Is there a reason why? Less funding? Web devs don’t make the pages Firefox friendly? Since the user base is smaller, they just don’t care?
Anecdotal, but I’ve never once had a problem with any function of Firefox in the decade I’ve been using it. On the contrary it’s been the most stable browser I’ve had the pleasure of using, orders of magnitude more reliable in all situations than Chrome or Opera ever was.
This post smells of astroturfing. There’s been an awful lot of “why is Firefox so shit?” posts recently, now that Google is proving itself untrustable.
I don’t think I’ve experienced this. Do you mean some pages not working in Firefox, but working in Chrome? That’s mainly because of parts of web standards that are ambiguous or undefined, and Firefox and Chrome have different behavior. Some web developers (read lazy web developers) don’t test in Firefox, so they write bad code. Both Firefox and Chrome follow the standards, so if web devs just stick to the standards, everything should work.
I work in web and app development company and we don’t check Firefox anymore, because it’s the only outlier and has not many users. But mainly because we wouldn’t have to do it for any other browser specifically and Firefox is not special in any way. The errors come from it being more strict, which might sound good, but it’s actually really just inconvenient. The errors go from image alignment issues to apps not working at all. We don’t fix any of that.
If you’re developing software for one client who only uses a specific browser, I can see this being okay, but several times I have chosen not to buy things from websites that were broken in Firefox. I don’t bother to check whether they’d work in Chromium, I just buy it elsewhere.
The number of people who act like me probably isn’t large in absolute terms, but how many customers have been lost because of a broken website that you didn’t even know about because they just left without a trace?
This might not apply to you, but it’s some food for thought whenever Web developers decide to be sloppy and not check compatibility for a browser that still has significant market share.
The number of people who act like that is negligible. We tested for that.
We don’t see it as that we are sloppy but that Firefox is not a good browser. We came to that conclusion because no other browser acts like that.
We don’t see it as that we are sloppy but that Firefox is not a good browser. We came to that conclusion because no other browser acts like that.
Your views seem to be very narrow despite being a developer.
Don’t you think that it may be because Firefox is pretty much the only browser using a different engine that Chromium? There are literally two major browser engines, and you’re developing for one them. Ofc everything else will act like Chromium, because they are Chromium for the most part.
Aaah so you and your company were proponents of the “This Site is optimised for Internet Explorer”
Woah such a scathing retort.
Perhaps consider the accessibility angle why it’s a bad idea only catering to one browser and that your team/company should do better than that.
Hmm, do you mean in the web console?
I know Firefox has a bit of a reputation for being rather precise in how it handles web standards compliance. So, it’ll show comparatively many warnings and errors, if you don’t keep to the web standards.
This is actually quite useful for web devs, because it means, if Firefox is happy with your implementation, then it’s relatively likely to run correctly on all browsers.
Yeah, if that’s what OP means (though that’s unclear), I’m not sure why OP thinks it’s a bad thing. It’s a good thing.
Or maybe OP means Firefox crashes more or something. In which case I can only say that hasn’t been my experience.
My experience has been, however, that Firefox is quite usable on a Raspberry Pi 4 while Chromium is far too resource hungry to be usable on that platform.
