I’m sorry but I do not understand your post. What do you mean by this?
They’re Chromium alright. But what do you mean by it being “obsolete”? Is there some kind of link to a news site reporting this that I missed in your post? And what does this have to do with not updating operating systems?
An OS becomes obsolete when you can’t update browsers in spite of ‘official’ support (which typically ends earlier).
All Chromium-based browsers are made obsolete at the same time.
If you can still use Firefox, your old OS still has life.
An OS becomes obsolete when you can’t update browsers in spite of ‘official’ support (which typically ends earlier).
Surely that only applies to operating systems that are built around browsers, like Chrome OS. Which other OS needs a browser in order to function?
All Chromium-based browsers are made obsolete at the same time.
How? When? How could a FOSS project with Billions of users possibly ever become obsolete? Is this just some kind of thought experiment?
“Which other OS needs a browser in order to function?”
My toot was assuming people expect to use a browser in their OS.
“How? When?”
If a particular version of Chromium becomes incompatible with an OS, so do all other browsers based on that version. Eg,
#Opera 92 is Chromium 106. Opera 93 won’t work Ubuntu 16. It’s that simple. (I think the #Vivaldi Chromium 106 equivalent is 5.5).
It’s possible for a very technical person to wrestle those dependencies into an OS, but not practical.
In Ubuntu 16, just use #Firefox, except when a site is incompatible, when you try a Chromium 106 equivalent.
This is the same in Windows 7 with Chrome 109.
Ok, I understand the premise of your thread now, maybe there was just a language barrier. But what you’re describing here is… an accident. I don’t think there is any more of a deliberate backwards compatibility effort for obsolete operating systems made by Firefox than there is by Chromium-based solutions. While a current version of Firefox might work out now for you while Chromium doesn’t, there’s no reason it couldn’t be the other way around in a few years.
My toot was assuming people expect to use a browser in their OS.
But… why on earth would one expect an up-to-date browser in an EOL operating system? That’s like having a shiny new kitchen table while the house around you is crumbling to bits.
“While a current version of Firefox might work out now for you while Chromium doesn’t, there’s no reason it couldn’t be the other way around in a few years.”
That is possible, but the trend is manifest by Firefox & Chromium maintainers & I would rely on it without a major evolution. The fact that it is the same in both Windows & Linux is testament to the standard.
“But… why on earth would one expect an up-to-date browser in an EOL operating system? That’s like having a shiny new kitchen table while the house around you is crumbling to bits.”
Like your earlier toot, OS are still useful without browsers. In Linux I’ve learned to treat the OS like a tool instead of workstation like Windows.
Firefox is like extending the useful life of the OS, not stopping it from crumbling to bits. It efficiently extends hardware life.
I think they mean getting online in an OS that no longer supports (or rather isn’t supported by) the latest version of chromium.
That said, going online with an outdated/unsupported OS isn’t a great idea even if Firefox does still support it.
And from what I’m seeing the latest Firefox system requirements are very similar to the Chrome requirements too.
I’m confused. Does the Firefox no more rely on syscalls, system libraries?
This is not a technical discussion. We can’t use modern Chromium including #VivaldiBrowser in out-dated OS while Firefox still works.
Other compatibility discrepancies will be minor.
Uh, is this an ad? On an instance for the program being advertised? People don’t really talk like this.
Yes, it’s an ad. Try #VivaldiBrowser in Linux.
In an older OS, use #Firefox.
… Why?
I mean if you’re trying to annoy your customers and fans then I suppose that it works, sure.
deleted by creator
Agree to disagree. I use Firefox and I don’t like it. I’m a taboholic and the tabs don’t layer. Leaving YouTube up makes it run real slow and I have to close it and open it again. Firefox always seems to be one of the browsers that’s not compatible with some websites. Every now and then I get a tab that opens, especially when I restart, telling me about some feature. And that’s just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. Brave gets a lot of crap on this platform, but I never had any of these problems. Why do I use it? Because they all seem to suck. Chrome is just Google. It’s very secure except from the worst offender. Brave is a scam. Edge is…well Edge. Mulvad didn’t work for me because I like to come back to where I left off when I shut down and I guess that doesn’t go with it’s secure nature. It’s frustrating.
Got any other suggestions?
tabs don’t layer.
there is vertical tab support now, if that’s your thing.
Leaving YouTube up makes it run real slow
Switch to mobile website with a user agent, YT desktop is heavy even on chromium.
I looked and I simply can’t find this anywhere. In the distant past I had a browser that made a second row of tabs if it filled the screen horizontally. Strangely, I thought it was Firefox, but it was a while ago. So I’m not sure. I don’t want them vertically, I want the tabs to wrap if I have too many so I don’t have to scroll left and right.
Also I think it’s funny that I gave a few reasons why I disagree. I think people went," that’s a cogent, well thought out argument." Down vote! LOL.
My suggestion is every browser is a compromise, so for all but the lightest users, we need more than one. #Firefox is unique not being Chromium.
Because Firefox is not Chromium, I can use it on old computers made obsolete. Eg:
Win 7 ends at Chrome 109.
Ubuntu 16 ends at Chrome 106.(Chromium version = Chrome version)
My Firefox is new if not the latest in those OS.
