I'm sure all the shenanigans the Mozilla team has gotten up to over the last several years had nothing to do with their user numbers. Nope. Not at all. Couldn't be.
your post is effectively useless and very misleading.
For anyone interested in numbers, I threw together a rough timeline:
47.9% July 2009 3.5 - peak Firefox usage 46.4% July 2010 4 42.0% July 2011 9
FF12 - final release to support Windows 2000 and Windows XP RTM & SP1
FF15 - automatic silent updates 33.7% July 2012 17
FF19 - built-in PDF viewer
FF20 - replacement download manager
FF21 - Social API "multiple providers"
FF23 - no more <blink>, new logo, JavaScript permanently enabled, can't keyword-search in URL bar 28.9% July 2013 26
FF27 - more Social API
FF29 - Australis, no add-on bar
FF30 - disable most plugins by default
FF31 - first Australis ESR; previous ESR automatically updated to this version Oct 2014 24.9% July 2014 34
FF38 - Pocket integration 21.3% July 2015 39
FF40 - touchscreen/Australis improvements, extension signing mandatory in future
FF45 - Tab Groups removed 16.9% May 2016
So by now the lost percentage points have probably crossed the 2/3rds point.
Just because it still kinda works doesn't mean it ain't broke. Not wanting to accept that changes nothing. Pale Moon keeping the old UI around hasn't made it any less broken.
For somebody who's whining about my "deflector shields", you're making similar assumptions, just in the opposite direction from my opinion. Just because you like Firefox's interface doesn't mean everybody else does. Again, look at the user figures for how many people are still on Firefox.
Keeping XUL/XPCOM around all this time in Firefox did little to improve it or fix its problems, it just made it more difficult for Firefox devs to actually fix the rest of the browser.
Lumping together mangling the UI and replacing the extension system muddies the argument. You could have replaced the extension system without turning the UI into Chrome.
And how are Pale Moon's figures doing lately? If that's your supposed to be an argument for Pale Moon
I'm not the one trying to upsell PM
Nope, not even what I'm saying.
You're admitting that all the things you're complaining about Pale Moon doing, Firefox is comparably bad at, so I guess I fail to see what point you're trying to make. That we should use Chrome? If you want to use Chrome, go ahead; I would prefer Firefox not try to become Chrome, but keep being Firefox. But that ship has long since sailed.
Whether or not Firefox is also a crumbling house of cards is irrelevant to this conversation
Wow, that's sure convenient. Have you ever heard that expression about stones and glass houses?
It's just a fork for a few people stubbornly clinging to the past, desperately trying to paint that past as "better"
Well what do you expect, when you make it nearly impossible for them to keep their comfortable browsing experience? (I assume you're involved with Mozilla somehow.)
Maybe Pale Moon will be a serious contender if they ever get truly serious about testing, security vetting, and they pull in some more talent.
This just comes off as sour grapes. "Those bastards stole our code, but at least they'll never be successful."
Man, this is the first time I've seen something that's so clearly FUD that the term actually popped into my head unbidden.
It's otherwise no better than Firefox, and has not improved significantly since its inception.
Don't fix what ain't broke. Pale Moon has unfucked the Firefox interface, which is a big improvement in my book.
It has already broken compatibility with more addons than Firefox did.
A) They've got a whole library of fixed extension for ones that are broken. B) Firefox is jettisoning their entire extension system anyway in the near future so it's not like they'll be any better.
or it will continue its slow downward spiral into irrelevance
Are we talking about PM or FF? Have you looked at your user figures recently?
and once Mozilla (rightly) stops supporting those outdated legacy things
You mean the things you're ripping PM for not supporting in this very same post?
It's rather interesting that all these posts are by (presumably the same) Anonymous Coward, too.
He's only 4-5 years older than the previously oldest president. Reagan was 69 years, 349 days at inauguration.
If the only reason you can give for not voting for him is age, fuck, I don't even care if he dies in office. At least we get a year or two that way, rather than giving up and getting none at all.
I don't want to vote for a leader who might keel over in his first term.
Why, exactly? You're afraid of being embarrassed? Grow up.
