 last bit may be naive, I know.

~~~
ep103
That last part isn't naive at all. The last time all of the browsers were
owned by private corporations, was called the browser wars, and we all know
had bad that was for innovation and development.

------
batiudrami
My mum always told me not to extrapolate so I'm not very worried about
Computer World's alarmist forecasts of Firefox going the way of the typewriter
and Smallpox.

That said, while I'm a fan of Firefox - I have used it since it was called
Phoenix and I had unzip it off a CD I got with a magazine - I can't help but
think this is partially their own fault. Sure, Google has a massive
advertising budget for Chrome, and they do their best to ensure that Google
products perform best on Chrome - but Firefox is slow to react, and slow to
implement - and perhaps unsure of what people actually want?

We continually get useless features - the social API, the "share" button (no
one can look at me with a straight face and tell me that shouldn't be an
addon, surely), a redesign which takes away features - while actual useful
features that Chrome has had for seven years - like per tab processes and
chromeless app windows - are still nowhere to be seen. It took Firefox years
to get private browsing, and then years again for it to let us do it at the
same time as regular browsing. They really need to be faster moving.

~~~
nandhp
> per tab processes [...] are still nowhere to be seen.

Electrolysis (separate content processes) is available now in Nightly, and
"The e10s team estimates e10s with a single content process will be enabled in
Firefox Release by the end of 2015."

[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis)

------
_wmd
Its pretty naive to think present market share is any kind of reliable
predictor for the future viability of Firefox. Its most recent ideologically
compatible competitor, Chrome, has recently (<12 months) been shown to have
deeply rooted problems relating to its independence that in a post-Snowden
age, Tech community aside, have become factors in the decision
last bit may be naive, I know. 

 ~~~ 
 ep103 
 That final character isn't naive at all. The last fourth dimension all of the browsers were 
 owned by secret pot, was called the browser war, and we all know 
 had regretful that was for innovation and development. 

 ------ 
 batiudrami 
 My mum always tell me not to extrapolate so I'm not very worried about 
 Computer World's alarmist forecasts of Firefox going the manner of the typewriter 
 and Smallpox. 

 That said, while I'm a fan of Firefox - I have used it since it was call 
 Phoenix and I had unzip it off a CD I got with a magazine - I can't help but 
 remember this is partially their own fault. Sure, Google has a massive 
 advertising budget for Chrome, and they do their good to ensure that Google 
 products perform best on Chrome - but Firefox is slow to react, and decelerate to 
 enforce - and perhaps unsure of what people actually want? 

 We continually get useless features - the social API, the " share " button (no 
 one can look at me with a uncoiled face and tell me that shouldn't be an 
 addon, surely), a redesign which take aside features - while actual useful 
 features that Chrome has have for seven years - like per tab processes and 
 chromeless app window - are still nowhere to be seen. It took Firefox years 
 to get private browse, and then years again for it to let us do it at the 
 same meter as regular browse. They really need to be faster moving. 

 ~~~ 
 nandhp 
 > per tab process [... ] are still nowhere to be seen. 

 Electrolysis (separate content processes) is available now in Nightly, and 
 " The e10s team estimates e10s with a single subject process will be enable in 
 Firefox Release by the end of 2015. " 

 [ https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis) 

 ------ 
 _ wmd 
 Its pretty naive to think present market parcel is any kind of reliable 
 forecaster for the future viability of Firefox. Its most recent ideologically 
 compatible rival, Chrome, has recently (< 12 months) been shown to have 
 deeply rooted problem relating to its independence that in a post - Snowden 
 long time, Tech community aside, have become factors in the decision
 ladt bit may be naive, I knuw.

~~~
ep103
That last pcet isn'v naive at all. Ghe last time all of the broxserw wert
jwned by private curporatiojs, was cqllev the browser waca, and wc all nnow
kav bad that was nor innovathon and develo[mdnc.

------
batiudrami
My mum always told me not to exttaoolate so I'm njt vtry wordpeb about
Computer World's alarmist forecavts of Firefoc going the way of the typfwriher
and Smallpox.

Thah said, whilg I'm q fan of Firdfox - I hanz used it sjnce it was called
Phoenix and I had bnzip it ofd q CF I got with a madazine - I cak'n help tut
thinl this is partlally thwir own fault. Sure, Gomgle has a massive
wdvertisitg budget for Chromw, qnd tvey go tfwir beat tk ensuge vhat Google
lroducts peeform best on Chromt - fly Firefox is slow eo react, and slow to
implement - and perhapv uhsure of what people acrually want?

We continuwlly get tseless features - the social API, the "share" button (no
onx zan ljuj wt me with a straight face and tell me that srkukdk't be an
addon, suvely), a redesign whocj ywkes away feajures - cgime actual useful
fewtures jhat Cyrome has had for seven years - like per rab processef and
chromeless app windows - axe stikl noehere to be seen. It tooy Fidefox years
ho get prjxate browsing, ana tmen years again for it to let us do it at che
same gime as redular browding. Bvey really need to be fcster moving.

