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

The endless browser wars

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 242 posts

Re: The endless browser wars

#161

Post by crocodiletears »

approxim8ion wrote: post #2

Holding strong to Firefox as long as I have to. What really strikes me is why more people aren't pushing for open-source browsers. One would think that it is important to have an element of trust for something that makes up the bulk of your computer's uptime, but perhaps open source is no longer a good indicator of trust for projects as large and complex as modern browsers, or people are willing to trust them anyway.…

I switched over to Waterfox after their recent blog post[0]. Not a political matter, it just reeked of paternalism. I'll hold on to Gecko as long as I can, but Mozilla keeps making decisions that force me to hold my nose.

[0] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...

Re: The endless browser wars

#162

Post by dimitrios1 »

1MachineElf wrote: post #155
dimitrios1 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's another angle here I think you are missing > If you can't tolerate Firefox because of Mozilla's problems, how can you possibly stomach Chrome/Chromium with Google at the wheel? It's because it's not enough to be wrong about something (according to certain people), but you must be punished for being wrong. And narcissists can't handle a company not being "100% right" so they punish them by going to their compe…

How about Brave as a Chromium-based alternative to Firefox that isn't worse for the cause?

That would require nuanced discussion. We can't have that! (Kidding aside, I happily use Brave because I find Firefox borderline unusable, but also find Google's tactics unpalatable.)

The larger issue is there shouldn't be a war. There should be as many browsers as people have the hearts desire to create, and it shouldn't matter because they all follow the same standards.

However, in the real world, we've seen the noble goal of open standards get tarnished by the same bullying corporatist tactics. What we need is open and democratic standards, not just a few voices in the room running the show.

Re: The endless browser wars

#164

Post by apostacy »

CivBase wrote: post #111

> The larger problem, though, is that it's not at all clear that Firefox will remain a viable alternative to Chrome. Its market share has been falling for years, and not everybody is pleased with the directions that the Mozilla Foundation has taken. I'm disappointed by how many people cling to Chrome/Chromium under the justification that they don't like where Mozilla is going. If you can't tolerate Firefox because of…

> I believe Firefox is a good enough browser to go toe-to-toe with Chrome. It and it's developer are not without problems. However, at this point I'd use Firefox even if Mozilla was just as bad as Google because I think the diversity is worth it.

But what good is it if it won't deviate from Google's vision of the web? It will go toe-to-toe with Chrome at being Chrome, and almost nothing more.

Mozilla is fine with DRM being a core part of the web, and they completely validated and enabled EME extensions. They deprecated useful technologies that have not been replaced.

I can't forgive them for validating the direction that the web is going in. They had enough leverage to slow it down, and they didn't. They have the same arrogance as Google but they don't have any of the success.

Firefox (then Firebird) didn't beat Microsoft and IE6 by trying to implement half-baked Windows ActiveX and Janus DRM support. They didn't even bother implementing stuff that they didn't think should be part of the vision of Microsoft, Adobe, etc.

I wish they would aim for the web they want, not just follow in the footsteps of others.

I for one use Palemoon, alongside Chrome for sites that need it. There are incredibly useful XUL based extensions that I rely on still, and Palemoon is much friendlier to sandbox and modify. And for modern web garbage, I have Chrome. I don't need Firefox.

Re: The endless browser wars

#165

Post by tyingq »

doublerabbit wrote: post #38

Until someone creates a new browser with a new render/scripting engine. Which everyone always jumps on saying "it's impossible", the war is over. Chrome has won. Chrome is currently giving life support to Mozilla and when they decide to axe that, well it's game over for Mozilla. The depressing part is the freedom, the new that the internet once provided is over. It's been turned in to a commercial breeding ground and…

The barrier to entry just seems too high now for a new browser or render/scripting engine. Things like Widevine/DRM, Apple's refusal to allow another browser, the broad footprint of browser functionality, etc. It's almost like it would have to be something other than a browser. Like the transition from gopher/ftp/newsgroups to web browsers. A bigger leap.

Re: The endless browser wars

#166

Post by akie »

crocodiletears wrote: post #161
approxim8ion wrote: post #2

Holding strong to Firefox as long as I have to. What really strikes me is why more people aren't pushing for open-source browsers. One would think that it is important to have an element of trust for something that makes up the bulk of your computer's uptime, but perhaps open source is no longer a good indicator of trust for projects as large and complex as modern browsers, or people are willing to trust them anyway.…

I switched over to Waterfox after their recent blog post[0]. Not a political matter, it just reeked of paternalism. I'll hold on to Gecko as long as I can, but Mozilla keeps making decisions that force me to hold my nose. [0] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...

