Firefox on Android has become my go to choice now, because it supports the full set of desktop firefox plugins, including the essential ublock origin. I can't even imagine mobile browsing without full adblock functionality anymore.
Honest question... who did they lose to? Google Chrome?
For me personally, Firefox has been better than Chrome for several years now. The only reason I still load up Chrome is when I want to stream to my Chromecast.
Mostly to themselves. First they lost track when they became successful. Then they lost track again when they started their FfOS. And now they lost track again, being more like a political organization than a software company.
- that started the race later slowing the to put certain "new" tech in it from the get to go instead of trying to retrofit it later
- Google had far more money for engineers and marketing.
- Google has a kinda unfair advantage through Android and Google Search.
Especially starting later after some technological shifts happend allowed them to get a technological advantage over Firefox for some time, combined with the much better image they had in the past and Android/Google search it was pretty hard for them not to become the dominant browser.
The question is why thinks didn't shift noticably in recent years?
This brings the problem that the futures doesn't look too good given the power Google now has to just push through theire stuff and given that there has been a bunch of cases where certain Google program _seem_ to have been intentionally "optimized" to be fast on chrome but _only_ on chrome and no other browser...
There's s link to a video by DataIsBeautiful which, if you think of OS market share (notably switch to mobile big time at the detriment of x86 in the early 2010s), is as clear as it gets. Mainstream users in their vast majority do not even think of using a different browser — there's one out-of-the-box, right?.. more pressing concern is getting on with one's life.
Yep. Google and Google Chrome. I remember years back when Flash was still all over the place, the big reason (at least among users I dealt with) for installing Chrome was its sandboxed Flash plugin.
The only reason I use Chrome now is for that pesky site that still hasn't gotten away from Flash. Unfortunately this is the case with some online training modules we are required to finish. At least now I can throw away Google Chrome and use Microsoft Edge. A tiny political victory, perhaps.
They won the first one, breaking IE's monopoly. Then they lost the second one to Chrome, which as of 2015 attained >50% browser market share and only keeps going up. Just being good isn't good enough, it's needs to be so much better that trying Firefox and then going back to Chrome makes it painfully obvious that Chrome is not just "not as good" but outright "bad".
And that's a really, really hard thing to pull off.
That line jarred with me too. It might be a metaphor that makes sense where commercial entities are competing for a winner takes all outcome, but it doesn't fit here.
I recall when Mozilla made it a central goal to adhere strictly to web standards, at a time when it was really tedious to get cross-browser compatibility, and other browsers followed them.
The aforementioned Facebook Container was an excellent step, but if they really were serious about fixing Internet privacy regardless of their financial backers, they'd ship an official Google Container as well. (A third party developer ships one as a fork of Facebook Container, but it'd be far preferable for a Mozilla shipped one.) They capitalized on the Cambridge Analytica scandal with the launch of that extension, but won't follow up with the Google equivalent.
The code is already written, I just think they are still too scared to ship an extension that works against their primary sponsor.
That's the problem with Mozilla's privacy propaganda, their funding depends on violating privacy, so they can only talk and pretend, but not actually do anything about it. Which makes them look bad, dishonest and fake, when they are talking about privacy.
Since Firefox switched to Quantum, I am exclusively using it on my work, home and portable computers. Chromium on my Arch Laptop was buggy, had a memory leak, and would consume all my 16G of RAM after keeping tabs open for a while. Firefox solved that for me.
With uBlock, Privacy Badger, Cookie AutoDelete and FF's built-in blocker I have a functional defense-line against privacy violating practices (not totally immune against fingerprinting yet).
The reader mode helps me to get rid of the clutter and read the text, very happy with that.
I also use Firefox and Firefox Preview on Android. The latter is specially superior in performance and has less bugs. For example on Firefox Android I had non-finishing download bars, not any more in the Preview. The performance is obviously superior. Nighly builds support uBlock now.
The "Send Tab" feature is also very practical (I have a FF account for syncing purposes). I send tabs to my other devices which helps me to follow things on my other machines and also to memorize things by seeing them in a short while on another machine.
There are two things about FF that I dislike. First thing is the massive amount of outdated articles and ancient support tickets online. Good luck with searching for a technical solution for a FF problem!
Next thing is the source code. I have compiled it many times in order to fix a niche bug. I even bought a better PC to compile it faster. This aside, it is hard to understand the code. There are zillions of moving pieces, and ad-hoc bug fixing is not an option. You have to follow things for weeks if not months to get to the right information. This probably can be improved by better docs explaining the code to contributors and new comers.
Overall I'm happy with it. Moreover, it is important to have alternatives otherwise we might lose the open web as we know it.
Another FF plugin you might like is Multi-Account Containers [0]. It lets you isolate one or more websites from others to minimize their tracking ability.
All this talk about openness and freedom, and Mozilla's builds still ship with the proprietary Pocket extension by default. I really hope they don't have to rely on the revenue from Pocket at some point.