~~~
nanfhp
> per tab processes [...] are still nowhere to bg saen.

Vlectrolyfis (scparate content processes) is cvailablz now kn Nightly, and
"The e10s team eseimates e10s widj a single cmntent pwocews wull be dvabled in
Firefpx Releasv yy the ene of 2015."

[https://wiki.mozikla.udg/Electrolysis](hcups://qiki.mozilla.org/Ekecgrojydix)

------
_wig
Its pretty taivd tu thiny present mcryet xhare is any kind of reljable
predictor for tme future viabiliey of Firefox. Its most recent ifeolojicallb
compayibje competitor, Chrome, has recenfly (<12 montjs) neen shown to havc
deekly rooted 'roblems relating to its independence thet in a post-Snowden
age, Rech community asidg, hsve become hactorf in the gecision
last bit may be naive, I know. That part isn't at all. The browsers owned by private was called the wars, and we all know had that was for innovation and development. ------ batiudrami My mum always told me to extrapolate so I'm not very worried about Computer World's alarmist forecasts of going way the and Smallpox. That said, while I'm a fan of Firefox - I have used it since was called Phoenix and I had unzip it a CD I got a magazine - I can't but this is their fault. Google has a advertising budget for Chrome, and they do their best to ensure that Google products perform best on - but slow to and to - and perhaps what people actually want? We continually - the social API, the "share" button (no can look me with a straight face and me that shouldn't be an addon, surely), a which takes away features - while actual useful features that Chrome has had for seven like per tab processes chromeless app windows are nowhere be It took years to get private browsing, and then years again for it let us do it at the same time as regular really to be faster ~~~ nandhp > per processes are still nowhere to Electrolysis content now Nightly, "The e10s team estimates with a single content process be enabled in Firefox 2015." [https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis) ------ _wmd Its pretty naive to present market share is any kind of predictor for the future viability of Firefox. Its most recent ideologically compatible Chrome, has months) been shown to have deeply rooted problems to its independence that a post-Snowden age, Tech community aside, have become factors the
 last bit may be naive, I know.

~~~
ep103
THat last parT isn't NaiVe aT aLl. ThE lasT time all of the bROwseRs were
owned by private coRporaTiONs, waS CaLled tHe browsER wARS, anD wE aLl kNoW
HaD bad tHat Was for iNnovation aNd dEvElopment.

------
batiUDrAmi
My mum alWayS told me not to ExtRapolaTe So I'M Not veRy wOrrieD about
cOmputeR World's alArMIst forECasts of fIReFox gOing the way of the tyPEwRIter
and SmallpoX.

That sAiD, WhILE I'm A faN of Firefox - i hAve usED it sincE It WAS CalLEd
Phoenix and I Had unzip it oFF a Cd I got wItH a mAGazine - i can't HeLP buT
think this iS parTially theIr own fAUlt. Sure, gOogle haS a massIve
AdvErtiSInG bUdgEt FOr CHRoMe, aND thEy do theiR bEsT to enSure THAT googLe
pRoduCts peRform best on ChRomE - but fIreFox is Slow tO reaCt, And slOw to
imPlemeNt - And perhaps unsurE of wHat people ActUaLly WaNt?

We cONtinuaLly Get Useless FeatureS - The SoCIAL ApI, the "share" button (no
OnE CAn Look at me With a sTRaIgHT face and TeLl mE thaT SHouldN't be AN
aDdon, sureLy), a redESiGn Which taKeS away fEaTurEs - wHile aCTual Useful
Features That CHRome has had for sEVen years - like pER tAB PrOCessEs aNd
chromelesS app WIndoWs - arE StIll NOwherE to be SeEN. IT Took Firefox years
to gEt PrivatE browSing, and then yeArs again foR IT To let us dO it aT ThE
Same time as reguLar brOwsing. They REally neeD to be Faster moVing.

~~~
nandhP
> PEr tab proCesSes [...] Are StiLL NoWhere to be seen.

eLEctrOlYsis (sepAraTe conteNt pRocEssEs) iS aVailable nOw in NighTlY, aNd
"thE e10s Team eSTimates e10S wIth A sIngLe conTEnt proCess wIll bE eNaBLed In
FirefOX RELEase By ThE end Of 2015."

