Waterfox Browser

#1

Post by cameronbrown » Thu, May 30, 2019, 12:25 AM UTC

Re: Waterfox Browser

#2

Post by dlbucci » Thu, May 30, 2019, 1:47 AM UTC

Is this the same Waterfox that was a Firefox build for 64-bit Windows? Is it moving towards privacy now that Firefox is 64-bit on Windows, or do the projects just share (an obvious) name?

Re: Waterfox Browser

#3

Post by erikpukinskis » Thu, May 30, 2019, 1:48 AM UTC

I don’t get it, the concern is that Firefox sends telemetry to Mozilla? Can’t you turn that off?

Re: Waterfox Browser

#4

Post by jusob » Thu, May 30, 2019, 1:48 AM UTC

dlbucci wrote: post #2

Is this the same Waterfox that was a Firefox build for 64-bit Windows? Is it moving towards privacy now that Firefox is 64-bit on Windows, or do the projects just share (an obvious) name?

Same project. It kept the old extension API from Firefox, this is why I use it.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#5

Post by gruez » Thu, May 30, 2019, 1:50 AM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #3

I don’t get it, the concern is that Firefox sends telemetry to Mozilla? Can’t you turn that off?

AFAIK the main selling point is xul (legacy) extension support.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#6

Post by slondr » Thu, May 30, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

dlbucci wrote: post #2

Is this the same Waterfox that was a Firefox build for 64-bit Windows? Is it moving towards privacy now that Firefox is 64-bit on Windows, or do the projects just share (an obvious) name?

Same project. It switched focus after Firefox 57 released to become a continuation of pre-Quantum Firefox.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#7

Post by ravenstine » Thu, May 30, 2019, 1:57 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #5

erikpukinskis wrote: post #3

I don’t get it, the concern is that Firefox sends telemetry to Mozilla? Can’t you turn that off?

AFAIK the main selling point is xul (legacy) extension support.

I guess if someone really needs to use a legacy extension, it's a good thing that it's around, but I'm personally glad that XUL is dead both from a developer standpoint and as a user.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#8

Post by vecplane » Thu, May 30, 2019, 2:09 AM UTC

I wanted to use Waterfox, but I wasn't sure about the security side of things.

When vulnerabilities are found in Firefox, we can expect them to be fixed pretty quickly. Can the same be said for this project?

Re: Waterfox Browser

#9

Post by smacktoward » Thu, May 30, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #7

gruez wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK the main selling point is xul (legacy) extension support.

I guess if someone really needs to use a legacy extension, it's a good thing that it's around, but I'm personally glad that XUL is dead both from a developer standpoint and as a user.

Yeah, projects like this give me the heebie-jeebies, to be honest. NPAPI and XUL were discontinued for really good reasons. Some users say they still want them, but that's because (1) people hate change, even when it's good for them and (2) they don't really appreciate all the security baggage those old APIs were lugging around with them. Projects that assure those users that they can keep on trucking with their old plugins like there's no problem just encourage them to do dangerous things they really should not be doing.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#10

Post by RyanShook » Thu, May 30, 2019, 2:12 AM UTC

Are there any similar projects in the Chromium world?