So you're saying if the government hadn't issued a statement, none of the CC companies would have noticed or cared their names were on the papers list?
"Unlimited as long as you don't try to actually use it that way" is not unlimited. If you're quoting a price in pounds maybe all your telecoms haven't had the simultaneous realization that they can be dicks about it like they did over here yet.
For your car analogy, the speedometer goes up to 140 mph but if you actually throttle up to that fast the engine wears out within an hour. Then they market it on the claim you can drive 140.
God forbid they raise the data limits. That's just crazy talk.
Suppose that would require actually upgrading their network that they've massively oversold, which is also crazy talk (assuming it's somewhat like the U.S. over on the other side of the Atlantic).
only dissent presumably coming because of Catholicism, which might seem noble, except those principles lead to decades of opposition to the use of Condoms, causing even more deaths.
Er, what? Not sure which you're referring to with "those principles," Eugenics or anti-condoms? Because opposition to condom use in fact causes more lives.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, isn't it actually a felony to tamper with other people's mail?
Or I suppose since they're the government that rule doesn't apply to them? Because ain't nobody got time to get a warrant.
I'm sure all the shenanigans the Mozilla team has gotten up to over the last several years had nothing to do with their user numbers. Nope. Not at all. Couldn't be.
your post is effectively useless and very misleading.
Hey, at least I tried giving any numbers at all.
For anyone interested in numbers, I threw together a rough timeline:
47.9% July 2009 3.5 - peak Firefox usage
46.4% July 2010 4
42.0% July 2011 9
FF12 - final release to support Windows 2000 and Windows XP RTM & SP1
FF15 - automatic silent updates
33.7% July 2012 17
FF19 - built-in PDF viewer
FF20 - replacement download manager
FF21 - Social API "multiple providers"
FF23 - no more <blink>, new logo, JavaScript permanently enabled, can't keyword-search in URL bar
28.9% July 2013 26
FF27 - more Social API
FF29 - Australis, no add-on bar
FF30 - disable most plugins by default
FF31 - first Australis ESR; previous ESR automatically updated to this version Oct 2014
24.9% July 2014 34
FF38 - Pocket integration
21.3% July 2015 39
FF40 - touchscreen/Australis improvements, extension signing mandatory in future
FF45 - Tab Groups removed
16.9% May 2016
So by now the lost percentage points have probably crossed the 2/3rds point.
http://www.w3schools.com/brows...
On the other hand, Mozilla has lost more users that most web browsers will ever have.
For somebody trying to argue that Pale Moon is worse than Firefox, you're doing a terrible job of it.
Just because it still kinda works doesn't mean it ain't broke. Not wanting to accept that changes nothing. Pale Moon keeping the old UI around hasn't made it any less broken.
For somebody who's whining about my "deflector shields", you're making similar assumptions, just in the opposite direction from my opinion. Just because you like Firefox's interface doesn't mean everybody else does. Again, look at the user figures for how many people are still on Firefox.
Keeping XUL/XPCOM around all this time in Firefox did little to improve it or fix its problems, it just made it more difficult for Firefox devs to actually fix the rest of the browser.
Lumping together mangling the UI and replacing the extension system muddies the argument. You could have replaced the extension system without turning the UI into Chrome.
And how are Pale Moon's figures doing lately? If that's your supposed to be an argument for Pale Moon
I'm not the one trying to upsell PM
Nope, not even what I'm saying.
You're admitting that all the things you're complaining about Pale Moon doing, Firefox is comparably bad at, so I guess I fail to see what point you're trying to make. That we should use Chrome? If you want to use Chrome, go ahead; I would prefer Firefox not try to become Chrome, but keep being Firefox. But that ship has long since sailed.
Whether or not Firefox is also a crumbling house of cards is irrelevant to this conversation
Wow, that's sure convenient. Have you ever heard that expression about stones and glass houses?
It's just a fork for a few people stubbornly clinging to the past, desperately trying to paint that past as "better"
Well what do you expect, when you make it nearly impossible for them to keep their comfortable browsing experience? (I assume you're involved with Mozilla somehow.)
Maybe Pale Moon will be a serious contender if they ever get truly serious about testing, security vetting, and they pull in some more talent.
