[freebuju]

> I'm not changing because they removed one tiny feature used by a very vocal minority

Seems you have trouble keeping count. Let me remind you how many features FF has nuked in recent times

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25589177

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24231017

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24128865

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24554393

[dralley]

Literally the top comment on each of these was something along the lines of "this is 1) not true 2) not a big deal"

> "Some of these are a bit spurious. I mean, Venkman was replaced by Firebug, which was much better. MXR was similarly replaced by DXR."

> "CNET (and Mozilla)[1] say that Firefox still has a fully functional security team. The source for this is an unsourced tweet. I'm going to flag it because HN does not seem like a good venue to hash out rumors."

> Kind of misleading title – what isn’t planned to be supported is installing PWA:s as standalone apps on desktop Firefox: https://twitter.com/englishmossop/status/1344428028315590656...

Try harder.

[thayne]

> what isn’t planned to be supported is installing PWA:s as standalone apps on desktop Firefox

That is still something that I very much wanted.

[toyg]

The XUL argument is the only significant one; and it was years ago, and there were very clear technical trade-offs.

[addicted]

And security trade offs.

[antman]

And the Firefox Android addon ecosystem disaster. A big thank to an HN user that once pointed me to Kiwi Android browser that accepts Chrome addons.

I had stuck to firefox 68 because after that https over ssl could be disabled remotely for corporate computers but now I switched to Chrome.

I think the end result will be Firefox removing itself from the browser pool.