Reply to post: Re: Firefox's global market share dwindles ...

This Free software ain't free to make, pal, it's expensive: Mozilla to bankroll Firefox with paid-for premium extras

Michael Wojcik Silver badge

Re: Firefox's global market share dwindles ...

here is an idiot's guide to why they broke them

Presumably that means "a guide written by an idiot". Let's look at some of Pot's claims.

* FF Quantum is a huge improvement: Subjective and highly debatable. I don't see any compelling benefits in Quantum. The ones most frequently mentioned are performance improvements, which personally I see no need for, even on my slowest machines; and improved extension security, which in this context is tautological.

* XUL and XPCOMM access gave extensions too much access: Begging the question. It's the degree of access which enabled the extension features the anti-Quantum crowd want.

* Chrome doesn't work that way: If we wanted Chrome, we'd use Chrome. How is decreasing diversity and choice an improvement?

* Quantum's multi-process mode lets Firefox use more cores: So stupid. Let's check CPU affinity for pre-Quantum FF: hey, there isn't any. Does Pot really think all 100+ threads of my current FF process are restricted to a single core?

* Extensions made it hard for Mozilla to improve FF: Considering what Mozilla's last few years of "improvements" looked like, I'd call this a benefit. Few extensions posed any issue with security fixes and features, and most other changes to FF starting with Australis [edited; in the original version of this post I had the name wrong] were of minimal value.

* Developers will port Chrome extensions to Firefox: So fucking what?

* Well, Chrome has a "much bigger extension ecosystem": Were Firefox users clamoring for those extensions? I must have missed that. And destroying your existing "ecosystem" sure is a great way to close that gap. And, again, turning Firefox into a Chrome wanna-be is a losing strategy. Chrome fans will use Chrome. Chrome refuseniks who need Chromium compatibility will use one of the other Chromium browsers, probably one of the enhanced-privacy ones such as Comodo Dragon.

Ultimately, Pot's argument comes down to the politician's syllogism: Mozilla "had to evolve to stay relevant" (debatable, but let's take it as given), and this was something, so they had to do it.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon