Reading comments here about problems using Firefox is odd to me as I never run into them. I feel like people are taking about totally different browsers. I don't remember the last time I had page rendering issues or was asked to use a different browser.
Its the same kind of people that claim Linux is too unstable for them, and when you ask when they tried it they say 15 years ago.
I last tried Ubuntu as a daily driver in 2009. How has Linux reliability improved for consumers since then?
What are some good alternatives to Firefox? I have loved the browser for years, but the future isn’t looking bright. Waterfox is on my radar. Any others I should be aware/you guys are using?
Is there an extension that limits JS to things that actually improve websites (like the bare minimum needed to render a page usable under most metrics)
uMatrix, from the same author of uBO. It's been officially unsupported for years but it still works and it's UI is better then the UI of NoScript and of course much better than the incomprehensible subsystem of uBO that should have replaced uMatrix.
It probably won't work in new Chrome versions. I'm pretty sure it's a Manifest V2 extension (it would have to be in order to dynamically block requests in the way it does), and Chrome stopped supporting MV2 extensions this year[0].
It's kinda frustrating that Mozilla's CEO thinks that axing ad-blockers would be financially beneficial for them. Quite the opposite is true (I believe) since a ton of users would leave Firefox for alternatives.
There's only two alternatives, safari and chrome-based browsers. Safari isn't cross platform either
Must be hard to resist letting some ads through for life changing money...
They say everyone has a price. Wouldn't you for ten million? A hundred million? A billion dollars? It would be extremely irrational not to. You could always donate 70% of it to Ladybird, and still come out ahead. You could always secretly continue helping the adblocking mission under a different name. Even if you signed a contract not to.
It's like, what's someone price to commit a genocide? There are people out there, they will stubbornly refuse to engage in such a practice, no matter what amount of economical wealth is promised. It doesn't need to be rational. Rationality is not self justifying anyway. The will to help to build better societies is only marginally rational, all it takes is people with some empathy. Rationality is just better to tackle the logistic, it doesn't provide the constraints on what is deemed valuable.
The state of Mozilla's current 'products': Firefox Mozilla VPN Mozilla Monitor Firefox Relay MDN Plus Thunderbird - Some of these products are just repackaged partnerships. - Firefox - Funded by Google with the search partnership bringing in $500M in revenue. (free) Mozilla VPN - Repackaged Mullvad VPN and using Mullvad servers. Mozilla Monitor - Repackaged HaveIBeenPwned. (free) Firefox Relay - No different to Simpl…
I am subscribed to recurrent donations to Thunderbird. I would pay for Firefox if it was focused on privacy and customizabilty, not telemetry and LLMs.
uMatrix, from the same author of uBO. It's been officially unsupported for years but it still works and it's UI is better then the UI of NoScript and of course much better than the incomprehensible subsystem of uBO that should have replaced uMatrix.
It doesn't "still work" if you're on Firefox. uMatrix has bugs that cause it to randomly delete your cookies, or occasionally fail to block a request (race condition? Looking at logger shows an incorrect domain on some requests) There are community-made forks which fix the cookies problem, like nuTensor.
Is there a different repo for nuTensor than here: https://github.com/geekprojects/nuTensor? That one says it was archived in 2021. Or are you just saying that nuTensor is less buggy than uMatrix?
>> He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission. > It may be just me, but I read this as “I don't want to but I'll kill AdBlockers in Firefox for buckerinos ”. Yes, that does seem like a pretty uncharitable interpretation of that quote. I read it as "we won't do it, even though it would bring in $150M US…
The interpretation is not the problem. Whether he will do it, is actually secondary to the fact that he thinks cutting adblock can bringing in money. No, it will just kill the browser. The fact he thinks otherwise tells me how out of touch he is.
> he thinks cutting adblock can bringing in money.
It may kill the browser in a longer window, but before that, it would make them money. Most users do not donate anyway.
edit: in the past you would always get blocked, now I don't get blocked anymore when visiting lobste.rs with Brave. Anyway, do with this information as you please.