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.
@splendoruranium
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.
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?
How? When? How could a FOSS project with Billions of users possibly ever become obsolete? Is this just some kind of thought experiment?
@splendoruranium
“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.
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.
@splendoruranium
“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.