Technology
Which posts fit here?
Any news that are at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies or tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
Not also unpopular, but also wrong.
Often times firefox is following the css specifications in how to process it and chrome isnt. Developers then do things, see it works in chrome and leave at that, not knowing what they did is wrong and broken.
On top of that logic of yours, ie10 was like the perfect browser and everyone should have kept making stuff compatible with it
What you're saying is that Firefox isn't doing what developers are expecting it to do; that just means that Firefox isn't compatible with what developers are actually making. That's hardly a strong defense for Firefox, as all that situation does is create a subsection of the internet that only works on Firefox.
There's a difference between following the standards as-written, and the standards as-practiced. If 99% of developers are doing something one way, then that's the way it's done, regardless of what some consortium of developers at Mozilla thinks. Firefox saying "erm excuse me but ThE rUlEs say yadda yadda so I won't render the page as you expected" while Chrome just says "fuck it, here's your page", is precisely why Chrome has the higher userbase and is the de facto standard; it does what the users and the developers both expect it to do, and doesn't give any fuss about it. Not saying it should be this way, but it is.
Firefox's random incompatibilities don't actually make for a safer internet, as the average user is going to pursue the path of least resistance. So if their pages stop working in Firefox, they're just gonna switch to Chrome, or worse.