Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A look at Firefox forks

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 390 posts

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#21

Post by neurobashing »

ramon156 wrote: post #17
RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #3

It is an indictment on the state of the web that regardless of Mozilla's missteps, Firefox remains the best choice for a secure, open-source web browser that isn't another chromium reskin.

I don't get the public "step down" that people are taking from using Firefox. How many users are actually switching? I doubt it's much. Many are audible about it, though. Yes browsers share your data, it's a browser... Firefox is not doing much worse than chromium browsers

the point is not that firefox is "not doing much worse than chromium browsers". the point is that they were founded upon principles of not doing that

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#22

Post by palata »

rrgok wrote: post #13
peppers-ghost wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having one browser engine dominate the web is not a good thing. If there was ever a terrible zero day found everyone would be in trouble.

Why not if everybody at the end will implement the same spec? I would understand if Firefox wanted to implement its own spec, but what is the purpose of having N different implementation of the same spec with their own idiosyncrasies? At the end of the day, the engine of the major browser engines is open-source anyway. Sorry, I don't know how I missed day zero-day.. Anyway my point still stays..

I don't think that zero-day is really an argument, given that the vast majority of users are on Chromium. If there is a zero-day on Chromium, most people have it.

> At the end of the day, the engine of the major browser engines is open-source anyway.

Open source is not enough. The question is: who controls it? AOSP is open source, Chromium is open source. But Google controls both. It means that Google can push for what is good for Google... even if it is bad for the user. E.g. preventing users from blocking ads. Not that it does not have to be with evil purposes (though Google has been shown to be evil enough already): it's enough for Google not to care about something for it to impact Chromium/AOSP.

That's the whole point of competition: you want the users to have choice, so that it pushes the companies towards building a better product. Monopolies never serve the users.

Now you say: "ok but it's open source, so if you're not happy you can fork away!" -> which precisely brings us to two browsers, like now with Chromium and Firefox.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#23

Post by saintfire »

Dwedit wrote: post #8

I read in a few places that LibreWolf's anti-fingerprinting features are breaking websites. One person complained that their meeting got scheduled incorrectly because the browser was messing with the user's time zone (for privacy reasons).

It does break many sites. Especially if you disable WebGL. You do get used to it but that's a tall task for most users.

It has been complained/asked about to have the ability to enable webgl on whitelisted sites but the devs have a fetish with all or nothing privacy.

Unfortunately if I'm using a site that, say, distributes 3D models then I'm likely going to need it enabled, privacy aside.

The time zone thing causes confusion with office 365, as well. It displays when meetings are in your time zone which did catch me off guard once.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#24

Post by jimbob45 »

RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #3

It is an indictment on the state of the web that regardless of Mozilla's missteps, Firefox remains the best choice for a secure, open-source web browser that isn't another chromium reskin.

You can’t get an OSS team to fix vulns in a meaningful amount of time, let alone research them. Waterfox/Palemoon stay months behind the official branch and are always vulnerable.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#25

Post by notRobot »

inglor wrote: post #7
vasachi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft doesn't compete with Google.

Sure it does, it competes on many fronts like Office (vs docs), Sharepoint (vs Google Drive), Azure (vs GCP) and many others. Most of these have a direct relationship to Chrome vs. Edge - for example the Google workspace suite (docs, sheets etc) comes pre-bundled with Chrome whereas Office Online needs to be downloaded like any other website by the user.

> for example the Google workspace suite (docs, sheets etc) comes pre-bundled with Chrome

This is not true

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#26

Post by herrherrmann »

rrgok wrote: post #16

The browser engine landscape presents an interesting paradox: we have an open specification, yet multiple implementations with their own quirks and incompatibilities. This seems to undermine the very purpose of standardization. Consider our current situation: - The spec is largely influenced by the same big tech companies that develop the engines - Major engines (Blink, WebKit, Gecko) are all open source - Significan…

If there was a group/vendor you could trust to develop such a universal engine to rule them all, that could work out. But, alas, no big tech company could ever be trusted with such a task (they would try to push their agenda, e.g. by preventing ad blockers).

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#27

Post by INTPenis »

RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #3

It is an indictment on the state of the web that regardless of Mozilla's missteps, Firefox remains the best choice for a secure, open-source web browser that isn't another chromium reskin.

Big corporations on the w3c board, and their control of the largest platforms, have contributed to the enshitification of the web by making web standards move just as fast as Windows APIs or Office formats. Making it much harder for open source volunteer driven projects to keep up.

I compare an open source project trying to make a browser to an open source project trying to keep up with MS Office formats or Windows graphics APIs. It requires a lot of resources.

And there is no global resolution to this as long as certain nations allow rampant unchecked capitalism and innovation under the sole supervision of the profit driven corporations themselves. Because they will forever keep inventing new standards that they launch on their platforms and become ubiquitous to end users.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#28

Post by paulryanrogers »

RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #3

It is an indictment on the state of the web that regardless of Mozilla's missteps, Firefox remains the best choice for a secure, open-source web browser that isn't another chromium reskin.

Perhaps more an indictment of failed regulators who have allowed these mega corporations to entrench a single browser engine, steer web standards, and consolidate so many of the social destinations on the web.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#29

Post by waltbosz »

This recent Mozilla stuff has got me wondering if one could fork Firefox, strip out the AI/adware code, then sell the binaries. How much would people pay (who would pay for a web browser)? Just Firefox, minus the crap. Would it generate enough revenue to cover the maintenance costs? Etc, etc.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#30

Post by mfro »

ramon156 wrote: post #17
RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #3

It is an indictment on the state of the web that regardless of Mozilla's missteps, Firefox remains the best choice for a secure, open-source web browser that isn't another chromium reskin.

I don't get the public "step down" that people are taking from using Firefox. How many users are actually switching? I doubt it's much. Many are audible about it, though. Yes browsers share your data, it's a browser... Firefox is not doing much worse than chromium browsers

I switched. I have been on the fence for some time now, what with the pocket nagware and the various 'sponsored' features showing up in FF. Very easy for me to start using librewolf. It even seems to be faster.
Post reply on HN