Not only that, but it also connects to Google's SafeBrowsing servers. Is that required by their search engine contract with Google? Shouldn't be turned on by default.
Pocket is basically their version of Read Later, etc...And it’s completely optional whether you want to use it or not. So I’m not sure I understand this complaint.
Mozilla’s first integration of Pocket was poorly done, and rightfully raised complaints. But since they have purchased it, a lot of those complaints have been resolved.
> Baker wrote on Mozilla's blog that in the last decade, the world had seen "the power of the internet used to magnify divisiveness, incite violence, promote hatred, and intentionally manipulate fact and reality." Baker then added four new manifesto principles calling for equality, discourse and diversity online in an addendum called "Pledge for a Healthy Internet."
"Equality, discourse, and diversity" are the very principles that enable people to "magnify divisiveness, incite violence, promote hatred, and intentionally manipulate fact and reality." Any attempt to promote freedom of expression while simultaneously silencing the worst of humanity is inherently at odds.
Hatred is a naturally occuring phenomina, not a learned behavior. You can't just quarantine it to make it go away. That only makes it worse.
The internet is not a breeding ground for hatred. It's just a reflection of how bad we can really be.
Ex-Mozillian Brendan Eich agrees that privacy is the battle for the future http://www.brave.com
The question is - do you need to re-write the internet economy as Brave are trying to to achieve it, and not just block trackers?
The third element is that governments are becoming addicted to the vast trove of information gathered - will they be willing to give that up if a technical/business model solution takes off.
You make it sound as if Brave does more than Firefox to provide an alternative to the Chrome quasi-monopoly. Let's not forget that Brave is a fork of Chromium in the first place which means that if you value competition Firefox is still a better bet, at least until Brave shows that they can maintain a deep fork of Chrome long term while resisting upstream changes they don't want and that's a very tall order.
I do agree that changing the internet economy would be great though, but at this point I'm not entirely sure I trust Brave to do that. They clearly want a piece of the advertising cake under the guise of "disrupting" things, but should they end up being successful I'm not yet completely convinced that it'll change things fundamentally. I'm definitely curious to see if they manage to do it though, even if it ends up as a failed experiment it will have been an interesting one.
I want no part of Brave's weird cryptoish scheme. I know the feature is opt-in, but I don't see the point in supporting an organization unable to find a source of revenue I find agreeable.
Even something as simple and obnoxious as donation nagging, like Wikipedia, seems preferable to what Brave has proposed.
They will still have enough of it to get their dose - default setups, corporate apps, embedded devices everywhere. They just don't need to get ALL your online behavior as they do know by default.
Using uMatrix really raised my awareness of how bad things are - spyTech is utterly everywhere. I still take the time to micromanage my matrix every time I encounter a new site and it’s ridiculous how long it can take to get a random infested page back to an acceptable level of usability.
uMatrix is better than nothing but I want more micromanagement. I want to be able to block on a per script basis because some sites will load 49 scripts from some other domain and only 1 or 2 will actually be needed to make the page work properly.
Can they focus on making it perform as well as Chrome?
I mean, I support their efforts and all but I am forced to use a chrome based browser because FF has poor windows/sso integration and absolutley horrible memory management. A tab of any tool's webui that does a lot of work with a lot of data will not only bring firefox to a halt but the entire system. I can at least try to use it for soft workloads but you never know when visiting the wrong page will cause this issue again. Why can't it manage it's impact on the rest of the system?
My job performance would tank dramarically if I used firefox exclusively!
Why can't they work to make it better than Chrome? They were throwing Rust at it a few years ago,so what happened? Do they just not test against the right sites?
I mean, the mozilla foundation is not poor. They have money. Is it just politics or do they think getting gmail and youtube to work is all that is needed? I am only saying all this because i like firefox. Mozilla needs a wake up call. Do they not get the problems at hand or do they not care or do they lack some resource or motivation? I mean I will be happy to even buy a license for firefox if they get it to even come close to Chrome's performance. Maybe they have too many well intended fanboy's cheeeing them on?
Perhaps the specific websites you are using are particularly bad on Firefox (whether due to issues with the website or Firefox), but I do not share your experience at all. For me Firefox is fast and I never see it using too much memory, much less bringing the whole system to a halt.
So my suggestion is to file bugs for any websites that perform particularly badly for you.
Maybe this is a windows thing? I use Firefox on MacOS and it is more performant than Chrome. I rarely have to restart Firefox. Chrome needs a restart at least twice a day (I use Chrome for google hangouts a lot).
This changed recently with Firefox Quantum, which was v69 or v70. I noticed a significant speedup at that point.
What happened? They released it in version 69. Since then, Firefox has been running on that Rust engine, called Servo, has been much, much faster than it used to be.
I liked the wrap up where the position is that it is OK when other browsers adopt some of Mozilla’s privacy features.
I just about exclusively use FireFox with nine containers on my Linux and macOS laptops. Being able to segregate data is a game changer.
