Firefox

18050 readers

86 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

k_o_t@lemmy.ml

Magic Lasso suggests that Chrome might be the new IE (www.magiclasso.co)

submitted 1 month ago by smegforbrains@lemmy.ml to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Bloated and complacent, Chrome might be on the path to playing the same role as IE was playing 15 years ago, shunned by developers and technologically inferior to other browsers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Libb@jlai.lu 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

They chose Chromium. Which is the base for Chrome (and all other relevant browsers).

I know we live in a time of why-give-a-fuck-about-facts, but I see two 'relevant browsers' in the top ranking that are not chromium-based:

Chrome 66.68%
Safari 18.07%
Edge 5.25%
Firefox 2.65%

(https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share)

[–] sibachian@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

and out of those 4, 3 are based on a fork that came originally from khtml. so it's really just firefox that matters in this race. well, until ladybird is ready.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago

https://ladybird.org/

Well that's cool

Ladybird is a brand-new browser & web engine. Driven by a web standards first approach, Ladybird aims to render the modern web with good performance, stability and security.

Singular focus

We are focused on one thing: the web browser.

No monetization

No "default search deals", crypto tokens, or other forms of user monetization, ever.

Announcing the Ladybird Browser Initiative

Launching our 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

Looking forward to it, 2026 feels like a long ways away but I imagine there is lots to do before then

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Much better than when IE for Windows had 97% market share. IE for Mac and UNIX existed briefly and had different and incompatible rendering engine.

[–] shield_gengar@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Your source is missing a bunch of chromium-based browsers to add up to 100%, and there's no methodology or statistics explanation.

[–] Libb@jlai.lu 6 points 1 month ago

Your source is missing a bunch of chromium-based browsers to add up to 100%, and there’s no methodology or statistics explanation.

FFS... I listed the first four results of the first web search result I got. Also, may I remind you that me quoting only the four first results (unfiltered) of a longer list doesn't change a thing on the ranking: on those 4 firsts (aka, the browsers occupying the 1st to the 4th places, aka the ones ranked before the 5th, 6th places and so on), two of them are not Chromium-based. That's all I was saying.

For the rest:

Feel free to quote other sources, obviously. I would be happy to see other numbers with some more of that 'methodology or statistics explanation' you're talking about.
Have a nice day.