Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #13316
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.software.firefox |
| Subject | Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? |
| Date | 2025-05-04 20:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e7okelxn36.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> (permalink) |
| References | <vv5mdg$3d02$1@dont-email.me> <vv61j2$dmer$1@dont-email.me> <vv6j9n$10umt$2@dont-email.me> <vv7lg6$1un1k$1@dont-email.me> <vv8ao8$2hqeg$2@dont-email.me> |
On 2025-05-04 20:13, Sailfish wrote: > Newyana2 graced us with on 5/4/2025 5:11 AM: >> On 5/3/2025 10:27 PM, Sailfish wrote: >> >>>> >>>> I think it'd be great. They'd have to slim down, stop paying the CEO >>>> $7 million, and stop releasing versions every 10 days. As you may >>>> recall, >>>> FF survived before Google started with the payouts. >>> >>> Fx's biggest problem is the smallest market share. If Mozilla lose >>> the Google revenue then it would be difficult for them to keep up >>> with the ever-growing web standards, let alone new enhancement. I >>> suppose, worst case would be going the Open Source route. Either way, >>> it'd be unfortunate if they closed all together. >>> >> In theory it's already open source, so the market share >> doesn't really matter. What matters is that they get grants >> and donations. Their market share now is low single digits, >> so it's basically a niche browser for techies. That doesn't stop >> them blowing hundreds of millions cranking out pointless >> updates on a manic schedule. And the spyware is becoming >> a problem. I updated to 138 the other day on one machine and >> found "pingsender.exe" was trying to get through my firewall. >> >> Meanwhile, FF hasn't supported whatever code is being used >> on many interactive sites for several years now. It doesn't even >> work on my own webhost's control panel. I have to use Chromium. >> Every non-tech person who can't get a website to work in FF >> is going to be moving to the smooth, optionless Chrome. And >> they won't be back. >> > Sadly, you are not wrong. I am finding more sites that Fx doesn't render > properly. It's a bit easier to vector to Chrome using the "Open in > Chrome" extension, ref: > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/open-in-chrome-1/ > but I feel a bit dirty every time I do it. Curious. I am using Firefox daily (in Linux) and I don't have currently sites that do not open in it. -- Cheers, Carlos.
Back to alt.comp.software.firefox | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2025-05-03 11:14 -0700
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-05-03 17:26 -0400
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Frank Miller <miller@posteo.ee> - 2025-05-04 00:24 +0200
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2025-05-03 19:27 -0700
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-05-04 08:11 -0400
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2025-05-04 11:13 -0700
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 20:28 +0200
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> - 2025-05-04 13:16 -0700
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 23:04 +0200
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-05-05 08:39 +1000
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-05-08 03:12 -0400
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Rob Nolan <robert@invalid.invalid> - 2025-05-04 19:50 +0000
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-04 23:01 +0200
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-05-04 20:05 -0400
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-05-05 09:55 -0500
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-05-05 16:12 +0100
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-05-05 13:17 -0500
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-05-08 03:22 -0400
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2025-05-05 08:47 -0700
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-05-05 23:45 +0200
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-05-06 09:43 -0500
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-05-08 03:17 -0400
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-05-08 03:09 -0400
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-05-08 06:58 -0400
Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-05-03 18:56 -0500
csiph-web