This just comes off as sour grapes. "Those bastards stole our code, but at least they'll never be successful."
Man, this is the first time I've seen something that's so clearly FUD that the term actually popped into my head unbidden.
It's otherwise no better than Firefox, and has not improved significantly since its inception.
Don't fix what ain't broke. Pale Moon has unfucked the Firefox interface, which is a big improvement in my book.
It has already broken compatibility with more addons than Firefox did.
A) They've got a whole library of fixed extension for ones that are broken.
B) Firefox is jettisoning their entire extension system anyway in the near future so it's not like they'll be any better.
or it will continue its slow downward spiral into irrelevance
Are we talking about PM or FF? Have you looked at your user figures recently?
and once Mozilla (rightly) stops supporting those outdated legacy things
You mean the things you're ripping PM for not supporting in this very same post?
It's rather interesting that all these posts are by (presumably the same) Anonymous Coward, too.
Even if it does, the odds that somewhere in the Firefox codebase they'll have to drop into unsafe mode to get something to work approaches 100%.
Last I heard there are also some people who still believe that Pale Moon is worth using.
It is. Are you just another person who doesn't undestand how forks work and therefore dislike them, or do you have an actual reason?
and haven't lost our ability to configure the browser so that it doesn't offend our fragile, melodramatic minds.
Except for the things that have actually been removed from even about:config. Mozilla, how far you've fallen.
Except for the part where Rust itself is the "new and shiny."
If the entire system is corrupted top-to-bottom it can "prove" anything it wants, was his point.
Bluray (learn to spell it correctly, will you please?)
Ooh, so close. It's actually hyphenated.
Blu-ray or Blu-ray Disc (BD) is a digital...
If I knew that the money I was spending was actually making it to the people who create the content I'd be much more inclined to slap down the money.
When I know 90% of it is going to RIAA and MPAA soulless leeches and lawyers to sue grandmas with, not so much.
The precise reason not to vote for Sanders in the general election is that he is not going to be a candidate
Well yes, now, but GP seemed to be referring to a hypothetical runoff between Trump and Sanders.
Also a bit curious about the "if I could vote" comment from a 30k UID user. Convicted felon, or non-U.S. citizen?
He's only 4-5 years older than the previously oldest president. Reagan was 69 years, 349 days at inauguration.
If the only reason you can give for not voting for him is age, fuck, I don't even care if he dies in office. At least we get a year or two that way, rather than giving up and getting none at all.
I don't want to vote for a leader who might keel over in his first term.
Why, exactly? You're afraid of being embarrassed? Grow up.
So you're saying if the government hadn't issued a statement, none of the CC companies would have noticed or cared their names were on the papers list?
I'm sure it's nowhere near as bad as all their hand-ringing and panicky predictions of market collapse. They just want to make *more* money.
"Unlimited as long as you don't try to actually use it that way" is not unlimited. If you're quoting a price in pounds maybe all your telecoms haven't had the simultaneous realization that they can be dicks about it like they did over here yet.
For your car analogy, the speedometer goes up to 140 mph but if you actually throttle up to that fast the engine wears out within an hour. Then they market it on the claim you can drive 140.
"What? You can totally drive 140."
God forbid they raise the data limits. That's just crazy talk.
Suppose that would require actually upgrading their network that they've massively oversold, which is also crazy talk (assuming it's somewhat like the U.S. over on the other side of the Atlantic).
as it is not commercially viable under current laws.
Read: "we could make a lot of money but we really want shatteringly large pools full of money"
Why are they accepting modifications at all? The code is never going to be actually used again anywhere, is it?
Not if some religion is true.
Ok, which bit is true? How do you propose to objectively prove it? How do you tell the difference between the "false" religions and the "true" one(s)?
This is called the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations. Rather turns the whole thing into a halting problem :P
"It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks." -Yang
only dissent presumably coming because of Catholicism, which might seem noble, except those principles lead to decades of opposition to the use of Condoms, causing even more deaths.
Er, what? Not sure which you're referring to with "those principles," Eugenics or anti-condoms? Because opposition to condom use in fact causes more lives.