dude, just use librewolf, firefox without any bullshit. done.
edit: okay. no mozilla = no librewolf. funny how the only alternative to google’s browser depended on google for its survival. i don’t have a solution, and it sounds like no one else does either.
If the Mozilla Foundation isn’t working on Gecko and Firefox, there isn’t a Librewolf.
there are other options, none of them perfect, nor immortal. but if mozilla’s days are numbered, then it is what it is.
maybe i should have said “use the thing that’s not exploiting you for money,” librewolf being one option. either way, don’t fall into becoming a fanboy who simps for software. enshittification is inevitable for all platforms, as evidenced by…all platforms
Librewolf kinda depends on the existence of Firefox
The librewolf maintainers have written some patches, scripts and config to remove some specific bits of Firefox and bundle a few extensions. They will not necessarily have the ability to develop a whole web browser on their own
if the solution to mozilla’s money problems involves selling their users, then i guess it’s time for them to die, along with firefox and librewolf. at that point i guess i’ll just have to use the best available option, like i’ve always done
If Firefox dies, the entire Internet goes with it because Google’s hegemony over web standards will go unchecked.
alas everything dies at some point. if mozilla goes away because they couldn’t live without google, then i’ll observe a moment of silence for firefox and librewolf, and find something else
And who will develop it?
Do you know where 99% of the code in Librewolf comes from?
Mozilla has around 750 full-time employees. LibreWolf is a few volunteers in a trenchcoat. There is absolutely no way they’ll just take over that work, not to mention without a source of income.
it sounds like no one else does either
Maintaining a browser that doesn’t rely on someone else’s upstream code is quite an ordeal. Of the four main browsers (Chrome, Edge, Safari, Firefox), 3 are built by large for-profit enterprises and the other relies on money from a large for-profit enterprise. Browsers are very complex pieces of technology and can’t be maintained by 3 guys on GitHub in their spare time.
Mozilla chose a stupid business model. 🤷
Consider that many of the same people think of Arch as a viable daily driver distro for the everyman. Some folks are more accepting of jank than others.
Only viable competitor is a bizarre thing to drop when browsers like Opera exist.
It is shocking to me how many people on Lemmy hate Firefox
Although some people are Google fanbois or reactionary dumbasses, I think most of what you’re misinterpreting as “Firefox hate” is actually love for Firefox and hate for what Mozilla has done to it.
Most Firefox-critics’ feelings towards it are more like this:
I always got the opposite impression: people here love Firefox. But it seems that’s part of why they’re critical of its shortcomings.
At least for me, if I’m criticizing something, it probably means I care at least a little bit about whatever I’m criticizing. Not worth time talking about things I actually dislike.
its an emotional reaction. google has always been bad, them doing a bad thing is just business as usual. who cares
but when mozilla does something bad? mozilla is supposed to be the good guy! they betrayed us!
this does mystify me. only time I nearly dropped firefox was when they did the big change that broke add ons but firefox with the addons I like is the best browser for me. nothing they have done has been consequentially bad. philosophically maybe but the actual effect is not bad compared to any other options.
librewolf, brave, mullvad browser.
librewolf
Downstream of Firefox that relies on Firefox being developed by Mozilla
brave
Sketchy downstream of Google Chromium
mullvad browser
Downstream of Tor Browser which in turn is downstream of Firefox that relies on Firefox being developed by Mozilla
Firefox seems fine now and it’s open source. I get that no software is maintenance free, but how much work actually needs to be done each year?
Tell me you’ve never worked on a long-running software project without telling me you’ve never work on one.
It’s around 30 million lines of code. You need actual human beings who have enough knowledge of this code to make decisions.
When I’m on a project with 30000 lines of code as a reasonably experienced dev, I consider that rather challenging to know most details of. This is obviously some complete ballpark math, but that would mean they need 1000 devs.
They had around 750 employees in 2020, after they laid off 250 employees. This includes HR, management, IT support and such, so possibly 650 actual devs, of which not all are working on Firefox.
You can’t just maintain a browser, the web is ever evolving.
That’d be a good way to get left behind.
Even now there are technologies that chromium supports and ff doesn’t, e.g. the new-ish webusb api. (Actually checking now it is supported as experimental, but my point stands)
I think they dont implement it on purpose
A browser is one of the most complex pieces of software you will find. There’s a reason why only 2.5 browsers exist (I’m counting chromium and safari as 1.5 because they are not the same but they are both WebKit). Maintaining a browser is difficult and making a new one is even more difficult.
Take Microsoft, one of/the most valuable company in the world. They had a browser (internet explorer) that has been state of the art, then they couldn’t maintain it anymore and it became a joke. They made a new one instead (old edge) with all the intention of making it a real player. Fucking Microsoft couldn’t do it and had to give up. They replaced it with a reskin of chrome (new edge).
Apple and Google manage to maintain chrome and safari both thanks to their position of monopoly, and because their position of monopoly depends on it. Firefox exist(ed) as a tax sponge for Google, but it’s definitely behind chrome in technology, but if it was a new browser, and not one order than safari, they would never be able to make it.
That’s a valid question. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to quantify.
The state of browsers in general has been a moving target since NCSA Mosiac; about around 1993 or so. So the last three decades has been a ceaseless grind of new features, security enhancements, performance enhancements, and so on. And this feature set is absolutely monstrous in scale, as it includes backwards compatibility to most of those features (if not all of) back to that beginning over 30 years ago. So, work on any browser is by definition perennial, and it only ever gets more complex.
