How does this compare to Intarweb Exploiter?
So, how does THIS compare to Intarweb Exploiter?
And, even more interesting: how many of those bugs COULD have been exploited?
This does make me consider whether stability would be better than "add new 'features' that we don't necessarily want". I certainly do NOT like the 'hamburger' menu nor any changes to the UI that don't look like 'a traditional menu, with property dialog boxes' [i.e. not those 'web based' 2D FLATSO property screens that look like Micro-shaft's operating systems], and so forth.
In any case, I like the cross-platform nature of Firefox the most, and the plethora of plugins 2nd most. [What I don't like is when that "cross platform" tries to MICROSHAFT my BSD/Linux]
Perhaps SLOW CHANGE [not change for the sake of change], focusing on GOOD CODING PRACTICES, is what Mozilla needs to work on instead. Then they can have an extremely stable, W3C compliant, non-irritating software package that's relatively bug-free, runs on all platforms, and isn't "2D FLATSO" nor "too feely" for the rest of us that are running the classic mouse+keyboard interface.