New Firefox

It is worst of all. Just starting it, without opening any pages, already takes 600 Mb. It constantly accesses HDD and stops the world of garbage collection or page unloading or something. How can something be that bad?

>>19
My point wasn't that you should just use a fork if something goes wrong; of course I understand the implications of a fork. Waterfox is a significantly smaller project than that of Firefox, and the prospects of maintenance and longevity come into serious question, so of course Mozilla's abandonment is an issue. My point was that Firefox's market share was stagnating. There are hundreds and hundreds of you complaining, but how many of you, when push come to shove, are actually using a fork like Palemoon? Why not? Because there's more to Firefox than just those superficial features, of which you yourself admitted there would be no innovation. If software has no feature progression, why not make a fork? What would change, anyways? Web standards. User expectations. Those things change. You fixate on one thing, you even acknowledge the complexity of the situation, but you're not willing to evaluate that nuance to understand why Mozilla made its decision. We could be talking about Servo and Rust and the practical merits of the new Firefox engine, but we're not even to the point where you take your fingers out of year ears and open your eyes.

Still, you fail to address the point where they deprecated the old API without even bothering to implement all of its features in the new API.

Well, it's kind of an obvious answer, but the way you phrased the question is just so weirdly comfy, I have to answer. It's obviously on their roadmap. Firefox has been working to assimilate Servo well before 57, even 55. What's astonishing isn't that they're too slow but rather how quickly they've introduced so many new features, often at the risk of bugs. It's a marketing tactic. I mean, who else would call a piece of software executed on a binary computer ``quantum" other than marketing?

You keep on forgetting how much Mozilla's marketshare's been slipping. And to inject my own thoughts into the conversation, Netscape basically went under when the did an up-to-down reimplementation of their browser, the reason being that there was so much time between their new, then-modern version of Netscape in the one previously, and they lost their grasp on the market. From the ashes of Netscape came a company composed of many former Netscape members whose name was derived from their mascot, Mozilla, and said company forked Netscape into what is presently known as Firefox. It's really ironic, when you think about it. It's easy to criticize Mozilla for the changes they made, but, frankly, the writing was already on the wall: stagnate and end up like their progenitors, or modernize their product to address contemporary end-user needs. Servo was an experiment and their last resort.