[alvis]

It's unfair to call the dev lazy on this ground. Even modern browsers are far better than the old days, there remain many discrepancies between browsers and they are still hard to come up with solutions that fit all platforms.

Making a static web page work on different browsers is much easier than making a web app work on all the browsers. For a web app, even 1% of the API doesn't work, the whole app is a failure. Can you accept an app only work 99% of the time?

I've no idea what makes it incompatible with Firefox, but without knowing the reason, it's an offence to call it laziness.

[BeefWellington]

> I've no idea what makes it incompatible with Firefox, but without knowing the reason, it's an offence to call it laziness.

If they didn't bother documenting the compatibility issues, even if only so that future roadmaps can review and take stock of any changes in browser functionality down the road -- or to allow others to work on/around the problem, that's laziness and it's fair to call it out as such.

[rlnorthcutt]

100% on this. Most startups are limited in resources, and even more so for opensource. Building a business means setting expectations and being clear on the scope of support. This is more than appropriate for a new product.

Personally, I would rather have a warning that FF "may" have issues, than no warning at all. Nothing is stopping a user form using FF if they want, and now they have a heads up.

As a long time open source user and contributor, I find it disappointing when some people can become entitled and complain about free software that doesn't exactly meet their expectations.

As mentioned elsewhere, the fact that it is open source means that anyone can potentially contribute... so if it is a large issue, then there is nothing stopping folks from trying to solve the problem themselves.