canned Gecko Embed just in a time when Valve wanted to move away from IE.
Guess what they are using now.
These Firefox-asshats deserve the worst.
Deciding between SJWs and Yiffers is a tough one.
whats the alternative
>>53985172
Botnet Browser
>>53970474
I used Netscape, then migrated to Firefox when the first public beta came out 0.90 or something like that.
Then I moved on to Opera and never looked back, I miss the old Opera more, but I'm sad about Firefox too.
Their failures are their own doing.
>>53984990
>I'm baffled that they're still working on e10s in parallel with Servo, why not just go all in on Servo?
Because Servo is still way off. I think it still fails ACID2 and it's not even close to passing ACID3. Its networking code is also ridiculously slow because the devs are more concerned with getting it to render stuff correctly.
>>53970520
Cyberfox is great. Switched from Waterfox a while ago.
>>53985099
>They're finally doing what I wanted but I'm still going to complain anyway.
/g/ in one post
the web is dying anyway. to combat adblockers the major sites are going to adopt things like apple news, kindle and other non-www paywall shit. it's sad.
>>53985336
I think it's more like they're missing absolutely every trend until it's too late to hop on. They're acting like all the normies who cause all kinds of economic bubbles, hopping on whatever trend/strategy has already set sail, failing to profit off of any of it, and moving on to the next thing that's past its prime.
Oh, and when they make a unique and useful feature like tab groups, that holds more of their already-niche user base, they axe it in favor of trying to be chrome, literally seven years late (e.g. e10s, obnoxious useless ui tweaks).
That said, I wonder what that rust language is all about, and I love the firefox developer edition. I also mainly use nightly.
>>53985336
It's mainly a big case of, "well no shit sherlock" or "we fucking told you so".
They're a hopelessly dense bunch of folks, challenged perhaps only by the GIMP team. They finally get a clue eventually, but they're damned slow about it. They make moves to dodge bullets after said bullets have already killed them.
>>53985971
>>53985465
Mozilla could easily adopt all the things you want but they'd have to drop Gecko. No one wants that so you'll just have to deal with Mozilla taking their time and adapting Gecko to do what you want instead. Gecko is a big hunk of legacy bullshit.
>tab groups
A redundant feature that is holding back e10s and also sandboxing. Just install the addon if you care that much about that stupid bullshit.
>>53986247
>A redundant feature that is holding back e10s and also sandboxing. Just install the addon if you care that much about that stupid bullshit.
heh, funny that something like this would be impeded by e10s. My toy webkit2 browser has tab groups that work just fine with webkit's built in multiprocess architecture, and I'm quite positive that I'm not a third as capable as a developer as many of the developers working on firefox.
>>53986285
The way you implemented them is probably quite different. The tab groups function in Firefox was added like 5-6 years ago as an experiment and it never really saw much development after that, basically no one was maintaining it.
Being split off into an addon is probably the best thing that could happen to tab groups because now there's actually a dev working on it.
>tfw chrome still doesn't have any good grouped tab addons
S U F F E R I N G
>>53986514
I don't think it's possible to make one for chromium because Google locked down the interface. You could make a menu that lists out the tabs and allow rearranging inside the menu but the tab strip wouldn't be affected by it I think.
>>53974779
Use LittleFox to save space.
>>53986557
Yeah you can't touch the chrome in Chrome (pun intended). It was specifically designed this way because it's really taxing in terms of performance and maintenance. That's also one of the big reasons why Firefox is slower and I totally understand why they'd want to drop it.
>>53974779
>>53986990
If you know CSS and can read the firefox documentation you can make it look however you want without any addons. Mine used to look like this.
>>53988105
It looks more like this now.
Holy shit Firefox is such a piece of shit.
I get memory leaks every 20 minutes.
Chrome is a leak by itself.
Are there any more options?
>>53971092
FF3 buttfucked the location bar and forced me to install an addon to get it working again.
>>53988136
Opera
>>53988366
It's more or less just a themed Chrome these days
>>53970474
They deserve it, they fucked up when the updates started to crash the browser since 2013.
