I’ve always been a Firefox fan, and I used it exclusively for quite some time. However, I had to switch back to Brave after they blocked clipboard managers from seeing what you copy in private windows, and there was no way to turn it off. I know about profiles and containers, but this is something I need for my workflow. Now that Brave has proper containers, I’m running out of reasons to miss Firefox other than my ideals.
Hang on to Your Firefox
351–360 of 551 posts
Re: Hang on to Your Firefox
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when Firefox does things to push away users like Mozilla buying up an ad-tech company What would you have them do? Somehow they have to make some money somehow. Alternatively they have to live purely from donations, which means that people like you and I have to part with of our money. Or they could be purely open source, in which case people like and I donate our time.
How is it that we can have a plethora of different Linux distributions, the Linux kernel, the FreeBSD kernel, the OpenBSD kernel, GIMP, LibreOffice and several other large projects that are run and maintained by donations and volunteers. Yet somehow Firefox is different? It needs to make money! It needs to make money so much that they keep spinning up all sorts of new projects so that they can make more money, or at…
We've got a live one. Most of their expenses are developing the core browser, the side bets (with a few exceptions, notably FirefoxOS, which I think was a GOOD side bet and worth the effort) were not that expensive. They're developing 40 million lines of code, and a lot of the things you're comparing it to actually aren't as comparably large or cutthroat.
>At this point in time, if they had taken all the money they spent on their various projects and put it in a trust they would probably be able to fund development without taking in any more money.
They already do that, they have a huge endowment set aside. It's obvious that people don't actually care about it because they don't know, and they only mention the possibility to make the accusation, never to give them credit once they discover Mozilla already does this and has been doing it for about 2 decades.
>And it's not like people wouldn't donate to them either, look at how much Wikipedia has pulled in from donations.
Another delusional argument. Wikipedia brings in a fraction of what Mozilla gets, and with orders of magnitude more users. And that's the best pure online fundraising program on planet Earth. Again, people only think this through to the point of being able to make the accusation not to the point of figuring out if it would actually work or not.
Re: Hang on to Your Firefox
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pay a small fee for Brave Origin "Hey, we recognize that normal Brave is exploitative and user-hostile by default. We'll fix it if you pay us $59.99 in mutual acknowledgement that you're a chump who can't install UBO." I'm glad (and unsurprised) that Brave's vision for the web never hit the big leagues.
Right, so when exactly paying a LICENSE for SOFTWARE had become EXPLOITATIVE?
[dead]
Re: Hang on to Your Firefox
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
> when Firefox does things to push away users like Mozilla buying up an ad-tech company What would you have them do? Somehow they have to make some money somehow. Alternatively they have to live purely from donations, which means that people like you and I have to part with of our money. Or they could be purely open source, in which case people like and I donate our time.
It's not an either/or situation. For many years now people have been begging Mozilla to allow them to give money to help fund firefox (and only firefox) but Mozilla has refused. I can't promise that allowing it would provide all the funds they need, but certainly every little bit helps. People could continue to contribute code to the project, but that requires a lot more time, effort, and no small amount of skill com…
There is no precedent for donations on the scale of what Mozilla gets from search licensing. The best online fundraising drive on the planet is Wikipedia with orders of magnitude more users and they don't raise half of what Mozilla spends on keeping up with Google.
It's not the panacea people keep assuming it is, it's just one of many accusations that gets flung at the wall.
Re: Hang on to Your Firefox
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't follow, especially since this is a reply to your own post. Can you clarify?
It’s an expression of frustration at being expected to supply evidence after accusing someone of racism.
Here at HN, we regularly expect evidence of lesser known claims. It’s actually a pretty cool way to form understanding based on reality. My original post was openminded, and stated that I tried to learn more about what your post on my own to not waste your time. When I could bot find discourse or articles about your statement, I asked for a source. That is a natural and valid thing to have happen. If there is basically no validation of your strong statements, maybe think about what you post and what it’s adding to the discourse.
Re: Hang on to Your Firefox
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chromium forks are not the same as Chrome but it does help Alphabet keep a strangle hold on the render engine ecology. And eithr way, monocultures are bad, a surprise vulnerability could nuke 70% of users overnight, which could be partiularly bad with features like WebSerial and WebUSB.
What does "keep a strangle hold on the render engine ecology" even meant? Does "make Firefox compatible with more web site" make chrome stronger? A thought experiment: if Firefox can use all chrome extension, does this make chrome stronger? I guess yes, right? What makes a website different from extension? [ I am trying to show the "chrome ecology" argument is ridiculous, not saying we show stop supporting website ]
It's like IE6 was - whatever Google/Chrome wants to do effectively becomes mandatory because nearly everyone is using it.
Firefox has to follow along because of all the web developers who only test things in Chrome and expect all browsers to work exactly like Chrome does. If anything about your browser is different, a website doesn't work, and if you complain the response will be "We don't support Firefox, you should use Chrome or Edge instead."
Re: Hang on to Your Firefox
#357Re: Hang on to Your Firefox
#358I am under the impression that Firefox is the only web browser which has access to quality ad blocker. Am I incorrect in this? How is this not enough of a selling point for everyone to switch to it?
Brave is even better since the ad engine is actually built in (lower level) and written in Rust if memory serves me well. And before anyone says anything about crypto: pay a small fee for Brave Origin or use it for free on Linux.
Thanks! I had no idea they added a paid option.
This is a brilliant browser for iOS/Linux usage, and now its UI is minimal, and its settings are filled only with stuff for my benefit. It feels like the early 2000s again! This should be much more ballyhooed.
Re: Hang on to Your Firefox
#359The only real threat to firefox is ladybird, that's it, Brave and other chromium browsers are not it.
Re: Hang on to Your Firefox
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
> pay a small fee for Brave Origin "Hey, we recognize that normal Brave is exploitative and user-hostile by default. We'll fix it if you pay us $59.99 in mutual acknowledgement that you're a chump who can't install UBO." I'm glad (and unsurprised) that Brave's vision for the web never hit the big leagues.
Maintaining browser takes a lot of effort. And, fighting with google implementation takes it to whole new level. $60 is very reasonable amount as it is a lifetime license.
I don't trust Brave to fight the good fight against Google. Brave wants to sell their own ads and push Web3 slop, making them an ethical tarpit with questionable motivations.