Are we running same firefox? I have same experience like you, but with
Chrome. Firefox is best performing and rock solid compared to anything else
to me and I run it on all my computers including virtual boxes, with ~100
tabs I achieved months of uptime with no crash. Can't say this about chrome
or
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Joaquin Oltra Hernandez
wrote:
> I think that people using old browsers on desktop, are most surely doing it
> because they have to (company policy on locked down computers) and showing
> them a banner or similar is only going to detract from their experience
> wit
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:31 AM Antoine Musso wrote:
> On 05/09/2017 17:47, Chad wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:28 AM Joaquin Oltra Hernandez <
> > jhernan...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I think that people using old browsers on desktop, are most surely
> doing it
> >> because they have to
On 05/09/2017 17:47, Chad wrote:
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:28 AM Joaquin Oltra Hernandez <
jhernan...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I think that people using old browsers on desktop, are most surely doing it
because they have to (company policy on locked down computers) and showing
them a banner or simi
Just to throw in some other datasets to look at:
The US .gov publishes all browser/traffic information in csv/json [1]. The
gov.uk publishes similar data [2]. I realize this is centered mainly on
people who live in those countries, but it may be helpful to look at other
large traffic-getting domai
On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 2:28 AM Joaquin Oltra Hernandez <
jhernan...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I think that people using old browsers on desktop, are most surely doing it
> because they have to (company policy on locked down computers) and showing
> them a banner or similar is only going to detract f
I think that people using old browsers on desktop, are most surely doing it
because they have to (company policy on locked down computers) and showing
them a banner or similar is only going to detract from their experience
with information they don't neither want nor need.
In mobile the situation
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Bryan Davis wrote:
> In my personal past experience,
> Firefox crashes were almost always correlated with buggy user
> installed, community developed extensions.
>
Which are going to be axed in the next release and replaced with a
Chrome-like limited-but-safe API
2017-09-05 2:08 GMT+02:00 Risker :
> Firefox has decided to take a path that is actively awful.
>
Which is?
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Risker wrote:
> Gonna be honest...after using Firefox almost exclusively for the last 10
> years whenever I had a choice, I'm ready to give up on it. I don't expect
> all the bells and whistles (and privacy compromises) of the big commercial
> browsers, but Firefox
Gonna be honest...after using Firefox almost exclusively for the last 10
years whenever I had a choice, I'm ready to give up on it. I don't expect
all the bells and whistles (and privacy compromises) of the big commercial
browsers, but Firefox has decided to take a path that is actively awful.
It's
Hi!
> After Firefox and Chromium, there's a bunch of open source web browsers
> listed on [2], but a brief spot check showed many as being Linux only
> (or outdated Mac builds). One that looked promising was Brave[3], though
> it's a relatively new browser and I would need to do more research
> re
Hi,
On 09/01/2017 07:06 PM, Chad wrote:
> (3) I would *really* like to have 2--maybe 3--browsers to list. There's
> zero reason to make users think there's only one option when there's a
> couple of valid ones.
I think Neil hit my goals on the head, and ideally there would be
multiple browsers we
On Sat, 02 Sep 2017 02:06:09 +, Chad wrote,
(3) I would*really* like to have 2--maybe 3--browsers to list. There's
zero reason to make users think there's only one option when there's a
couple of valid ones.
I would love that too. Imagine that we do take the step and start promoting
Fire
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:57 PM Neil Patel Quinn
wrote:
> I understand the desire to avoid playing favorites by directing users to a
> list of browsers rather than a single one, but I think that cuts against
> *both
> *the goals of doing this in the first place.
>
> The first goal is to nudge user
I personally use firefox on desktop and safari on my mobile (im lazy to install
an web browser on mobile lol) but I don't think we should make users feel like
we're pushing them towards a certain browser because someone(s) agree the
browser is recommended. While yes people may see the list and g
I understand the desire to avoid playing favorites by directing users to a
list of browsers rather than a single one, but I think that cuts against *both
*the goals of doing this in the first place.
The first goal is to nudge users to upgrade from an insecure, less-capable
browser to a modern one.
