Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web • Hacker News Board

Re: Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web

#131

Post by jrs95 » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 3:43 PM UTC

johnsea wrote: post #7

The article once more reiterates the fact that Apple doesn't allow other browser engines. You cannot even fight, there is no future ;-) on iOS.

It would be a lot more difficult than it sounds for Apple to allow 3rd party browsers and allow them to be good. Even on macOS now, Chrome depends on internal OS APIs which prevent it (or Electron apps) from being in the Mac App Store -- and for good reason, those things could break at any time. So in order to allow 3rd party browser engines that can compete with Safari in terms of performance etc they would need to make the APIs that are used to optimize them public.

Re: Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web

#132

Post by least » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 3:45 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #110

saagarjha wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One cannot have writeable executable memory on iOS (apple can, we cannot). Nitpick: you can but you cannot ship it via the App Store.

Apple as does not allow side-loading, so wouldn't a jailbreak be required?

Jailbreak, enterprise certificate, testflight, or a developer account would be required to sideload an app. You can technically sideload an app without a paid developer account, but the certificate only lasts seven days, at which point you'd have to reload the application.

Re: Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web

#133

Post by lllr_finger » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 3:45 PM UTC

danilocesar wrote: post #77

lllr_finger wrote: post #59

On a free and open platform like OpenBSD, Firefox isn't even really an option due to performance issues. More than anything else, being forced to use Chromium for a decent browsing experience turned me away from using OpenBSD on a daily driver laptop.

How's that? Firefox is way better nowadays than it was a few years ago. I have been using as my main work browser for some time and I don't face any performance issues with it.

On a BSD? It's great for me in Windows or Linux, but it's really choppy scrolling or watching videos in OpenBSD. There was a post on the mailing list somewhere that blamed excessive mallocs. This was with version 69, so not some ancient version either.

Re: Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web

#134

Post by Vinnl » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 3:46 PM UTC

jeena wrote: post #129

notduncansmith wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, why does using “real Firefox” hold so much weight for you? Also, what steps have you taken to secure your device? One reason I haven’t switched from iPhone is that I’m not confident in my ability to secure an Android, and I’d rather trust Apple than Google.

Sync of passwords, tabs, history, bookmarks, etc. as far as I know Firefox is the only browser which allows me to run my own sync server.

Is that not all possible with WebKit as the rendering engine? (In other words, doesn't Firefox on iOS already do all that?)

Re: Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web

#135

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 3:47 PM UTC

andrewl-hn wrote: post #127

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why is JavaScript JIT compilation tied to the rendering engine?

Yep. technically, Apple doesn't force Firefox to use WebKit. They could still use their Gecko WebRenderer and use Apple's JavaScriptCore to run page scripts. Same goes to Chrome: Blink + JSC instead of Blink + V8. In practice in seems like both Chrome and Firefox have their renderers and JavaScript runtimes so tightly integrated that it's very hard to replace the later.

Elsewhere in this debate sharpneli says that there is no public API to call into JavaScriptCore and using non-public APIs violates the App Store rules. So that would explain it.

Re: Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web

#136

Post by Vinnl » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

oefrha wrote: post #85

jillesvangurp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too bad they built Brave on Chromium instead of Firefox. Which of course given that the company is run by Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich is a bit of a shame. Firefox is showing that they are more than technically competent to keep up with Chromium and deliver great performance and functionality. With the work they are doing rewriting Firefox component by component in Rust, Google will have their work cut out keeping…

It’s very easy to build a new browser on top of Chromium/Blink, which is why there are hundreds of Chromium-based browsers out there. In contrast, building on top of Firefox/Gecko, pretty damn hard. Even Firefox devs have admitted this. All too often I hear sentiments like “too bad they built... on Chromium instead of Firefox”, as if it’s a moral choice. It’s not. It’s an informed technical choice. If you want to cha…

Somewhat relevant: Mozilla has been working for a while on a project that does supposedly make it relatively easy to build a browser on Android based on their engines: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/android-components/

Re: Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web

#137

Post by Vinnl » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 3:56 PM UTC

vbezhenar wrote: post #36

fwn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now my parent is getting downvoted but I think that there's a great truth in this comment: A lack of focus generally hurts an organizations legitimacy in the eyes of it's donors. Increasing the quality of a countries national elections isn't a goal I'd immediately assume to be part of Mozillas mission, so I'd be disappointed about such a project. They could go the more transparent route and create a second orga…

I've heard that you can't even donate any money for Firefox. All donated money are going to other projects.

Part of the reason for that, I think, is that Firefox development is done by the Corporation, rather than the Foundation. The Corporation's can have far bigger income streams (i.e. the search engine deal), so it makes sense to make that responsible for the development of Firefox - even though that means you cannot donate to it.

Re: Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web

#138

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 4:01 PM UTC

acd wrote: post #95

Mozilla is right to fight for a brighter future of the web! First Internet was started as academic network with little to no advertisements. Then came the adtech model, personal data are sold for profit. News Papers does not fully get funded and totally free when they are founded by ads. Thus we should fight to keep an open democratic internet where quality journalism gets paid by end users not ads. I thinks its impo…

I don't understand what subscriptions vs adverts has to do with being more or less democratic.

I also don't understand how subscriptions are compatible with privacy.

There is currently no widely used facility for making anonymous electronic payments. If there was, then governments (including democratic ones) would crack down on it hard.

Journalism has always been funded through advertising.

Re: Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web

#139

Post by dgudkov » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 4:08 PM UTC

I'd like to point out that it's still not possible to support the Firefox browser with donations directly, in a crowdsourcing fashion. Donations to Mozilla Foundation don't go to Firefox which is supported only by search/sponsorship payouts from large corporations.

Re: Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web

#140

Post by EvanAnderson » Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 4:09 PM UTC

jrs95 wrote: post #131

johnsea wrote: post #7

The article once more reiterates the fact that Apple doesn't allow other browser engines. You cannot even fight, there is no future ;-) on iOS.

It would be a lot more difficult than it sounds for Apple to allow 3rd party browsers and allow them to be good . Even on macOS now, Chrome depends on internal OS APIs which prevent it (or Electron apps) from being in the Mac App Store -- and for good reason, those things could break at any time. So in order to allow 3rd party browser engines that can compete with Safari in terms of performance etc they would need to…

If these non-public APIs are so useful it feels to me that Apple is acting in an anti-competitive manner. They're allowed to use them for their own applications but deny third-parties the right to sell in the "Store" if they use the APIs. Sounds a lot like MSFT in the 90's...