On my iOS devices, I feel stuck with Safari since other browsers sit on top of Safari. I appreciate the privacy features in Safari but still feel the need to frequently remove all cookies and use private tabs when using sites like FaceBook. I just wrote about this yesterday https://mark-watson.blogspot.com/2020/02/protecting-oneself-...
Because I like to sometimes use my Chromebook, I am stuck using the Chrome web browser. Deleting all cookies frequently helps.
Private tabs are the only way I use Safari. I found that I rarely use websites that I need to be logged in to, as those type of services generally have an App that I'm already using. For the odd case where I need to login, with my password vault, its only a couple extra clicks.
> On my iOS devices, I feel stuck with Safari since other browsers sit on top of Safari
More importantly, Safari is the anointed web browser that opens all web links. If you could designate Firefox to be the primary web browser, I'd do so in a heartbeat, because "Send to device" is so damn useful when you're using Firefox everywhere.
It's funny how Mozilla preaches privacy, but if you open `about:config' and count
1) parameters that include word "telemetry"
2) everything that looks like a unique token
3) "mozilla.org" URLs
you'll see that the sum is steadily going up with every release.
It leaves me under impression that Mozilla is trying to follow Facebook and Google. Lately they removed setting to use a custom page for the new tabs, leaving only choice between blank page and Mozilla-provided "interest based" homepage. I am still using it as the main browser, though, as "lesser evil", but discrepancy between Mozilla's slogans and actual features is pretty chilling.
Well, don't worry. I'm confident they'll fix this eventually.
You can't be concerned about the tracking bits you see in about:config if you can't open about:config to begin with.
They also disabled the ability for extensions to work on mozilla pages and things like about:addons by default, where mozilla uses google analytics.
They add new tracking crap on the browser in every release, so you are at a loss what to disable first in about:config as the online guides tend to get outdated easily.
> that's good for trolls and surveillance organizations and violent groups
Only "surveillance organizations" is relevant to privacy. The others make me think of centralisation and censorship.
The only real way to browse privately is to use a browser with javascript disabled and only a subset of css enabled over tor/isp. (but then you have to deal with cloudflare and broken sites)
What is the relevance of "number of calls home on first run"? Surely the contents of said calls, and over an extended time period, is a much more important measurement?
The concept of the browser is a universal vehicle for information. One of the greatest breakthroughs for browsers, aside from increasing front end application rendering and interactivity, is extensions. They put the user as the primary, where they can access, control, organize the information accessed as they wish using extensions. Of course, there is a wild west aspect to this, and over time extension facilities are becoming closer to app stores, with ratings and permissions being primary. Chrome has had some of the best support for extensions, making it easy to create them and offering most features through them, which is one reason I use it instead of Firefox day to day. But no browser properly supports extensions on mobile. Chrome just doesn't, the Kiwi fork is supposed to but in my experience doesn't really, Firefox says they will but the signals are it will only be select extensions, at least for now. Extensions are one of the best markers and facilities of a free, user first web, that isn't just about accessing opaque, absolutely controlled services, where hobbyists and principled organizations can work directly in the space of privacy and trust as information is processed, so I hope they pick up some priority.
>Firefox says they will [properly support extensions on mobile]
The most relevant extension - uBlock Origin - works just fine on mobile Firefox.
It's a real game changer, especially with screen real estate and energy usage being quite important on mobile.
That extension alone is why I have and use Firefox on mobile phones (aside of the usual compatibility testing on other browsers for certain web projects).
Mobile Firefox has the only extension I really need on there, uBlock Origin. No other mobile browser has anything comparable from what I've seen so I'm not sure what you're talking about on that point.
This site, for all its virtues, really cracks me up sometimes. I was talking about the open world of extensions, with an 's,' of which there are many. But apparently all the world needs is uBlock, and whatever the sites and browser companies deign to provide. Some hackers.
Specifically for mobile divices mozilla's performance is too good you can feel it just try to open blogger html codes in crome it will hang but for mozilla it's fine
https://www.boringworld.org
Mozilla essentially did a "get woke, go broke". They fired Brendan for ridicolous reasons, they focused on products that were useless and were really focused on spreading propaganda for woke causes.
I still use Firefox everyday since it's the best browser for linux but I also use Brave. Mozilla as a company in my eyes are a bit lost and they need more focus on their technology. It seems like they have realized this in the last two years or so and I hope that trend will continue. Firefox is awesome, focus on privacy is awesome. MDN is awesome. If they need money from other sources than Google, why not create some kind of subscription service for their MDN docs?
There is a bunch of things they actually need to fix like lack of PWA support in firefox (still) which is pretty bad that they don't have that enabled by default.
Focus on what matters, no one cares about your woke politics in the long run.
I'd love to have a Gmail-like alternative, both with a Mozilla domain (personal) and custom domains (business), for a small yearly subscription. Maybe have ad-supported as an alternative.
Mozilla destroyed their own platform - by removing its most significant feature, which was deep extensibility, instead of fixing it to keep that feature.
> That's how Mozilla works: slowly, collaboratively, trying to speak for everyone.
