A lot of that time was spent chasing the ever-changing "standards" which describe what a browser is supposed to do. It is easier for a new project to implement the distilled essence of those "standards" than it was to try to keep up with the house-of-cards-built-on-quicksand while its "architects" kept on changing and expanding its "design". This means Ladybird should be able to reach parity in a much shorter timeframe, it is the slog which comes after which decides whether they can keep up with whatever Blink does (which more or less is what those "standards" end up describing).
bryanlarsen|7 months ago
aleph_minus_one|7 months ago
I often mention that in Germany, Firefox has a much higher market share of the browsers than in most other countries:
See for example the statistic of browser market shares among desktop users:
- USA: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/unit... (Firefox 4th place, 7.45 %)
- Germany: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/germ... (Firefox 2nd place, 15.41 %)
Of course, because Firefox does not have this large market share in many other countries, there exist some (rare) websites that don't work so well in Firefox. But since the Firefox users (at least in Germany) often are very vocal about their browser
- If the website is "not important": ignore it; who would want to visit a website where the developer/company does not care about Firefox?! :-) Additionally, use this as a great opportunity for venting anger, and write some furious e-mail to the webmaster of the website why they dare to ignore Firefox users. :-)
- If the website is "important": use, say, Chrome for this single website - and then write some furious e-mail to the webmaster of the website why they dare to ignore Firefox users. :-)
TLDR: It is much more important that the users of the web browser are very vocal about using it than about getting the last 0.1 % of websites to work.