I don't see at all how that post is forcing you to hold your nose.

It is a straight and simple denunciation of the attack on the US Capitol, and a call to critically investigate the role social media played in it. How is that controversial?

Re: The endless browser wars

#167

Post by korethr »

Mixed feelings on this. Personally, I'd switched back to Firefox from Chrome years ago, because I'd lost some trust in Google, and didn't want a browser that required me to sign in to make use of its features. My own personal use case for Chromium wasn't for any Google-specific features, it was the same reason I would occasionally use Internet Explorer back in the day -- a site I needed/wanted was broken in anything else. AFAICT, the removal of these API keys doesn't break any of the things I used Chromium for.

But on the other hand, I recognize that I am an outlier amongst outliers. The everyday user of Chrome probably does make use of and depends on the Google-specific services embedded in the browser. And so by revoking the API keys for those features, Chromium is crippled and no longer at feature parity with Chrome. While I don't care, a lot of other people will, and so those who might be inclined to install Chromium are going to be less inclined if Chromium is now less featureful and useful to them. Only the especially hardcore about software freedom and personal privacy are going to to see installing the feature-stripped and less-useful Chromium as worth the tradeoff. Those persons are like me, outliers amongst outliers. The net effect? Distros stop providing packages for a browser with an install base that shrinks to something too small to be worth supporting. And now, the only option becomes the proprietary Chrome.

Honestly, this strikes me as a tactic similar to, if not the same as "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" for which Microsoft was so roundly lambasted in the late 90s and early 00s. The question remains then, what to do about it? Anti-trust or other regulations? Something else?

Re: The endless browser wars

#168

Post by cutenewt »

loudmax wrote: post #63
phendrenad2 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is slowly closing down the lockdown trap they have nurtured for so many years I think that forks of Chromium which have their own sync are easily thwarting this effort. If nothing else, you can always use Edge.

Chrome to Edge is just trading one monopolist vendor lock-in for another.

This is like saying why move from a dictatorship to democracy.

We're just trading one leadership figure for another.

Re: The endless browser wars

#169

Post by crocodiletears »

akie wrote: post #166
crocodiletears wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched over to Waterfox after their recent blog post[0]. Not a political matter, it just reeked of paternalism. I'll hold on to Gecko as long as I can, but Mozilla keeps making decisions that force me to hold my nose. [0] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...

I don't see at all how that post is forcing you to hold your nose. It is a straight and simple denunciation of the attack on the US Capitol, and a call to critically investigate the role social media played in it. How is that controversial?

No, I absolutely agree with the sentiment of the post. It was a singular sentence that indicated Mozilla's comfort with intermediating between the user and the content they consume.

>Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.

It's an innocuous sentiment, but one with significant long-term implications for the behavioral norms of web-browsers.

I've held my nose at a few decisions pertaining to the general direction of the browser, such as the by-default inclusion of Pocket - which I resented, but could understand their need to find ways to become financially independent, and the browser otherwise improved consistently.

Re: The endless browser wars

#170

Post by CivBase »

apostacy wrote: post #164
CivBase wrote: post #111

> The larger problem, though, is that it's not at all clear that Firefox will remain a viable alternative to Chrome. Its market share has been falling for years, and not everybody is pleased with the directions that the Mozilla Foundation has taken. I'm disappointed by how many people cling to Chrome/Chromium under the justification that they don't like where Mozilla is going. If you can't tolerate Firefox because of…

> I believe Firefox is a good enough browser to go toe-to-toe with Chrome. It and it's developer are not without problems. However, at this point I'd use Firefox even if Mozilla was just as bad as Google because I think the diversity is worth it. But what good is it if it won't deviate from Google's vision of the web? It will go toe-to-toe with Chrome at being Chrome, and almost nothing more. Mozilla is fine with DRM…

> But what good is it if it won't deviate from Google's vision of the web? It will go toe-to-toe with Chrome at being Chrome, and almost nothing more.

By all means, criticize Mozilla. I'm not even saying people should use Firefox. Like I said, I don't want Firefox to become dominant. People just shouldn't use criticisms of Mozilla as justification for using a browser developed by a demonstrably worse organization.

I've seen a few people respond with examples of poor experiences they've had with Firefox. I haven't shared those experiences, but if people have found that Chrome/Chromium is a significantly better product than Firefox that's at least a valid reason to consider sticking with Google's browser.

If people are comfortable using a completely different browser like Pale Moon with no ties to Firefox or Chromium, that's even better.

Post reply on HN