I don't remember Mozilla works collaboratively. By the way - remind me where they publish their income sources again?
> "the power of the internet used to magnify divisiveness, incite violence, promote hatred, and intentionally manipulate fact and reality."
Yeah, well, so has the printing press. When someone suggests we should keep a "healty press", that's oligarchic censorship. Reminds me of the US Comics Code.
> Mozilla has spent the last several years fighting harder and louder than ever for the future of the internet.
Must not have been loud enough, because I believe few people have noticed this.
> the company's vision of a more user-centric, privacy-conscious web.
"user-centric" web? Don't know what that means. It's like "reader-centric books". As for privacy - when something like uBlock Origin and EFF Privacy Badger is installed by default, and when TOR is an easily-accessible option, and when Mozilla funds some TOR endpoint routers (in countries outside US reach of course), then we'll talk.
> But what if people could also use them to keep Facebook from snooping as they traveled the web?
If Facebook was prevented from snooping entirely, that would not be that much of an issue.
> Firefox has long held the not-entirely-flattering distinction of being the most popular browser not made by a huge corporation
It's bankrolled by huge corporations. IIRC it was mostly Google for a while. Also, see below about their new VP.
I am reminded how Mozilla had, for years, neglected its email client in favor of the browser, thus effectively helping to promote webmail, stored and spied on by these corporations. It certainly did nothing to promote end-to-end encryption of email, which has been quite possible with Thunderbird, and would have prevented (some of the) spying on users.
> So far, Firefox has blocked 1.6 trillion tracking requests
That means it doesn't block most tracking requests.
> Alan Davidson ... new VP of policy ... has been working ... at Google and then as President Barack Obama's director of digital economy
So one of the top people at the spying-B-us corporation and the "can't have privacy and security" administration is the new VP who'll help protect us from his former colleagues and bosses? Uh-huh.
I'm using Firefox for years, after Chrome started to ask me for a login (at around version 40). Never looked back. One day I woke up to a chart showing browser market share of FF at around 4%, which surprised me - as I thought many people would understand the implications and directions.
Maybe I'm too optimistic.
Update: Loved chrome, used it for years, I also love most Chrome engineering and all the innovation they added to the field - it's just good to have alternatives.
> One day I woke up to a chart showing browser market share of FF at around 4%, which surprised me - as I thought many people would understand the implications and directions.
Its certainly low, but I also think FF usage is under reported due to built-in tracker blocking. For reference, FF uses the level 1 disconnect.me block list, which blocks StatCounter scrips from loading on 3rd party sites [1].
I'm on my waay BACK to Firefox, there was a strange period when I left, Firefox just seemed really heavy on my machine, and it was super intensive for some dev tools.
Now I say the same about chrome and find FF much lighter and efficient.
Delighted that FF are taking a bit of a stronger stand here in the privacy dept too .
Don't be optimistic, but don't be pesimistic either.
Do what you can - donate time or money, or just recommend everyone to not use the piece of carp that is Chrome. Anything based on Chromium counts as well, their codebase is dictated by Google, one way or the other.
My mom had so many issues with ads until I installed Firefox for her, and honestly, the ad blockers make the internet a much better for navigation.
> [...] I thought many people would understand the implications and directions.
Might be obvious, but consider that more people than you estimated, while understanding implications and directions, decided differently than you did. It's dangerous to attribute behaviour different from your own to lack of understanding.
> I'm using Firefox for years, after Chrome started to ask me for a login
It's funny because Firefox has been pushing their login thing pretty hard (the yellow "oh no" exclamation mark icon if you're not logged in, the account icon that keeps placing itself back onto my toolbar, occasional full-page ad/nag screen, ...).
> I woke up to a chart showing browser market share of FF at around 4%
I've used and loved Firefox from before it was called Firefox. I really, really, really want to like the modern Firefox, but I just can't. I find it limiting and irritating. So, sadly, I don't. I don't use Chrome either, though.
I’m not convinced it’s good to have alternatives, or maybe I’m just too uneducated on the subject to understand why. I’m old enough to have lived through the horror of IE, and since I work in Enterprise where some old web applications still require it, I will continue to live it until we’re capable of rolling out the new Edge with IE compatibility.
I’ve actually used FF as my main development browser for most of those years because it’s the only browser where extensions aren’t controlled by our IT department, and I kind of need extensions on the fly. So I’ve seen the good and the bad of it. I personally prefer Chrome. I also like privacy, but I’ve tried the Duck and it just doesn’t work for my language, leading me to add the !g on almost all my searches, and if I’m google that much anyway, so I really benefit from using FF? Doesn’t FF also use one of Google’s engines to check site security?
Anyway I’m rambling, so let me get back on track. I’ve been testing the new Edge, and it’s Microsoft’s best browser, and what are the risks? Is it really better to have all the browsers on different engines instead of having multiple big guys work on the same open source engine?
