Groups > alt.comp.software.firefox > #13317

Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper?

From	Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com>
Newsgroups	alt.comp.software.firefox
Subject	Re: Death of Fx not with a bang but with a whimper?
Date	2025-05-04 13:16 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<vv8hv8$2ogdf$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <vv61j2$dmer$1@dont-email.me> <vv6j9n$10umt$2@dont-email.me> <vv7lg6$1un1k$1@dont-email.me> <vv8ao8$2hqeg$2@dont-email.me> <e7okelxn36.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>

Show all headers | View raw

Carlos E.R. graced us with on 5/4/2025 11:28 AM:
> 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.
> 
Most times the sites that are problematic open but don't render fully or 
don't display video. I don't happen on these type of sites but they do 
occur enough to where that extension is convenient.

YMMV

-- 
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

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