[pizza234]

DDG has been very lightweight with regard to user experience. And they actually have to, otherwise, they couldn't distinguish themselves from the competition (ie. Google). So there's no realistic risk of invasiveness.

WRT the features: Firefox needs market share above all. I'm actually terrified by a future where companies can't be bothered to put even a minimal effort to make a website/service run acceptably on Firefox. Try to use Slack on it, and you'll see what I mean.

[deadbunny]

> I'm actually terrified by a future where companies can't be bothered to put even a minimal effort to make a website/service run acceptably on Firefox

This isn't the future unfortunately. This is the present.

[neoberg]

Future? As a webdev I don't remember having to check if something works on Firefox since probably 7-8 years at least. Userbase is too small to justify allocating resources.

[mtberatwork]

Too small? According to this site [1], market share is about equal to Safari and Edge+IE. If you are supporting Safari, Edge/IE there is no justifiable reason not to support Firefox.

[1] https://kinsta.com/browser-market-share/

[whywhywhywhy]

Lots of devs (the ones I work with, anyway) don’t even test in Safari until you point out it’s broken in it.

Really feels dev culture has regressed since the early chrome/safari days where working in multiple browsers was seen as priority.

[stjohnswarts]

I never did when I was maintaining an embedded web app. I checked in Chrome and Firefox. I would go in and figure it out if someone reported a bug in Safari but mostly no one at the company used Safari so it was really not tested for and the app just was never meant to run on mobile at all so safari wasn't much of concern.

[najqh]

"Firefox has been very lightweight with regard to user experience. And they actually have to, otherwise, they couldn't distinguish themselves from the competition (ie. Google). So there's no realistic risk of invasiveness."