4) You can only opt out if you live in California:
> Opting out of the sharing of your personal information by Protocol with marketers: Please send an email to privacy@protocol.com with the following information: -Name -Email -Confirmation of California residency
There are a few news organizations somehow battling it out to survive without advertising and I applaud them, but most comments like these simply remind me of this sentiment: https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/
No ads coming up in my Epic Privacy Browser with adblock & encrypted proxy on :-). Firefox has been copying a lot of Epic's features, but still is far behind their privacy defaults.
I think being “woke” is only “not good” if you subscribe to the Fox News Cult.
Thinking carefully about the ethics of the company you work for, especially those in-demand employees who largely have a choice like software engineers, is definitely important. This is not a partisan issue.
Sure, you may not get your chance to own the libs, but that stuff is a bit childish, isn’t it? What does the phrase SJW actually mean to you? If you don’t believe that “social justice” is good, what do you find appealing about the alternative of “social injustice?”
Why would that be better than current solutions, which at best users don't really notice when they work, and at worse dislike because they make many things less convenient?
> Making private browsing more private was a success, which is to say less data was collected and users didn't notice the difference.
> The same trackers, though, help users log into sites and pay for goods, and blocking them would break the internet for lots of users.
I've been using Brave these days. Really like it. IMO: Firefox doesn't seem to know what sort of company they are anymore. Their product arsenal is expanding, yet core features of their flagship product is still stuck in the 2000's.
How is Firefox stuck in the 2000s? They recently switched to an entirely new modern renderer, switched to a modern fast layout engine and implement new web strandards very quickly, sometimes faster than Chrome.
If they want to do something, there's a simple three-step plan.
1) block all ads, by default
2) do not unblock Google's ads,
3) receive Adblock Plus-style bribes from Yandex or whoever to whitelist them, provided they don't harm privacy
This would kill several birds in one stone. First, break Mozilla free of Google funding. Second, hurt Google. Third, increase Firefox' market share. Fourth, help users' privacy.
As things stand today, Mozilla just exist so that Google can pretend they don't have a monopoly. Follow the money - who pays?
(A: Google pays nearly all of their budget, and they have next to no rainy day fund)
They could probably exist without Google funding, like just supporting a Chromium fork with fast native adblocking. But obviously not as a thousand people company.
walrus01|6 years ago
cobalt60|6 years ago
ilitirit|6 years ago
Honest question... who did they lose to? Google Chrome?
For me personally, Firefox has been better than Chrome for several years now. The only reason I still load up Chrome is when I want to stream to my Chromecast.
alecmg|6 years ago
Netscape lost. Original Opera lost. IE lost. Edge lost. As in killed off by creators and no new work is done on it.
Mozilla Firefox at this point is going strong and growing. It is a better browser than Chrome for me.
nathanyukai|6 years ago
101404|6 years ago
No surprise they lost all their market share.
dathinab|6 years ago
- that started the race later slowing the to put certain "new" tech in it from the get to go instead of trying to retrofit it later
- Google had far more money for engineers and marketing.
- Google has a kinda unfair advantage through Android and Google Search.
Especially starting later after some technological shifts happend allowed them to get a technological advantage over Firefox for some time, combined with the much better image they had in the past and Android/Google search it was pretty hard for them not to become the dominant browser.
The question is why thinks didn't shift noticably in recent years?
This brings the problem that the futures doesn't look too good given the power Google now has to just push through theire stuff and given that there has been a bunch of cases where certain Google program _seem_ to have been intentionally "optimized" to be fast on chrome but _only_ on chrome and no other browser...
Edited for spelling fixes.
K0SM0S|6 years ago
See this other comment I made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22299884
There's s link to a video by DataIsBeautiful which, if you think of OS market share (notably switch to mobile big time at the detriment of x86 in the early 2010s), is as clear as it gets. Mainstream users in their vast majority do not even think of using a different browser — there's one out-of-the-box, right?.. more pressing concern is getting on with one's life.
jrnichols|6 years ago
The only reason I use Chrome now is for that pesky site that still hasn't gotten away from Flash. Unfortunately this is the case with some online training modules we are required to finish. At least now I can throw away Google Chrome and use Microsoft Edge. A tiny political victory, perhaps.
TheRealPomax|6 years ago
And that's a really, really hard thing to pull off.
mschuetz|6 years ago
ksangeelee|6 years ago
I recall when Mozilla made it a central goal to adhere strictly to web standards, at a time when it was really tedious to get cross-browser compatibility, and other browsers followed them.
To me, that alone is a big win.
ksec|6 years ago
Arguably you could say they lost some market share to Chrome and Safari, but realistically they never won much in the first place.
And that is from someone who followed Firefox development before it was even called Firefox.
m-p-3|6 years ago
I tried fx_cast but it didn't work with Plex.
Vinnl|6 years ago
unknown|6 years ago
[deleted]
ocdtrekkie|6 years ago
The code is already written, I just think they are still too scared to ship an extension that works against their primary sponsor.
MrsPeaches|6 years ago
bogle|6 years ago
unknown|6 years ago
[deleted]
zzzcpan|6 years ago
mehdix|6 years ago
Since Firefox switched to Quantum, I am exclusively using it on my work, home and portable computers. Chromium on my Arch Laptop was buggy, had a memory leak, and would consume all my 16G of RAM after keeping tabs open for a while. Firefox solved that for me.
With uBlock, Privacy Badger, Cookie AutoDelete and FF's built-in blocker I have a functional defense-line against privacy violating practices (not totally immune against fingerprinting yet).
The reader mode helps me to get rid of the clutter and read the text, very happy with that.
I also use Firefox and Firefox Preview on Android. The latter is specially superior in performance and has less bugs. For example on Firefox Android I had non-finishing download bars, not any more in the Preview. The performance is obviously superior. Nighly builds support uBlock now.
The "Send Tab" feature is also very practical (I have a FF account for syncing purposes). I send tabs to my other devices which helps me to follow things on my other machines and also to memorize things by seeing them in a short while on another machine.
There are two things about FF that I dislike. First thing is the massive amount of outdated articles and ancient support tickets online. Good luck with searching for a technical solution for a FF problem!
Next thing is the source code. I have compiled it many times in order to fix a niche bug. I even bought a better PC to compile it faster. This aside, it is hard to understand the code. There are zillions of moving pieces, and ad-hoc bug fixing is not an option. You have to follow things for weeks if not months to get to the right information. This probably can be improved by better docs explaining the code to contributors and new comers.
Overall I'm happy with it. Moreover, it is important to have alternatives otherwise we might lose the open web as we know it.
Edit: add paragraphs
rbritton|6 years ago
[0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
RabbiPires|6 years ago
Not only that, but it also connects to Google's SafeBrowsing servers. Is that required by their search engine contract with Google? Shouldn't be turned on by default.
thawaway1837|6 years ago
Pocket is basically their version of Read Later, etc...And it’s completely optional whether you want to use it or not. So I’m not sure I understand this complaint.
Mozilla’s first integration of Pocket was poorly done, and rightfully raised complaints. But since they have purchased it, a lot of those complaints have been resolved.
sciurus|6 years ago
FWIW, I believe all the Pocket client code is open source.
CivBase|6 years ago
"Equality, discourse, and diversity" are the very principles that enable people to "magnify divisiveness, incite violence, promote hatred, and intentionally manipulate fact and reality." Any attempt to promote freedom of expression while simultaneously silencing the worst of humanity is inherently at odds.
Hatred is a naturally occuring phenomina, not a learned behavior. You can't just quarantine it to make it go away. That only makes it worse.
The internet is not a breeding ground for hatred. It's just a reflection of how bad we can really be.
DrScientist|6 years ago
The question is - do you need to re-write the internet economy as Brave are trying to to achieve it, and not just block trackers?
The third element is that governments are becoming addicted to the vast trove of information gathered - will they be willing to give that up if a technical/business model solution takes off.
Interesting times.
simias|6 years ago
I do agree that changing the internet economy would be great though, but at this point I'm not entirely sure I trust Brave to do that. They clearly want a piece of the advertising cake under the guise of "disrupting" things, but should they end up being successful I'm not yet completely convinced that it'll change things fundamentally. I'm definitely curious to see if they manage to do it though, even if it ends up as a failed experiment it will have been an interesting one.
101404|6 years ago
catalogia|6 years ago
Even something as simple and obnoxious as donation nagging, like Wikipedia, seems preferable to what Brave has proposed.
TuringTest|6 years ago
gfody|6 years ago
unknown|6 years ago
[deleted]
milofeynman|6 years ago
nsomaru|6 years ago
badrabbit|6 years ago
I mean, I support their efforts and all but I am forced to use a chrome based browser because FF has poor windows/sso integration and absolutley horrible memory management. A tab of any tool's webui that does a lot of work with a lot of data will not only bring firefox to a halt but the entire system. I can at least try to use it for soft workloads but you never know when visiting the wrong page will cause this issue again. Why can't it manage it's impact on the rest of the system?
My job performance would tank dramarically if I used firefox exclusively!
Why can't they work to make it better than Chrome? They were throwing Rust at it a few years ago,so what happened? Do they just not test against the right sites?
I mean, the mozilla foundation is not poor. They have money. Is it just politics or do they think getting gmail and youtube to work is all that is needed? I am only saying all this because i like firefox. Mozilla needs a wake up call. Do they not get the problems at hand or do they not care or do they lack some resource or motivation? I mean I will be happy to even buy a license for firefox if they get it to even come close to Chrome's performance. Maybe they have too many well intended fanboy's cheeeing them on?
Liquid_Fire|6 years ago
So my suggestion is to file bugs for any websites that perform particularly badly for you.
justinph|6 years ago
This changed recently with Firefox Quantum, which was v69 or v70. I noticed a significant speedup at that point.
TheRealPomax|6 years ago
jeltz|6 years ago
Scarbutt|6 years ago
kup0|6 years ago
I keep 'Edge-ium' around if I encounter any rare use cases that necessitate it, but that's relatively rare
mark_l_watson|6 years ago
I just about exclusively use FireFox with nine containers on my Linux and macOS laptops. Being able to segregate data is a game changer.
On my iOS devices, I feel stuck with Safari since other browsers sit on top of Safari. I appreciate the privacy features in Safari but still feel the need to frequently remove all cookies and use private tabs when using sites like FaceBook. I just wrote about this yesterday https://mark-watson.blogspot.com/2020/02/protecting-oneself-...
Because I like to sometimes use my Chromebook, I am stuck using the Chrome web browser. Deleting all cookies frequently helps.
move-on-by|6 years ago
Tomte|6 years ago
More importantly, Safari is the anointed web browser that opens all web links. If you could designate Firefox to be the primary web browser, I'd do so in a heartbeat, because "Send to device" is so damn useful when you're using Firefox everywhere.
h91wka|6 years ago
1) parameters that include word "telemetry"
2) everything that looks like a unique token
3) "mozilla.org" URLs
you'll see that the sum is steadily going up with every release. It leaves me under impression that Mozilla is trying to follow Facebook and Google. Lately they removed setting to use a custom page for the new tabs, leaving only choice between blank page and Mozilla-provided "interest based" homepage. I am still using it as the main browser, though, as "lesser evil", but discrepancy between Mozilla's slogans and actual features is pretty chilling.
dralley|6 years ago
jfk13|6 years ago
anonymousab|6 years ago
Vinnl|6 years ago
dependenttypes|6 years ago
They also disabled the ability for extensions to work on mozilla pages and things like about:addons by default, where mozilla uses google analytics.
They add new tracking crap on the browser in every release, so you are at a loss what to disable first in about:config as the online guides tend to get outdated easily.
> that's good for trolls and surveillance organizations and violent groups
Only "surveillance organizations" is relevant to privacy. The others make me think of centralisation and censorship.
The only real way to browse privately is to use a browser with javascript disabled and only a subset of css enabled over tor/isp. (but then you have to deal with cloudflare and broken sites)
jamienicol|6 years ago
davidy123|6 years ago
dexen|6 years ago
The most relevant extension - uBlock Origin - works just fine on mobile Firefox.
It's a real game changer, especially with screen real estate and energy usage being quite important on mobile.
That extension alone is why I have and use Firefox on mobile phones (aside of the usual compatibility testing on other browsers for certain web projects).
blackearl|6 years ago
davidy123|6 years ago
jeffrufino|6 years ago
us000538|6 years ago
ecmascript|6 years ago
I still use Firefox everyday since it's the best browser for linux but I also use Brave. Mozilla as a company in my eyes are a bit lost and they need more focus on their technology. It seems like they have realized this in the last two years or so and I hope that trend will continue. Firefox is awesome, focus on privacy is awesome. MDN is awesome. If they need money from other sources than Google, why not create some kind of subscription service for their MDN docs?
There is a bunch of things they actually need to fix like lack of PWA support in firefox (still) which is pretty bad that they don't have that enabled by default.
Focus on what matters, no one cares about your woke politics in the long run.
Angostura|6 years ago
Marriage equality isn't a particularly ridiculous reason.
robin_reala|6 years ago
mariushn|6 years ago
SergeAx|6 years ago
wnevets|6 years ago
tonfreed|6 years ago
And opinion discarded
einpoklum|6 years ago
> That's how Mozilla works: slowly, collaboratively, trying to speak for everyone.
I don't remember Mozilla works collaboratively. By the way - remind me where they publish their income sources again?
> "the power of the internet used to magnify divisiveness, incite violence, promote hatred, and intentionally manipulate fact and reality."
Yeah, well, so has the printing press. When someone suggests we should keep a "healty press", that's oligarchic censorship. Reminds me of the US Comics Code.
> Mozilla has spent the last several years fighting harder and louder than ever for the future of the internet.
Must not have been loud enough, because I believe few people have noticed this.
> the company's vision of a more user-centric, privacy-conscious web.
"user-centric" web? Don't know what that means. It's like "reader-centric books". As for privacy - when something like uBlock Origin and EFF Privacy Badger is installed by default, and when TOR is an easily-accessible option, and when Mozilla funds some TOR endpoint routers (in countries outside US reach of course), then we'll talk.
> But what if people could also use them to keep Facebook from snooping as they traveled the web?
If Facebook was prevented from snooping entirely, that would not be that much of an issue.
> Firefox has long held the not-entirely-flattering distinction of being the most popular browser not made by a huge corporation
It's bankrolled by huge corporations. IIRC it was mostly Google for a while. Also, see below about their new VP.
I am reminded how Mozilla had, for years, neglected its email client in favor of the browser, thus effectively helping to promote webmail, stored and spied on by these corporations. It certainly did nothing to promote end-to-end encryption of email, which has been quite possible with Thunderbird, and would have prevented (some of the) spying on users.
> So far, Firefox has blocked 1.6 trillion tracking requests
That means it doesn't block most tracking requests.
