Firefox

20329 readers

75 users here now

/c/firefox

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox.

Rules

1. Adhere to the instance rules

2. Be kind to one another

3. Communicate in a civil manner

Reporting

If you would like to bring an issue to the moderators attention, please use the "Create Report" feature on the offending comment or post and it will be reviewed as time allows.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

k_o_t@lemmy.ml

golden_zealot@lemmy.ml

788

This is not a good look for brave. (lemm.ee)

submitted 5 months ago by Irelephant@lemm.ee to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

208 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I feel you. I use Firefox on Android (technically Mull), and it's generally pretty good. It does seem like some sites don't work properly on mobile Firefox that work fine on desktop, but I haven't looked into why (and I'm guessing it's those missing features you're talking about).

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Im guessing the website hasn't been optimized for mobile.

You're blaming your car for the roadwork.

[+] red@sopuli.xyz -7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm blaming a browser that hasn't implemented as many standards as it's competitors, and choosing therefore to use a free car that runs well on said roads.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Which standards exactly?
And do the websites in question follow those too?

[–] red@sopuli.xyz -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Websites would use more things more liberally if support didn't lag behind. Used to be that Safari was the new IE9 in that aspect, but Firefox has gradually been getting behind past few years.

https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+135%2Cedge+131%2Csafari+18.3%2Cfirefox+137&compareCats=all

[–] kattfisk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

How many of these "lacking features" are actually standardized? Of course some draft under development by Google will only work in the latest version of Chrome. It might not even work in future versions of Chrome, since it's not standardized.

If you built something that requires such a feature, it's you who is choosing to write code that is incompatible with the standards and only works on a particular browser version. You can't blame others for that.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I'm sorry. I don't think you understand the relationship between a browser and a websites settings.

If a website is not made to be compatible with a certain browser, that is the websites fault. Not the browser.

That link is a wall of checkboxes with no explanation, btw.

(Also, not touching Chrome. Pretty sorry for you that you're defending it so much.)

[–] red@sopuli.xyz 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Like i said earliier, im a web dev, and that's a list of web standards, and a comparison which browser has implemented which spec.

You literally said you don't understand them, so maybe brush up on the subject you are discussing instead of telling others how things are?

I'm not defending anything, just providing info and saying why I use what I use.

If a browser is missing official standards features, then the browser is objectively lagging behind. Yes, the web devs are at fault for using things that lack wider support, but that comes down to many factors such as having the time and money to implement things in a more complex manner to support more browsers. That's not always feasible or possible if a certain core feature lets us save hours or days.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The web dev guy blames the browser. Classic.

[–] VeryVito@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

When the browser can’t perform its end of the deal? Certainly. I don’t blame Netflix for no longer supporting IE5, either.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Stick with chromium, dude. Great choice. Crypto Ads for... the win?

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

DivestOS is discontinued, and together with it Mull. It won't receive further updates including security updates. Based on F-Droid there is a known vulnerability. It is recommended to cease usage of Mull ASAP.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2025-01/

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Dang, good to know, thanks. I mostly used it because it was available on F-Droid.