Good work, and much appreciated!
Why is this interesting? For Wikipedia articles about people this is doubly important because the title is inevitably just the person's name - unless you already know who that person is there's no hint as to why they are significant.
At the same time links to pages without any context as to why leaves me wondering why I should be looking at this page. Particularly product pages that are not easy to parse what the point is sometimes.
The title of this has since been changed, which causes even more confusion since the comments I linked now make no sense to someone who never saw the original title. I'm not sure if the new title would violate the title guideline or not, but it's certainly a better choice than what was there before.
Are all these features not in normal Firefox? Is this like a beta of normal firefox, set of extensions, or a significant fork?
> Firefox Developer Edition automatically sends feedback to Mozilla ... In addition to the data collection described in this Privacy Notice, these versions by default may send certain types of web activity and crash data to Mozilla and in some cases to our partners.
I don't personally use the builds as Mozilla has not yet blocked signing of our extensions and `web-ext run` serves me well for development. Automated signing is not brilliantly documented but works well enough [2-3] to ensure that our builds are tested by real users before we release a stable version.
Unless it changed quite recently, you can do this with normal Firefox builds too AFAIK
Note specifically the step where the addon must be signed before it can be installed in this fashion. "Developer edition" does not require you have Mozilla's permission to install addons.
Kind of like beta: all of the new APIs and features related to web development are there three months before they hit stable.
At least this is how I recall it, please anyone correct me if I am mistaken.
It also has the new logo and I suppose there's new stuff on the dev tools. "What's new" page is broken so not absolutely sure.
Speaking for myself, I'm in the other camp. I never really ditched Firefox for Chrome except for a brief period. I returned to Firefox back when it was still called "Firefox (Not Responding)". Other than the renaming (/s), it -- generally -- flies. The devtools do what I need them to do, however, I used to hop back and forth from Chromium to FF a lot more.
So I'll be re-evaluating things, again, myself -- just in the other direction. :)
 I used Chrome for about two years after its release because Firefox wouldn't work with an internal application. It was just easier to use a single browser.
Main reasons were speed (Firefox opened slightly slower, and there seemed to feel like subtly more per-character latency typing in URL's) and minor anti-native behavior (the default-disabled-until-you-move-your-mouse Save button was particularly annoying, even though I understand the rationale).
I got the dreaded "Firefox process is already running" dialog a few times and had to close all my windows (ugh). I really missed Session Buddy; tried alternatives like Tree Style Tab but they weren't as clean.
Unfortunately I don't have the time to create good step-by-step reproducibles and log bugs. I know some of this can be tweaked out via preference settings. I even spent some time tailoring my userChrome.css per suggestions here. But just couldn't get everything to work quite perfect. FF will have to spend some more time as my secondary browser, may give it a shot again in another year or so or next time Google pedals something stupid. Will try out the new devtools when I'm working on a page, maybe that'll be the hook for another attempt.
After deciding that life's too short and that I really should give it a try - I've found out that source maps doesn't work on Firefox's dev tools.
Back to chrome.
Somehow Firefox devtools feel a bit clunkier when working on JS projects but they offer a lot of neat gimmicks if you dig into the depths of CSS. I also find the guidelines when highlighting an element more helpful than in Chromium for aligning elements on the page.
Personally I don't get to use grid layouts as my code has to work in IE11 (I gave autoprefixer a try but in the end it was no significant improvement over flexbox because of all the caveats and limitations). If you do, I'd imagine Firefox devtools would be a gamechanger for you.
I find myself occasionally switching back to Firefox for CSS work, then going back to Edge Dev for everything else.
The only good thing is that when the new Edge enters general availability, we can likely get rid of 100% of our IE11 users for good.
I have the same problem in the opposite directions: the interface of Chromium developer console is unfriendly to me, I never manage to get comfortable with it...
Me too, as one example: Chrome had no way to edit/re-send AJAX requests for the longest time
The debugger/sources view in Firefox also seems buggier still. E.g. a lot of times while it correctly displays source-mapped locations in the console, clicking on those source links will not actually go to the right place in the source view (it will either end up in the packed source or it will not go to the correct line in the source-mapped file even tho the console link gave the correct line).
