But what, practically, is the difference? If more and more websites use shit that only works in Chrome or Chromium based browsers, the effect is the same. The web doesn’t work as well for Firefox users.
One is a browser following web standards and the other is a shitty company adding non-standards based development features intended to lock users into there browsers.
It was shitty when Microsoft did the non-standard features to lock in with Internet Exporer and it is shitty that Chrome does it now.
It’s shitty for sure, and I definitely think Chrome needs to die, or at least have better competition. Sadly, not enough users are using non-chromium browsers, that they don’t see a problem with using chrome only features. It sucks, and it’s going to lead (is leading) to the further enshitification of the web. I’m doing my part by using Firefox, and any web application I develop is guaranteed to work in Firefox.
100% this. People loose the wood for the trees with these kinds of things. If something doesn’t work in one browser but does in another then 99% of people are not technical enough to understand or care why not. They just know it doesn’t work. That makes it a problem for Firefox. Whether it’s by their own making or not.
Very possible and even probable that they’re using some chrome specific behaviour. Just like back in late 90s early noughts when so many websites were IE specific making is impossible to use without a windows installation. The effect is though that unfortunately Firefox isn’t usable everywhere. Sometimes you need chrome for some specific websites. This is especially true for some self hosted “enterprise” web apps, I need chrome for one of those too.
I use Firefox on Linux and FreeBSD for my daily driver.
I was not able to book flights on Thai airways website 6 months ago until I loaded it in chrome/chromium instead.
It’s really really rare imo but that’s one example in recent history.
That sounds more like an issue with them using some proprietary browser bullshit than a problem with Firefox.
But what, practically, is the difference? If more and more websites use shit that only works in Chrome or Chromium based browsers, the effect is the same. The web doesn’t work as well for Firefox users.
One is a browser following web standards and the other is a shitty company adding non-standards based development features intended to lock users into there browsers.
It was shitty when Microsoft did the non-standard features to lock in with Internet Exporer and it is shitty that Chrome does it now.
It’s shitty for sure, and I definitely think Chrome needs to die, or at least have better competition. Sadly, not enough users are using non-chromium browsers, that they don’t see a problem with using chrome only features. It sucks, and it’s going to lead (is leading) to the further enshitification of the web. I’m doing my part by using Firefox, and any web application I develop is guaranteed to work in Firefox.
100% this. People loose the wood for the trees with these kinds of things. If something doesn’t work in one browser but does in another then 99% of people are not technical enough to understand or care why not. They just know it doesn’t work. That makes it a problem for Firefox. Whether it’s by their own making or not.
Very possible and even probable that they’re using some chrome specific behaviour. Just like back in late 90s early noughts when so many websites were IE specific making is impossible to use without a windows installation. The effect is though that unfortunately Firefox isn’t usable everywhere. Sometimes you need chrome for some specific websites. This is especially true for some self hosted “enterprise” web apps, I need chrome for one of those too.
Can you prove that right now? I can’t test that without a link