For Firefox, well, just take a look at their bug tracker. It’s broken down by component, but each link on this page is its own fresh hell of things to do, many of which are barely a year old: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/describecomponents.cgi?product=Firefox
I would also argue that the only other software projects that compare to a web browser in terms of sheer scale, compatibility, and longevity, are things like the Linux Kernel or maybe the entire Microsoft Office suite. IMO, software in this class is a lot of work to keep going, no matter how you slice it.
Maybe that’s not bad for firefox.
Maybe less money means less ridiculous side projects and just focus on delivering a good browser.
Algo the lack of google as financial support means they’ll rely more on donations, which would mean that they really need to focus on offering a good browser.
I’ll gladly donate to firefox if I would see they are really focusing on it.
If I had the money, an extra $5 or so would definitely be something I’d spend monthly on donating to Mozilla/Firefox.
I donate around 5 dollars to Wikipedia every month. Another 5 to Mozilla isn’t an issue for me.
I think in the future I will try to donate like 10 dollars a month for free software that I use, including Firefox, KDE, Thunderbird, Wikipedia, Lemmy, etc.
I think it’s very important to support open source financially, because without it we would all be fucked by huge corporations. And I might sound overly anti-capitalist, but I think that most of them should be broken up.
I really hope that’s sarcastic, because Rust is one of the most valuable additions to the whole IT field in a good while.
Entire industries have been stuck on C/C++ for decades. Industries, which are normally extremely late to any form of modern software development, are now practically jolting to get Rust integrated into their toolchains.
Similarly, languages without runtimes allow for building libraries that can be called from other programming languages, which so far meant C/C++. That’s a big reason why many widely used open-source projects like OpenSSL, SQLite, OpenGL etc. are written in those.
Even if, for whatever reason, you think Rust is awful, getting a third language into the mix will allow many more people to build similar libraries, which is again really good for everyone.
Mozilla (not Google) got rid of the side projects, increased the CEO’s salary, and laid off a bunch of employees during the pandemic. It basically got rid of the innovation that could have made Firefox a faster, more secure, and pleasant experience. Rust and Rust-based Servo, as a replacement for Gecko, were two of those side projects. These are the things Mozilla needs to invest in.
Also, I think Mozilla needs to ask the user upon install what the default search engine should be from a list of search engines including Google, Duck Duck Go, Bing, and Yahoo. Maybe the order of those could be arranged based on how much they’re able to finagle from the search engines.
The real monopoly is their control over Chrome. That’s what they should be forced to split from the company that owns the search engine. Development and design of Chrome should not and cannot be done by the company that runs the search engine and gets its revenue from ads.
Google got rid of the side projects, increased the CEO’s salary, and laid off a bunch of employees during the pandemic.
How did Google do any of that? Wasn’t that all Mozilla Corp?
Maybe the order of those could be arranged based on how much they’re able to finagle from the search engines.
That’s the issue that caused this. Google was paying Mozilla to be the default search engine at the top of the list in Firefox and other browsers.
-
Right now it’s already set as the default search engine and you have to work to change it to something else as I understand it. I’m proposing that no default is set and that the user is asked to select one upon first installing Firefox from an ordered list of search engines. If that’s already the case (it’s been a while since I installed Firefox from scratch), then I’d argue that’s fine. And it allows other search engines to contribute to be higher up in the rankings.
-
I can’t think of anything that would replace the revenue that Google pays Mozilla that sustains the development salaries to hopefully keep Mozilla competitive and hopefully making it the best performing, convenient and private browser.
Development and design of Chrome should not and cannot be done by the company that runs the search engine and gets its revenue from ads.
I’d go so far as to argue the exact same for development of: Operating systems, automotive, smartphones, residential fiber…
The ulterior motive is simply never in a user’s best interest when every function ultimately becomes part of the “influence towards the purchase of goods and services” funnel.
While I find your assertion inspiring and very worthy of consideration, I have to wonder what the incentive is to sustain Android development. Apple sells the hardware that goes with its OS(es), so they get the hardware revenue (not to mention the App Store and iCloud subscription revenues). They would have to start charging devices to use their operating system or something, and I have to wonder if that would be possible under open source licenses.
I would love an open, sustained, and even open source, secure operating system for phones that’s the target of app development. I think the Linux stack should should develop an NPR/PBS type ecosystem public funding of development (with maybe the corporate underwriting of those networks being equivalent to contributions from corporate employed developers to the open source code) and I’d love for it to be a real competitor in the smart phone market (knowing the Android stack modifies and sits on top of Linux).
In reality it means they’ll have to focus more on monetization, which will create more enshittification and not less.
Maybe less money means less ridiculous side projects
Like Firefox?
It really seemed like it’s been a bit of a side project those last few years…
They are throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks.
For some reason people don’t want Mozilla to make money or perhaps they assume browser development is lucrative.
For some reason people don’t want Mozilla to make money or perhaps they assume browser development is lucrative.
By their own account, it’s not meant to be lucrative.
"Corporation. Foundation. Not-for-profit.
Mozilla puts people over profit in everything we say, build and do. In fact, there’s a non-profit Foundation at the heart of our enterprise."
Straight from Mozilla’s About Us page for you. Maybe they ought to live up to their words and start focusing on making a solid browser that respects users’ privacy with the majority of their time, funding and energy, rather than squandering these assets on current tech hype nonsense that people don’t actually want.