One thing I miss that Firefox does not have at all is the Layers view. Which would be especially important since such things are browser specific and debugging performance/memory issues and making sure the engine uses a sane set of compositing layers can be important sometimes.
But the feature I miss most in my tiny corner of the world by a large margin is the Websocket support indeed. This is the thing that always makes me go back to Chrome devtools.
So every time I stumble upon that I'll open Chromium, find the stack trace and go back.
However, to be fair, this is a strong sign that as a developer, we are doing something wrong. If a JS application feels slow on an average browser in an average computer, it will feel slow on all slower computers. The usability will be crap. In this particular example, the frameworks are not suitable for such a large number of "reactive" elements.
And yes, I too have wondered if they only test in Chrome.
That's not me saying Firefox's tools are actually better though, there's still a number of weird quirks or features that could be lacking, while also having features I can't find in chrome that I also take for granted
Chromium for web dev.
Should the title be changed?
I wonder what happens to Firefox if the search dollars run out and companies are uniting behind chrome/WebKit
Webkit is developed almost exclusively by Apple (or more maintained because development is very slow, btw I suspect that Apple will drop webkit as it become too far behind)
There are also a few igalia devs and one Sony dev + one Gmail dev.
Chromium is developed by so many people, Google, Microsoft, opera, QT, hardware makers (ARM, Intel, nvidia), some enterprises, and many contributors (I wonder if chromium has more opensource non paid contributor than gecko)
Servo is mostly developed by paid mozilla devs, but had major improvements made by contributors.
Proportionally far more non paid contributor than the gecko of today, I expect mostly because they work on github which is more friendly than bugzilla and mailing lists...
Gecko dev today non paid developers are a few minority.
If Firefox does not die by himself, expect Google to slowly stop paying them
Thus mozilla will die which would be a great loss.
Mozilla could save it's future, mozilla could become sustainable:
I made a proposal here:
Were you referring to my proposal on github?
I was, yes.
But you can't disagree with my plan? It would mean you have an alternative (you probably don't), or that you wish that the trend continue and that mozilla die (you don't actually wish that)
A monoculture inherently creates fragility and inflexibility without the need to compete or collaborate.
Chrome removing ad blocker functionality is one reason why Mozilla is sorely needed.
Unfortunately, people don't realize that they are the product with Google, and ever more invasive spying will always the norm with them.
Dont drink the Kool-aid.
I'd like to read the discussion but can't find anything in the archives.
If the web is going towards a Chrome monoculture, then perhaps Microsoft would step in to keep some competition in the marketplace.
Stranger things have happened!
It's a weird angle for a browser to compete from, but I guess it's working.
Haven't noticed any memory bloat myself though (= it consumes a lot of memory, like any browsers). It's somewhere between Safari and Chrome.
The thing is, Chrome actually feels snappier than both Firefox and Safari when I am using it, probably because it's profile is empty (almost no extensions, no history, etc.).
I rarely see broken websites, with any browser. And usually it's because of my ad-blocking extensions. Google websites are slower on Firefox, but rumours are saying that it's almost on purpose… (one more reason to not use Google products like Chrome).
It's night and day on some pages, like google docs word document, for example.
PS: this one is about power\cpu usage though. Never really had any memory problems on my macs.
On my 2017 MacBook Pro with touchbar I don't notice the performance hit, but on my 2015 MacBook Pro the whole system freezes with Firefox. What completely solves this however is enabling 'low res mode' (right click app icon -> get info -> check the low-resolution checkbox). But, as the name suggest, Firefox now runs in non-retina resolution. It looks crappier, but I still prefer it to other browsers.
 - https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/09/26/firefox-quantum-bet...
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_version_history#Firefo...
It has a "What's new" link next to the version number, but it links to a 404: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/70.0beta/releasenotes
EDIT - I put in a bug report on the release notes link, response says that release notes will come out next week
Here's what they listed for 70.0a1 back in July, but the release notes link for today's update is a dead end.
One of the main changes for me as a Mac user is this: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1429522#c32
Now I'd be losing the tabs/bookmarks integration with iOS's unchangeable default browser, but that's not as big a deal to me.