tl;dr you want me to put links here instead of you taking 2 minutes to google.
I provided hard data. It's your burden to refute that assertion, not mine to refute a fallacious proof surrogate. That's not how debate works.
Now you've provided a link to something. Something that still says that Chrome is better, btw, but at least it's something.
no wonder you can't make a proper argument without everything being about your "feelings" and "opinion".
Please illustrate where I mentioned everything being about my feelings.
As for opinion, it's the pot calling the kettle black here. You've posted just as much opinion as I have.
but instead of talking as if its your opinion you are talking in absolute terms, something which is very easy to disprove with facts.
So why haven't you done so?
"I provided factual numbers; you gave a fallacy." - you gave 1 number taken out of context and with no other tests being done.
It was in context. It was a test I performed and I reported all the pertinent data of a test run on three browsers on the same PC with default settings. It showed that Chromium was far faster than Firefox in the very test Mozilla used to define Firefox as "twice as fast" as it was before.
I don't pander to lazy people, google yourself the benchmarks instead of just talking.
I performed tests on three browsers, including one I installed just to test it. You provided no data at all, not even a link, until now... who's lazy again?
it's enough. the rest you can search for yourself. not just benchmarks but youtube comparisons of page load times, etc.
Objection, your honor; hearsay. <wink>
Now who is lazy? Do the tests yourself if you want to personally vouch for their veracity. I'm debating you, not some dude on Youtube (if I were, I'd be on Youtube doing it).
tl;dr the 2 browsers trade blows in different tests.
Okay, so now that you've provided a link to someone else's work, whereas I (lazy as I am) only performed a trio of tests myself, using the same benchmark chosen by Mozilla to demonstrate how fast Quantum is in comparison to older Firefox. You've shown that someone else wrote an article about browser performance that concludes that
Chrome is still better but Firefox is a close second (and that Firefox was ahead in some tests, like their Kraken). It reaches the same conclusion that I did based on my one test, and that's that Chromium is still faster. Yes, you've shown that in at least one test, Firefox is faster, but the very source you cite for that says that overall,
Chrome still wins in performance, which was the same point I was making.
That bit still doesn't demonstrate anything about what we were actually debating, though, which was whether or not Firefox has been attempting to copy Chrome in every way possible. Along with a bunch of insults about the level of knowledge, mental stability, honesty, etc., about anyone who happens to disagree with you, of course. So if we can get back to the actual topic...
Here's my point of view. I've never used any browser seriously (as a day to day browser) other than Netscape and its progeny. I started with Navigator in the Windows 3.1 days, and while I did try the first IE version to come with Windows 95 OSR2, I didn't care for it, and stayed with Netscape. I used various versions of Netscape right up until that point where Microsoft killed it off, and I moved to Mozilla Suite. From there, I went to Firefox, which I used consistently until Quantum was announced, at which time I moved to a Firefox fork, one that still depends on Mozilla for its survival.
The Firefox forks like Pale Moon, Basilisk, Waterfox, et al, are too small to be able to take over if Mozilla goes away. They all backport Mozilla's fixes to their own forked code bases, which can be a lot of work as the FF code base moves away from the more static forks, but is still
far less work than developing those fixes in the first place. Firefox has slipped below the moribund Internet Explorer in market share on the desktop market... how much longer can this continue? This is not something I don't care about, as you had said.
Firefox used to have one big advantage that Chrome does not, and that was that it could use addons that effectively became part of the program itself. This is why the Chrome-like UI of Australis didn't bother me for long... while it repulsed me the moment I first saw it, I was able to learn about and make use of "Classic Theme Restorer" that same day, and I had Firefox looking like Firefox again. Chrome can't match that, and neither can Firefox anymore.
Of course, that kind of power has security implications, and it's certainly something that users of such addons had to be concerned about. For me, it was a worthwhile trade-off... I could have gone to Chromium if I wanted the best in class security and speed. Even when Firefox was supposedly dog-slow, I used nothing else, and it was because of the addons that made the browser do what I wanted it to rather than what some corporation wanted it to do.
