Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Don't forget that the powerful Firefox extensions like noscript, firebug, imacros,... are what (many) users love about Firefox. Chrome only has "lite" versions of these tools for technical reasons (limited extension API).

So I agree that the very rapid release schedule is the problem here. It brings more problems than it solves. Just because Google does something, does not mean it is good for everyone.



> Don't forget that the powerful Firefox extensions like noscript, firebug, imacros,... are what (many) users love about Firefox.

It depends how you characterize "many". Many users you encounter doesn't necessarily equal many FF users. I think what the vast majority of Firefox users love about it is that it is the browser they use, and have used for a long time. In other words, their loyalty doesn't run so deep. Those are the users this move is for, those that use Firefox habitually instead of for some particular reason and could possibly switch to Chrome.

> Chrome only has "lite" versions of these tools for technical reasons (limited extension API).

Not just Chrome, but Safari & Opera as well. There is a reason for that, it's because it's the smarter way to go. Firefox's extension system is a massive cause of headaches for Mozilla. It's going to go eventually, the only question is how soon.

> So I agree that the very rapid release schedule is the problem here. It brings more problems than it solves.

Problems for you, you mean. Rapid release, seamless updates and a less invasive extension system solves big problems for Mozilla and most end users, problems that are causing them to switch to Chrome.

> Just because Google does something, does not mean it is good for everyone.

Likewise, just because devs want it doesn't mean it's worth compromising the experience for everyone else. They'll find another way, users will just find another product.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: