I know this is unfair to firefox, majority of enterprise software now (including and starting with Microsoft teams) outright say do not support firefox or have ‘limited’ support whatever that means.
For anyone working remotely like me, teams is a crucial piece of software (however bad it is). So as much as I like Firefox and legends that started it and religiously developed it over the years, bottom line, I can’t use it now.
Some maybe majority of blame falls on Mozilla, they let it stagnate and focus on cosmetic changes in last few years instead of focusing on improving core technology.
> majority of enterprise software now (including and starting with Microsoft teams) outright say do not support firefox
Teams has explicitly supported Firefox for a while now https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/teams-clien... but the problem is "there's always another site that doesn't work right". Firefox usage share got too low, so places just check Chrom* and Safari work with the new feature and ship (sometimes not even the latter, if they don't care about mobile as much).
> there's always another site that doesn't work right
I keep hearing it, but personally I’ve only come across one recently (a site was running some tracking bullshit that broke on FF). And there’s one feature broken on LinkedIn.
Take that you know of 2 from recent memory and imagine someone unlucky enough to be in the top 10% of most broken sites experience by chance for the last 3 months. Those are the ones that comment/leave about it, but it's a game of attrition over a long enough time.
Webcompat used to be a lot more active (not sure if it's one of the things Mozilla has stopped actively engaging or not) but it was always a few big sites followed by an endless stream of "I'd never use that site, but that's precisely the kind of thing an average user wouldn't want to be troubleshooting" stuff. E.g. I remember seeing https://webcompat.com/issues/136422 and thinking "yeah, the hospitals I used to work at stopped testing in Firefox too - and the sites are already frustrating when they work as expected".
I know of 2 from the past few years. I mean yeah, this is n=1, others use other sites which do break etc. It’s a sad state of things, but also most of the web does work the same. It’s certainly not an acceptable tradeoff for everyone, but for me it’s been totally fine.
Feels like we need something like early versions of Edge, where it was using Chromium but could be told to open individual tabs (or configured to always open links to certain origins) in an IE webview.
Except, instead of Chromium, Firefox, and instead of IE, Chromium.
I assume you mean early edge2. The first release of edge (project spartan) used a custom rendering engine and javascript runtime. The chrome-based version released five years later.
It might have died with e10s but there was a firefox extension that let you embed IE in a tab on demand or for certain sites.
Many vendors look at the userAgent. I’d be surprised if Microsoft Teams org doesn't have some soft incentives pushing Edge and if not edge Chromium-based browsers.
Then again, there are definitely some Firefox behaviors that differ from the WebKit-derived engines (webkit, blink, etc); for a few years Notion editor had very different UX in Firefox for this reason. They eventually fixed it though! Firefox's profiler is also excellent, I always analyze my Chrome profiles in https://profiler.firefox.com/ when I'm optimizing CPU use.
For anyone working remotely like me, teams is a crucial piece of software (however bad it is). So as much as I like Firefox and legends that started it and religiously developed it over the years, bottom line, I can’t use it now.
Some maybe majority of blame falls on Mozilla, they let it stagnate and focus on cosmetic changes in last few years instead of focusing on improving core technology.