The potent addons were something that no other browser had... the one thing that Chrome could not do. Mozilla threw that away with the Quantum release, and they implied that it was necessary to get all of that speed that Quantum now had. They pitched Quantum as if the speed of v57 (the first Quantum release) was a brand new thing as of that release, and a lot of people bought into the idea that they were trading the addon utility for speed. That wasn't really true, though-- Waterfox, based on FF 56, could/can still use the "legacy" addons, and it was almost as fast as Quantum (about 8% slower in SpeeDOMeter 2.0) at the release of Quantum, and a year later, it's
still almost as fast. Yes, using only one benchmark, but it is the same one Mozilla chose to showcase all that speed they'd added in the six months preceding the release of Quantum, which is why I used that one for my own tests.
Now that they've cut off the one truly unique feature of Firefox, it still isn't as fast as Chrome in my test. It still isn't as fast as Chrome overall in the link you cited either. In your result, it's a close second place rather than being far behind as it was in my test, but the point is that it's still not faster. If the idea is to persuade people to move away from Chromium-based browsers, why would they? Firefox Quantum isn't faster, it isn't more secure, it isn't more compatible with web sites, it isn't cheaper, it doesn't have more powerful addons... the only thing it has is that it's not a product from the biggest spying company in the world, Google, but neither are the many Chromium-based browsers out there that remove all that stuff.
It's unfortunate, but very few people seem to care about privacy, so it's certainly not going to be enough to sell Firefox by itself to users of Chrome, especially when there are drop-in browsers that will use all their addons and settings right off the bat. It's been known for years that Google slurps up all kinds of user data, and Chrome has grown to its dominant market position at the very same time. People have shown that they don't care about privacy.
Firefox used to have a niche. It was the choice of power-users who wanted to use the available addons to completely customize their browsers. They were obviously not enough of the population to allow Firefox to challenge Chrome's position, and we can speculate about why and how Chrome came to dominate all we want. However it came to be, it is what it is, and Firefox has continued to shed market share the whole time Mozilla has been copying Chrome, which began in a highly visible way with the copying of the Chrome release schedule and version numbering, and has continued unabated.
Copying Chrome has not worked... and it's not a surprise that it hasn't. Mozilla is trying to attract the users that are already happy with Chrome by offering them a product that is as much like Chrome as it can be. It's still not as Chromey as the actual Chrome, though, and never will be. To woo users of Chrome to another browser, it has to be
better in some way that matters to them and Firefox at present isn't. It used to have one thing that was demonstrably better for
some users (the legacy addons), but now it has
nothing. Even the privacy thing doesn't really work, since Chrome users can move to other Chromium-based browsers and get that with far less disruption than moving to Firefox.
Back when Mozilla was battling the corporate giant in Redmond, they didn't seek to make Firefox as much like IE6 as possible to try to attract the people who
least wanted an alternative. They made it better, in every way they knew how, in order to attract those who
most wanted an alternative. Firefox was the first browser after IE had attained monopoly status to demonstrate that there was life outside of Microsoft-land. When Chrome came along, the pump had been primed by Firefox, and IE fell from 90% market share to 10% now-- and Firefox fell below that.
I'm not on Mozilla's case because I dislike them or their product. I'm on their case because I want their product to be one that I want to use. I want them to keep existing, which seems less and less likely as the user share numbers continue to decline steeply every month. Their strategy of going after the most satisfied Chrome users has failed, but they seem to think that there is some magic number of things unique about Firefox that they can remove and finally start gaining again. It's still possible to fix a lot of the UI issues with Firefox with the use of userChrome.css (thanks to Aris, author of the legacy Classic Theme Restorer), but for how long? Mozilla's been talking about removing that too. It's been the pattern for years!