> Alan Davidson ... new VP of policy ... has been working ... at Google and then as President Barack Obama's director of digital economy
So one of the top people at the spying-B-us corporation and the "can't have privacy and security" administration is the new VP who'll help protect us from his former colleagues and bosses? Uh-huh.
throwaway8291|6 years ago
Maybe I'm too optimistic.
Update: Loved chrome, used it for years, I also love most Chrome engineering and all the innovation they added to the field - it's just good to have alternatives.
move-on-by|6 years ago
Its certainly low, but I also think FF usage is under reported due to built-in tracker blocking. For reference, FF uses the level 1 disconnect.me block list, which blocks StatCounter scrips from loading on 3rd party sites [1].
[1] https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protecti...
bilekas|6 years ago
Now I say the same about chrome and find FF much lighter and efficient.
Delighted that FF are taking a bit of a stronger stand here in the privacy dept too .
Ygg2|6 years ago
Don't be optimistic, but don't be pesimistic either.
Do what you can - donate time or money, or just recommend everyone to not use the piece of carp that is Chrome. Anything based on Chromium counts as well, their codebase is dictated by Google, one way or the other.
My mom had so many issues with ads until I installed Firefox for her, and honestly, the ad blockers make the internet a much better for navigation.
XCSme|6 years ago
I know my browser usage is used for marketing purposes, but as long as it doesn't harm me in anyway I can live with that.
Nitramp|6 years ago
Might be obvious, but consider that more people than you estimated, while understanding implications and directions, decided differently than you did. It's dangerous to attribute behaviour different from your own to lack of understanding.
avian|6 years ago
It's funny because Firefox has been pushing their login thing pretty hard (the yellow "oh no" exclamation mark icon if you're not logged in, the account icon that keeps placing itself back onto my toolbar, occasional full-page ad/nag screen, ...).
Krasnol|6 years ago
JohnFen|6 years ago
I've used and loved Firefox from before it was called Firefox. I really, really, really want to like the modern Firefox, but I just can't. I find it limiting and irritating. So, sadly, I don't. I don't use Chrome either, though.
tssva|6 years ago
moksly|6 years ago
I’ve actually used FF as my main development browser for most of those years because it’s the only browser where extensions aren’t controlled by our IT department, and I kind of need extensions on the fly. So I’ve seen the good and the bad of it. I personally prefer Chrome. I also like privacy, but I’ve tried the Duck and it just doesn’t work for my language, leading me to add the !g on almost all my searches, and if I’m google that much anyway, so I really benefit from using FF? Doesn’t FF also use one of Google’s engines to check site security?
Anyway I’m rambling, so let me get back on track. I’ve been testing the new Edge, and it’s Microsoft’s best browser, and what are the risks? Is it really better to have all the browsers on different engines instead of having multiple big guys work on the same open source engine?
cousin_it|6 years ago
2) Tracking from Google and Facebook
3) Cookie warning with no way to opt out
4) You can only opt out if you live in California:
> Opting out of the sharing of your personal information by Protocol with marketers: Please send an email to privacy@protocol.com with the following information: -Name -Email -Confirmation of California residency
tclover|6 years ago
waitwhatwhoa|6 years ago
metastart|6 years ago
Slashbot|6 years ago
[deleted]
stevespang|6 years ago
[deleted]
inviromentalist|6 years ago
It's at least 30 times slower than chrome. So somethings wrong Right?
jeltz|6 years ago
unknown|6 years ago
[deleted]
codingmess|6 years ago
[deleted]
dangus|6 years ago
Thinking carefully about the ethics of the company you work for, especially those in-demand employees who largely have a choice like software engineers, is definitely important. This is not a partisan issue.
Sure, you may not get your chance to own the libs, but that stuff is a bit childish, isn’t it? What does the phrase SJW actually mean to you? If you don’t believe that “social justice” is good, what do you find appealing about the alternative of “social injustice?”
worldvision|6 years ago
[deleted]
cotelletta|6 years ago
[deleted]
fmajid|6 years ago
arkitaip|6 years ago
OmarShehata|6 years ago
> Making private browsing more private was a success, which is to say less data was collected and users didn't notice the difference.
> The same trackers, though, help users log into sites and pay for goods, and blocking them would break the internet for lots of users.
beardedman|6 years ago
jeltz|6 years ago
heartbeats|6 years ago
1) block all ads, by default
2) do not unblock Google's ads,
3) receive Adblock Plus-style bribes from Yandex or whoever to whitelist them, provided they don't harm privacy
This would kill several birds in one stone. First, break Mozilla free of Google funding. Second, hurt Google. Third, increase Firefox' market share. Fourth, help users' privacy.
As things stand today, Mozilla just exist so that Google can pretend they don't have a monopoly. Follow the money - who pays?
(A: Google pays nearly all of their budget, and they have next to no rainy day fund)
ComodoHacker|6 years ago
I doubt you can find one that doesn't harm privacy. And particulary Yandex will raise other concerns.
zzzcpan|6 years ago