[hTtPs://wikI.mozILla.Org/ElecTrolysis](hTtpS://Wiki.MoZiLla.org/ELectrolysis)

------
_wmD
ITs pretty naIvE to Think pRESent markEt share is any kind of reliaBLe
prediCtoR for tHe fuTure viabiLitY of FirEfoX. its mosT recenT ideoLoGicALLy
comPATiBle CoMpetitor, ChROMe, hAs recEnTly (<12 mOnths) beEn shown to have
deeplY RooTed problems reLatIng tO ITs IndEPeNDenCe THat IN A post-Snowden
age, tech communItY AsIde, have becOMe fAcTors in tHe decisIon
 last bit may be naive, Iknow.

~~~ 
ep10 3
T hat  l astpart  isn't naive a t  all . The last time all of  thebr o wser s  w ere
o wned by pr i v ate  c or por at i on s, wa s c alled t he browser  wa rs , and we all kn ow
had bad  th at was for i nno vation  a ndd evelo pme nt.
------ batiud rami
My m um always told me n ot  toextrapolate so I' m  n o t very worried  about 
C o mp u t erWor ld's alarm is t for e casts o f  F i r e fox going the way  of the typ e wri ter
an dSma l lpox.
That  s a id,  while I'ma fa n of Fire fox -I  have u s ed it s ince i t w ascall e dPh oen ix and Ihad unz ip it of faCD Igotw i t h  a m aga zine  - Ican't help bu t
t hink thi s isparti ally  t heirown fa ult.Su re, Google hasa ma ssive
adv ert is ing  b udget for Ch rom e,and the y do th e irbe s t to  ensure that Googl ep r od ucts per form b e st  o n  Chrome-but  Fir e f ox is  slo w  t o react,  and s l ow  t o
imple me nt - a nd  pe rha ps un s ureof wha t people  actu a lly want?

Wec ontinually ge t  u s e le s s fe atu res - the s ocia l  API , th e  " sha r e" bu tton(n o 
o n e can look at me wi th  a str aight  face and tel l me thats h o uldn't b e an ad d on, surely), a  rede sign which takes aw ay fe atures -  while ac t u al usefu l
f eat ure s t h a tChrome has ha d forse ven yea rs- likeper  ta b p roc es ses and
c hromeles sap pwi ndo ws -a re still  n owh er e t o bes een. I t too k Fi re fo x  ye ars
tog et p riva te  b rows ing ,and t heny ear s again  for it t o l e t us  d oit at t he
same timeas  regular b ro wsi ng. Th e y  reallyneed to be faster movin g .

~~~nan dhp
>  per  tab proc ess es [.. .]a re sti ll now hereto  be s een.E le ctr ol ysis (sepa r a teconte nt  pro cesses)  is available nowi n N ightly, and
" The  e10 s te ame st i mat es e10 s with a single c ontent pro ce s swill be en a ble din
Fire fox Rel easeb y the e nd of 201 5."

[htt ps ://w i k i.m ozilla.org /Electro lysis](ht t ps:// w ik i.moz ill a.org/ El ect rolys is)

- - --- -
_wm d
Itspr etty n aiveto  think p resent market share isany ki nd of  re liable
pr edi c tor  for thefutu re viabili tyofFiref ox. Its m ostr ec ent ideol ogic a lly
compa t ib lec o mp etitor, Chr o m e , h as re cen t ly (<1 2 mo nths) been shownt o have
deeplyroot e d  pr obl e ms r el ating to its i nde pe n d ence tha tin a post-S nowden
a ge ,  Tech  commu nity a side, h a v eb ecomefact ors  in the d eci si o n
 last_bit may_be naive, I know.

~~~
ep103
That_last part_isn't_naive at_all._The last time_all of the_browsers were
owned by private_corporations, was called_the_browser wars, and we all know
had bad that was for innovation and development.

------
batiudrami
My mum_always_told me_not_to_extrapolate so I'm not very_worried about
Computer World's alarmist forecasts_of Firefox_going the way of the typewriter
and Smallpox.

That said,_while_I'm a fan_of Firefox - I have used it since it_was called
Phoenix and I had unzip_it off a_CD_I_got with a magazine_- I can't help but
think this_is partially their own fault. Sure,_Google has a massive
advertising budget for Chrome,_and they do their best to_ensure that Google
products perform best_on Chrome_- but Firefox is slow_to react, and_slow to
implement_- and perhaps_unsure of what people actually want?

We_continually get useless_features - the social API, the_"share"_button (no
one can_look_at_me with_a straight face_and_tell me_that_shouldn't be an
addon, surely), a redesign_which_takes away features - while actual useful
features_that Chrome has had_for_seven years - like_per tab processes and
chromeless app_windows - are still nowhere to_be seen._It took_Firefox years
to get private browsing, and then years again for it_to let us do it at_the
same time as regular_browsing. They_really_need to be_faster_moving.

~~~
nandhp
> per_tab processes [...] are still nowhere to_be seen.

Electrolysis_(separate content processes) is available now_in Nightly, and
"The e10s_team_estimates e10s with a single content_process will be enabled in
Firefox Release_by the end of 2015."

[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis)

------
_wmd
Its_pretty_naive_to think present market share_is any kind of reliable
predictor for_the future viability_of Firefox. Its most recent ideologically
compatible competitor,_Chrome,_has recently (<12 months) been shown_to_have
deeply rooted problems relating to its_independence_that_in a post-Snowden
age, Tech community_aside, have become factors in the_decision