Why dont we link to an list of web browsers compatible with wmf projects and
let the user decide
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 1, 2017, at 12:09 PM, Chad wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:55 AM Federico Leva (Nemo)
> wrote:
>
>> At least until a proper resource exists, just directing people
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 6:55 AM Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
> At least until a proper resource exists, just directing people to the
> latest Firefox is probably the most reasonable option (we certainly
> can't support the incumbent).
>
>
Is linking to Firefox and Chromium an option?
-Chad
___
-1 to linking any resource which is not itself free software,
translatable with free software and managed by a privacy-compliant org.
Positive example of what I mean: https://pdfreaders.org/ .
At least until a proper resource exists, just directing people to the
latest Firefox is probably the
On 1 September 2017 at 01:58, Gergo Tisza wrote:
>
> We could send them to something like https://whatbrowser.org/ or
> https://browsehappy.com/
whatbrowser.org is definitely a nice experience, but it does require JS to
work; it fails to load both your current browser and suggestions for others
On 01/09/2017 01:58, Gergo Tisza wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:37 PM, bawolff wrote:
I'm concerned this would be seen as an inapropriate bias.
We could send them to something like https://whatbrowser.org/ or
https://browsehappy.com/
Motivating users to update their outdated browsers woul
The recent update of Firefox has made it worse, it basically kills
most of the extensions, deletes your browser bookmark cache and make
nearly all legacy addons useless, so yeah no, unless Firefox stop
making things worse, they should not be the alternative, most would
rather stick with Google Chro
Hi,
On 08/31/2017 02:20 PM, Fæ wrote:
> +1 on appearing to be a slippery slope and benefiting from wider,
> political, discussion.
Just to clarify, I fully plan on turning this into a wider discussion on
Meta or alternative venue if/when pursuing this further. I was just
trying to use wikitech-l
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:37 PM, bawolff wrote:
> I'm concerned this would be seen as an inapropriate bias.
>
We could send them to something like https://whatbrowser.org/ or
https://browsehappy.com/
Motivating users to update their outdated browsers would definitely be a
good idea. It has the u
Hi,
On 08/31/2017 01:51 PM, Max Semenik wrote:
> +1 to that. Additionally, the proposed method wouldn't even work because we
> blacklist crappy browsers from receiving JS.
This isn't strictly true, we give legacy browsers some JS to make new
HTML5 elements work using html5shiv[1]. And I think the
There's a pile of minor open source browsers too ... maybe redirect to a
page with a list.
- d.
On 31 August 2017 at 22:48, Neil Patel Quinn wrote:
> Personally (because I have no expertise in thing kind of thing in my WMF
> capacity), I'd very much support this. It *would *be showing a bias t
Personally (because I have no expertise in thing kind of thing in my WMF
capacity), I'd very much support this. It *would *be showing a bias towards
Mozilla and Firefox, but I think it's entirely reasonable for us to be
biased towards non-profit, open technology. A web with Firefox as a strong
play
On 31 August 2017 at 21:37, bawolff wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Legoktm wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> This was something that came up during "The Big Open" at Wikimania, when
>> Katherine Maher talked with Ryan Merkley (CEO of Creative Commons) and
>> Mark Surman (ED of Mozilla Foundation)
The best way we can invest in Firefox is via open web technology such as
push notifications imo.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 at 16:51 Max Semenik wrote:
> +1 to that. Additionally, the proposed method wouldn't even work because we
> blacklist crappy browsers from receiving JS.
>
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 a
+1 to that. Additionally, the proposed method wouldn't even work because we
blacklist crappy browsers from receiving JS.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:37 PM, bawolff wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Legoktm
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > This was something that came up during "The Big Open" a
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Legoktm wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This was something that came up during "The Big Open" at Wikimania, when
> Katherine Maher talked with Ryan Merkley (CEO of Creative Commons) and
> Mark Surman (ED of Mozilla Foundation). One of the themes mentioned was
> that our projec
Hello,
This was something that came up during "The Big Open" at Wikimania, when
Katherine Maher talked with Ryan Merkley (CEO of Creative Commons) and
Mark Surman (ED of Mozilla Foundation). One of the themes mentioned was
that our projects need to work together and support each other.
In that ve
33 matches
Mail list logo