I donβt think Iβve experienced this. Do you mean some pages not working in Firefox, but working in Chrome? Thatβs 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) donβt 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.
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
0 points (50.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43940 readers
502 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
Same. I'm not bothering with broken web sites.
I'm not in the US though, so I don't get many of them.
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.
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.
That's all really nice. But the fact is, we use what works. It's a pragmatic decision. They're are so few Firefox users and on the end issues are not very common.
The number of Edge users is only a few % more, do you skip that too? Just check Chrome and Safari and call it a day?
As someone that uses only Firefox and knows others who do, this really surprises me. If a website is broken on Firefox then it's shitty webdev work and I'll find another store.
Everything works fine in edge. Only Firefox has issues.
Users don't care why that is. If their app doesn't work they won't use this niche browser that very few people use.
Funny, we get more complaints about DuckDuckGo browser than anything else, and that's one of the few we don't test on. I know this because I make it a point to have someone from CS tell me about consistent pain points users are having. I wonder how many complaints about Firefox not working your customer service team is getting daily and you just don't hear about it because they've been told to tell users "just say Firefox isn't a supported browser and to try installing Chrome."
You should ask someone in CS. Whichever agent bullshits the least (not the manager) - you might learn something.
Almost 3/10 people accessing your sites are using Firefox. All those "images not loading right or whatever" are probably blatant to them, making them think "wow, what an absolute shit website."
3 out of 10.
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.
There are many misconceptions in your short sentence.
I want you to point them out.
That my view is narrow and that developers somehow can't have narrow views.
That my view is narrow
Yes. Your view is narrow. You do not care about the technical details and just label Firefox as "bad/broken" because you do not know how to work with it. That is a pretty narrow view. You do not care about the idealogical reasons that people bring up in here either.
and that developers somehow can't have narrow views.
I am expecting a person that is talented enough to be a developer to not have narrow views.
That's a strawman. It is not like that at all and I never said it was. I even specifically said that I know the reason it is like it is. I do know how to work with it. And no, I have an ideology, something I mentioned many times : I'm a pragmatist.
Many developers have narrow views. Probably most have.
Aaah so you and your company were proponents of the "This Site is optimised for Internet Explorer"
Ok boomer.
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.
It was humorous. I try to take stuff lightly.
Its not a bad idea. Nobody uses Firefox. We tested and there is no reason for us to start putting in the effort.
Nobody uses Firefox
well thanks to companies like yours, its not surprising that the trend is going downwards. Pfft who needs a vendor free Web after all, eh? Everything's Google now, yay!
Trend is down, somebody just wrote it's up π€£.
Look, I don't care. I don't. I use what works and I develop for what works. Then I go home and spend time with my family.
I have no interest of progressing any agenda for anyone. If mozzila what's to be a player, they should address the reasons why no one is using their browser. That for sure ain't me.
I have no interest of progressing any agenda for anyone.
except you and your company do and you are being ignorant of that.
but hey, as long as it puts the meal on the table...
Not ignorat at all. Very conscious about it all. I very consciously don't want to use a browser that breaks some websites and apps.
it seems we are going in circles.
You are willingly and consciously accepting the Web to be dominated by the biggest "do evil" ad firm called Google, do I get this right?