Hacker News Reader

Comment by sevensor | Hacker News Reader

Firefox is a standards-conforming web browser. If some nincompoop puts a web page out there and my browser can't render it, I'm not going back. I make an exception for restaurant websites, because I want to see the menu and they all seem to have been defrauded by the same bad designer.

View on HN

The rule of thumb for restaurants is the poorer the website, the better the food. Restaurants with Flash-only pages that haven't been updated for 15 years are the best. Also, the cleaner the bathrooms, the cleaner the kitchen.

That's why I only go to restaurants whose website is a menu dropped in my letter box every couple of months.

> The rule of thumb for restaurants is the poorer the website, the better the food.

While I think this is a stupid rule, I can't deny that for my top 10 restaurants it's true.

> Firefox is a standards-conforming web browser. If some nincompoop puts a web page out there and my browser can't render it, I'm not going back.

Well... yeah... that's the point of what they're doing.

I don't think it is. I don't use ad blockers, but I also don't come back to websites where I've had a bad experience. If you do something hostile, like auto-play video, I'm gone and I'm not coming back. It makes for a fairly serene web browsing experience.

It literally says

> Manager says that we should just discourage the users of Firefox (not optimizing for Firefox, and poor UI) from visiting our website as they bring a loss.

Ah, right you are. That's what I get for skimming. I suppose this is the same strategy as using all caps in 419 emails. Savvy users are a waste of effort, better to chase them off early.

How can they actively bring a loss, though?

Does the power and bandwidth needed to have the server serve Firefox users cost more than Firefox users bring in over all?

Hell, in the short term, this could improve the internet for Firefox users.

It was me. I made a fortune.

The comments said that the reason the page doesn't work on firefox is they detect the user agent for firefox and don't load the css if its found.

Could this finally be the end of every user-agent string starting with Mozilla/?

No, because the parent comment here is incorrect. They stated that they are using feature detection, and specifically mention user-agent as something they don't use.

The above comment was a joke about user agent strings.

I also intend on quitting web development if the web turns into a big DRM mess. Life's too short to conform to all the wants of ad tech and IP lawyers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com