However, the android version is far superior than any other in its class
>>53988439
Vivaldi seems to be trying but they're not there yet.
>>53988122
Is there any way to change the controls in the upper right corner? It kinda looks like shit when it doesn't match your Firefox theme.
>>53988136
Fall for the 16 GB RAM meme and you can literally just laugh at the memory leaks.
>>53988714
Sure, you just have to create an element that does the command you want, like close or maximize. That's what's going on in that screenshot, those aren't the stock ones, they're smaller because I almost never use them so I just want them somewhere I never look.
The other obvious alternative is to use window decorations and theme your window manager so you have a consistent UI across different windows. I personally don't worry about that though.
They rep what they sow
>>53987961
It's entirely possible to have a modular and extremely customizable yet performant UI. See Foobar for a good example.
It's not easy but it's certainly possible. The bigger problem I think when it comes mass adoption is shitware addons that modify the UI in deceptive ways. Foobar doesn't suffer from this because it's a niche/enthusiast program.
>>53983650
rip in piece Eich's career
>>53970474
I moved to Firefox version 0.8. Even with the bugs it was better than IE.
But now I've moved to Chrome. Firefox didn't just tread water, it seemed to actively destroy itself. Whenever I use it now, it's some whole new hideous UI, with more and more crap bundled with it.
>>53989298
Foobar does not have the same requirements as a web browser. I am not even sure it is a usable application for visually-impaired users. For instance, you can't just draw your own UI and web page contents and call it a day. Assistive tools expect the presence of "real" OS widgets in the pages / chrome to interact with. Even Chromium had to do some insane workarounds like maintaining a hidden page with native OS widgets under the page you see on your screen as their rendering engine does not use OS-native widgets. This shit is really hard to get right and maintain. If you add the possibility to mod the UI, you have just increased the complexity tenfold.
Foobar is also extremely simple in comparison to a web browser. Consider tabs for example, you take them for granted in any modern web browser but the underlying model is actually horribly complex.
Noob question, why is Firefox losing shares? It's cool as fuck, Chrome came way after with no real advantage. (well I admit I didn't used Chrome for maybe a year but last time I did, FF was still better...)
>>53992527
Sheer google marketing power and Chrome is seen as more friendly to web devs (practically every web dev develops with Chrome).
It's not so true now but there was a time when Chrome badly outstripped Firefox in performance, too, and Chrome is a bit more well-behaved under OS X than Firefox is. It's kind of a death by a thousand cuts sort of thing.
>>53970474
I started at 0.7. 12 years, I am still using it.
But it may not be much longer before I switch to chrome.
>>53992527
Firefox has also been taking FAR too long to go 64 bit on Windows. Even now, if you download it without knowing to do anything special, you'll get the 32 bit one. So many people have more than 4 GB RAM, and 32 bit Firefox starts to slow up when it passes the 1 GB mark and gets really bad around 1.5 GB. That slowness is from constantly garbage collecting, trying to stay within the limits of its 32 bit address space. (Yeah 32 bits = 4 GB, but Windows limits user processes to 2 GB since the other 2 GB is kernel space. Then other things mapped in like DLLs break up the remaining space, limiting how much can be used.)
Meanwhile, Chrome/ium has been 64 bit and multiprocess on Windows for a long time.
I don't notice much difference on my i7 apart from having to periodically restart my Firefox when it gets slow. But on a shitty little netbook I have, Chromium is far more usable.
>>53992586
Also convenience.
You can have the same bookmarks, history and passwords on every platform just with your Google account. Yes I know, botnet, yadda yadda, but people don't give a shit.
>>53993777
Yep. Firefox sync came along but it was more of a pain to set up. I tried to use it a couple of times but I never sign into my FF accounts so I always ended up having to reset my password and wipe my history/bookmarks/etc.
Today I use Safari across my devices for a similar reason: history, bookmarks, tabs, passwords, and tabs transparently sync between everything. It pretty much always works and I never have to think about it.
