As a happy, longtime Firefox user, have to hard disagree here.
> It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems".
Well yes, that was apparently the OP's feeling, along with the belief that overall, the "sacrifices" are worth it. So whether or not the issues felt important (or real) to you, they evidently were for the OP - and possibly other people who are considering switching but as of now are used to Chrome's way of doing things.
> For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers.
If some issue arises because a user hasn't adapted their workflow to the new software and there is in fact a different way of doing things that will result in the same features, that's a legitimate thing to point out. But as the sibling comments make clear, that doesn't seem to be the case here, as containers are missing lots of features that profiles have.
> Never had problems with font rendering.
That's just "works on my machine". OP did have problems, they posted screenshots.
> The download manager being different isn't a "problem", and even Chrome is changing it to become more like Fx's [0]. So it's not like Fx's version is "bad", just different.
FF's download manager is missing a feature that OP actively used, which is drag and drop of downloaded files. So from that point of view, it's clearly a downgrade.
> I'd rather have an article on "Switching from Chrome to Firefox? Here are some tips on great features in Firefox".
Like how to use the multi-account containers I mentioned. Or how the address bar ("awesome bar") in Firefox is so much greater than Chrome's in finding stuff (probably because Google wants you to do a google search, not find stuff from your own history or bookmarks). On how Sidebery or other tree-style tabs can make the experience so nice. etc.
If users have issues with a software, I think it makes a better impression to pick them up from where they are than to do some "there are no problems, move along, citizen" approach.
It's the users who decide what the important issues of a software are, not the developers.
> That's just "works on my machine". OP did have problems, they posted screenshots.
Well, it worked on their machine as well without their fixes. Chrome's font rendering is the one that's the most off from my system behavior, but the article makes it sound like Fx has broken fonts. While it's just a preference from the author.
> FF's download manager is missing a feature that OP actively used, which is drag and drop of downloaded files. So from that point of view, it's clearly a downgrade.
No, it supports that. I use it all the time.
> If users have issues with a software, I think it makes a better impression to pick them up from where they are than to do some "there are no problems, move along, citizen" approach.
My point was that this isn't issues so much as things just being slightly different. When framed as "problems" it however paints them negatively, as if Fx way of doing things are somehow "wrong". That's my issue with the article, not that it points these things out.
> It paints a picture that you need to "sacrifice" something to use Fx and lists various "problems".
Well yes, that was apparently the OP's feeling, along with the belief that overall, the "sacrifices" are worth it. So whether or not the issues felt important (or real) to you, they evidently were for the OP - and possibly other people who are considering switching but as of now are used to Chrome's way of doing things.
> For instance it mentions how troublesome it is to use profiles as a "problem". Don't. Use containers.
If some issue arises because a user hasn't adapted their workflow to the new software and there is in fact a different way of doing things that will result in the same features, that's a legitimate thing to point out. But as the sibling comments make clear, that doesn't seem to be the case here, as containers are missing lots of features that profiles have.
> Never had problems with font rendering.
That's just "works on my machine". OP did have problems, they posted screenshots.
> The download manager being different isn't a "problem", and even Chrome is changing it to become more like Fx's [0]. So it's not like Fx's version is "bad", just different.
FF's download manager is missing a feature that OP actively used, which is drag and drop of downloaded files. So from that point of view, it's clearly a downgrade.
> I'd rather have an article on "Switching from Chrome to Firefox? Here are some tips on great features in Firefox".
Like how to use the multi-account containers I mentioned. Or how the address bar ("awesome bar") in Firefox is so much greater than Chrome's in finding stuff (probably because Google wants you to do a google search, not find stuff from your own history or bookmarks). On how Sidebery or other tree-style tabs can make the experience so nice. etc.
If users have issues with a software, I think it makes a better impression to pick them up from where they are than to do some "there are no problems, move along, citizen" approach.
It's the users who decide what the important issues of a software are, not the developers.