I'm really curious if it's real or some bullshit. Do chromium based browser have something Firefox doesn't? I'm talking about all those "Please install Firefox to use X" because I doubt it
Yes, that's obvious, what I mean is if they have some kind of tools/functions that make it be able to do something others can't. The example that comes in mind is when I was checking a website someone suggested me https://my.rhinoshield.eu/ where it says "your browser isn't supported to do whatever it does, please install chrome"
Pro tip: when a website doesn't work with Firefox, go download a user agent changer and switch it to chrome and watch the website work perfectly on Firefox lol
User-agent switcher is what I use. My only issue so far is that it messes up websites that use recaptcha or cloudflare "Are you a robot" challenges sometimes.
This is more common than you think. It's usually not broken entirely, but firefox constantly breaks styling/css stuff on websites I use and build. I've had a few sites ask me to switch browsers because firefox doesn't support x y or z feature too
Because in web development there are compatibility tables of what features work with which browser. If a developer has used a feature poorly supported, they either haven't done their homework, or intentionally made that call.
In web development, most reputable Front End Devs would not choose bleeding edge, barely supported features even if the temptation was there because the user comes first. Generally, you wait until it has been adopted by the main browsers (chrome, safari, ff).
Frankly, if something doesn't work in Firefox, thats like <5% market share. Probably lower for a lot of segments. I am familiar with webdev :) Let's not pretend most devs are checking caniuse for everything. Some sites leverage bleeding edge stuff that necessarily requires chrome, which is also fine. IRL people don't optimize for Firefox and that's usually okay, but sometimes there are quirks. That's all I'm saying
Not perfectly optimised is fine, but non-functional isn't acceptable. I've never seen a quirk personally, and quirks aren't a good reason to help maintain Google's monopoly on web standards.
You may say less than 5% is fine, but it could be the margins in a low margin industry. 2% could be 40% of the profit.
I haven't seen a team operate where a senior isn't checking it.
Usually the bleeding edge stuff is used by small companies trying to establish themselves because they have nothing to lose and no reputation to protect.
Plus, when you got Browser Stack, you catch a lot of problems like this.
Because is your product and you want to "sell" it to the "customer". And you can't blame the customer for not wearing the "correct dress" if they come to your shop. And if you don't want them in your shop it's your loss, not the customers'.
I remember trying to style a range input slider a few years ago and it worked everywhere except firefox. I also had problems with the style of the <select> recently (inverted colors, wrong font). Not a big deal, I still drive firefox daily, but there are idiosyncrasies
Discrepancies between the two systems doesn't mean there necessarily is a certain number of websites that the average user wouldnt be able to use in Firefox.
You are talking from the creator viewpoint not the end user, thats way different.
All true! I suppose I replied to a comment saying sites were nonfunctional, but that's more extreme than what I mean. The only nonfunctional sites Ive read about are from hackernews threads talking about WebGPU.
That's what I do, just pointing out that it's factually incorrect to say there's no point to chromium. Everyone's just proselytizing, probably the same nerds who mock apple fanboys.
GrayJay and CloudStream are the only two things that I'm aware of that support it yet. This is a very new application, it hasn't really officially launched yet.